« Fight the Hand that Feeds You | Main | Let it come down »

June 09, 2009

Comments

There is not enough land in the present Israeli borders to give Palestinians and Israelis the state each of them rightly deserve. If I’m a Palestinian, and you give me the West Bank and Gaza, I’m thinking I just got a pretty bad deal since I’m only getting 22% of historic Palestine. If I’m an Israeli, and you give the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza, I’m thinking you just left my biggest population centers with a border that’s roughly 10 miles wide between the Mediterranean and the Palestinian state, and I’m completely exposed to attack.

So, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is a bad deal for Palestinians and Israelis. That’s why this conflict has been going on forever. The solution the international community has been advocating is unappealing to both of the principal actors.

So, let’s help the Palestinians have a state of their own, but it needs to have borders that both Palestinians and Israelis are satisfied with. The Palestinian state should include territory from the West Bank, Gaza and partly from neigboring countries to make it a viable state. Israel simply doesn’t have enough land with which you can carve out a viable Israeli state and Palestinian state.

Give Gitmo to the Palestinians?

I guess this explains the nasty weather this morning here in NYC.

Obviously, teh terrists can control the weather! Take that, Al Gore!

SK has become unstuck in the threads.

The Palestinian state should include territory from the West Bank, Gaza and partly from neigboring countries to make it a viable state.

I love this idea, if only to expose the hypocrasy of the countries demanding that Israel help the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan would never give up land to Palestinians, and I doubt whether Lebanon or Syria would either.

"I love this idea, if only to expose the hypocrasy of the countries demanding that Israel help the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan would never give up land to Palestinians, and I doubt whether Lebanon or Syria would either."

Is this really analogous though? Israel is occupying Palestinian, Jordnian and Syrian land. There is a recognized boundary (the 1967 line) that they are not respecting. Why would support for the Palestinians from neighboring countries require a willingness to cede their own territory?

Eric -- When Israel first occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan. From a strictly legal standpoint, there was no nation of Palestine, and therefore no "Palestinian land." Any land in Gaza or the West Bank that ever becomes part of a separate Palestinian state will have been ceded by Egypt or Jordan, at least in the sense that they have not asked Israel to return it to their sovereignty. (I don't think the Palestinians will ever get control of the Golan.)

Now of course I realize that Egypt doesn't want Gaza, and Jordan doesn't want the West Bank. Indeed, Jordan would be very happy to unload the bulk of its own Palestinian population anywhere that would take them. I just don't want to see conclusions drawn from faulty premises.

When Arab countries expelled about a million Jews in the second half of the last century, Israel was willing to take them all in, and did in fact absorb most of them. When the "Palestinians" of 1948 found themselves outside the post-truce Israel (let's ignore causation for a moment), no Arab country offered more than token assistance.

None of the foregoing excuses the settlements, and the current Israeli government is threatening to make some very serious mistakes. But there's a context here beyond Israelis and Palestinians, and it shouldn't be ignored.

"Any land in Gaza or the West Bank that ever becomes part of a separate Palestinian state will have been ceded by Egypt or Jordan, at least in the sense that they have not asked Israel to return it to their sovereignty..."

Agreed, I kind of referenced that in my response, though not clearly. My point being, the land is already ceded in the de facto, tacit sense (other than Golan) and is now occupied, and further, it's pointless to suggest that neighboring countries should cede more. It's not their obligation, and I consider it a non-sequitur.

"When Arab countries expelled about a million Jews in the second half of the last century, Israel was willing to take them all in"

Yeah, but that was Israel's raison d'etre. That was one of the animating principles behind forming Israel in the first place - to offer a homeland for Jews cast adrift by localized hostility.

The rest of the Arab states did not have that mission. And for states in general, accepting large refugee populations can cause severe strains and destabilizations. As it has in Jordan.

"...it's pointless to suggest that neighboring countries should cede more. It's not their obligation, and I consider it a non-sequitur."

The vast majority of people would agree with these statements. Governments don't want to suggest violating the territorial integrity of others. The unfortunate result is that basically the same solution to the conflict is proposed over and over again by way of UNSC resolutions, initiatives, proposals, road maps, etc. It's become insane to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

The borders of the modern Middle East were created in London and Paris after WWI. The English and the French didn't get it right -- it's time for some adjustments.

SK seems to believe that the vomiting of the state of israel on the people of Palestine was a moral and legal act, it wasn't.

"It's become insane to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result."

Are you really suggesting that it's more realistic to expect Egypt, Syria and Jordan to cede even more land? It's a non-starter.

"The borders of the modern Middle East were created in London and Paris after WWI. The English and the French didn't get it right -- it's time for some adjustments. "

Pointing to past mismanagement of borders by the west is not going to be a convincing appeal for future border re-writing by the west.

Eric, you're right that it's not very realistic to expect Syria and Jordan (or others) to cede land for a Palestinian state. However, it's also not realistic to expect a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict based on a formula that neither Palestinians nor Israelis find desirable.

A Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital is simply not appealing to Palestinians. How can Palestinians reasonably be expected to say this solution would be the end of all their claims if they are being given only 22% of what they consider to be historic Palestine? It's a crap deal for them.

Your reaction to my posts is the "normal" or "official" reaction you would get from most people (and definitely most governments). So..., the international community can continue to pursue a solution that hasn't worked for years. That's most likely what will continue to occur.

I hope Obama has something new to offer along the lines of my proposal or something else I haven't thought of.

Yeah, it would have to be something other than: "Convince these 2-3 countries to lop of pieces of their territories for the formation of State X." It's creative, but also absolutely unacceptable to the 2-3 countries in question.

As for the relative satisfaction of Palestinians and Israelis, I will say this: Sometimes fatigue wears away at resistance. Also, desirable and acceptable under the circumstances are two different things. I might acquiesce to the latter even though it is not "desirable" because it is the best possible solution.

Further, there hasn't really been a good faith effort to actually resolve the crisis for almost a decade. Bush took the past 8 years off, and we don't really know what has changed in terms of the respective populations' calculus.

How did a Gitmo thread become all about Israel/Palestine?

And without in any way agreeing with SK's position of "let's carve up the neighboring countries" (again), I also reject Eric Martin's idea that the 1967 boundary is automatically recognized and legitimate - especially as regards Jerusalem, as the Israelis did not have access to the Western Wall. I'm not defending the displacements within and land seizures around Jerusalem after 1967, but the pre-1967 boundaries, while they are the only conceivable starting point for a negotiated resolution, should not be considered inviolate.

As to "Bill Jones", who apparently has only commented once here before, also in an extreme if less incendiary fashion, his choice of metaphors is deeply inappropriate.

Regarding the SUPERHUMAN MUTANT terrorist detainee that just arrived in NYC, did they by any chance put him in the same jail cell as the Somali Pirate Guy?

UH-OH! A VILLAINOUS TEAM-UP OF EPIC PROPORTIONS! We're ALL DOOOOMED if they're forced to team up during their impeding jailbreak!!!

WT: I didn't say they were inviolate.

Warren Terra, who unlike me is too cowardly to post under his real name thinks that I post

"in an extreme.. fashion"
So "moderation" is the refusal to acknowledge the truth?

Grow up and face reality. Grow a pair; if appropriate.

That'll show ya, Warren.

And, boy, when someone posts under the name "Bill Jones," they're sure being bravely specific in a big way.

In any case, the key to being convincing on teh internet is being as macho as possible.

Yup, it's a good thing that Bill Jones (1) thinks his use of his real name privileges him (where was he for the last two days of threads here?) and (2) is under the impression that anyone could figure out which Bill Jones he is, from among the thousand or so in the US, if he's even in the US.

I note that:
(a) Bill doesn't attempt to defend his repulsive comment.
(b) I could understand the metaphorical suggestion that I "grow a pair" but the odd attempt at gender equity in the suggestion makes it rather surreal. Why does it differ by gender? Does a man growing a second pair make any more sense than a woman growing a pair?

"Does a man growing a second pair make any more sense than a woman growing a pair?"

Such mental imagery before I've even had my morning coffee!!!

Let's start a polyorchist movement! ;-)

Warren, you probably should have tried searching for "William" as well. One thousand is definitely low.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad