The Israeli right knows exactly what it's doing. As the new Palestinian state makes its first steps towards turn independence, the ultra-conservatives in Israel seem bent on destroying it. They have to; the peaceful coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians would render them politically irrelevant.

In the last few days, politically and religiously affiliated groups--though sometimes the two labels seem identical--have been taking action against Yasir Arafat and his fledgling government. Events have ranged from demonstrations in front of the Western Wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem to the killing of a civilian from East Jerusalem by a fanatic group called "The Sword of David."

Some of these groups have deeply seeded notions of territorialism, while others see Arafat as a practicer of genocide and treachery. It's true that Arafat has been a terrorist, murderer, and sly politician in his many years as one of Israel's chief adversaries. Seeing his face plastered all over television and on placards on what used to be Israeli soil must profoundly gall Israelis old enough to remember the atrocities of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The problem is that the Israelis must tolerate Arafat more than ever before, because he is absolutely necessary to the continuance of peace.

When a suspicious plan crash almost killed Arafat a couple of years ago, political analysts in the Middle East didn't know what to think. No doubt, the PLO would have split up into several inimical factions upon the death of their charismatic, savvy and long-serving leader. One might think that the Israelis, taking advantage of disorder and divisiveness, would then have been able to crush the long-standing Palestinian menace once and for all.

In fact, Arafat's death might have led to even worse problems. Feelings of desperation could have intensified the animosity between the Palestinians and Israelis during the stone-throwing Intifada. Sections of the PLO like Hamas, the organization that carried out s several terrorist missions in the waning days of the Intifada, would undoubtedly have scaled up their activities in order to become the dominant force among the Palestinians.

Just as Israeli governments, one after the other, operate as fragile coalitions of politicians with varied interests, so too does the PLO. Without Arafat's presence to hold thing s together, chaos and martial law would have become the order of the day. Despite the protestations of Israel's religious and political right, Arafat must be kept alive and at the head of the PLO at all costs, until a stable state has existed for several years.

What remains to be seen is whether the Palestinians can truly govern themselves. Working as a paramilitary directorate during the years of alternating terrorism and diplomatic talks was simple enough; creating a true representative government could pose real problems.

Years of living as a relatively isolated and constantly monitored minority have surely forced Palestinians to trust and to rely upon each other, but they lack the advantages of a fully blossoming civil society and a self-sufficient economy. In their strongest category, Palestinians have only the skeletal beginnings of a political system. But where are the civil servants, the loathed but necessary bureaucracies, the judiciaries? If ever there was a new nation in need of infrastructure, here it is.

The Palestinian state finds itself in a situation much like those of the oligarchical, under-developed states of the Warsaw Pact only four years ago. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have little to attract foreign interest in their future. With few skilled workers, continuing social unrest, and a nation spread out over several territories, it's no wonder that General Electric and AT&T aren't flocking to Jericho as they did to Budapest and Prague.

The Israelis, even those who are watching the growing Palestinian state eagerly, can't be very eager to help the people that they've been fighting for so long. The Palestinians aren't too eager to accept an Israeli Marshall Plan either. Even with a long history of violence and resistance, the Palestinians didn't think they would have to make their way alone--they'd always have other Muslim nations to help them out.

However, economic support from contrastingly wealthy Muslim states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has been scant. Even King Hussein of Jordan, a arguably the PLO's greatest ally in the past ten years, has not made a huge effort to aid the Palestinians. In the case of the prosperous oil states, this lack of assistance should not come as a surprise. Palestinians are the manual laborers, the servants, and in every way the second-class citizens of these kingdoms built on black gold.

Perhaps the Saudis and others don't realize what a tremendous mistake they're making. A peacefully existing Palestinian state could defuse many of the conflicts that have wracked the Middle East for the last fifty years. The oil sheiks could stop putting their money into weapons for themselves and covert terrorist cells, though it's not clear that they need any more money for general consumption. Helping the Palestinians could also be an important step in pressuring Syria to maintain peaceful relations with Israel. The Syrians are also in territorial negotiations with the Israelis, though Prime Minister Hafez el-Assad has always seemed more amenable to another all-out war.

At the bottom of all the handshakes and consigned treaties, an inevitable iota of mistrust still sits with all the parties in the Middle East. Wars have raged in this region, on and off, for as long as most people can remember. Part of the reason for the wars and the mistrust lies right here, in the United States. It also resides in Moscow, and in Beijing. The larger powers in the world have tremendous vested interests in the conflicts of the Middle East.

The motivations used to be political, at least in part. These days, there's no Communist threat reaching down into the Iran or Soviet generals talking to Egyptian chiefs of staff. Nevertheless, the U.S., Russia and China still send millions of dollars in arms to the Arabian Peninsula every year.

For the U.S., the share of the lucrative international market in arms has been increasing--first the Israelis, then alternately Iran and Iraq, now the Saudis and Kuwaitis. But for China and Russia, every sale is a vital boost to a precariously balanced economy. Silkworms and SCUDs don't' just pay workers like patriot missiles and F-15 Eagles do in the U.S.; they also keep the governments of those vast nations in power.

Admittedly, Israel and the PLO don't have any oil to offer the superpowers. However, Israel still represents a strategic bankhead in the Middle East and would be have to be preserved in the event of a disintegration of relations. The large Jewish population in the U.S. further ensures that our government will still be concerned with Israel's affairs far into the future.

Given these firmly rooted interests in costly but regional wars, can we ever expect to see lasting peace in the Middle East? A bill to sell Patriot missiles to Yasir Arafat would probably have a hard time passing Congress, but that kind of idea is already on the wrong track. Pumping more arms into the area can't possible do any good. It's hard not to use your weapons when you have so darn many of them, but you've got to learn to take your hand off the trigger.

The only solution, and an improbable one at that, is de-escalation. Arafat could start by leaving that ever-present sidearm at home for a change. Why does he feel the need to continue presenting himself to his public as a war-ready revolutionary? (Sources say he actually turned up for the private peace talks in a regular suit.) In return for such a gesture, the rest of the world can give economic aid and expertise, not guns, to a new but gravely needy nation.