Contiguity

"Contiguity" is the word of the moment, particularly since Pres. Bush
reiterated it in his speech in Brussels on his current visit. It has
also been used by Secty. of State Rice, the UN Security Council and
British FM Jack Straw. What does contiguity mean in this context?
Of course it means that the putative Palestinian State should be made
up of as few separate areas as possible. But, it does not mean that Israel
should give up its own geographic contiguity in order to accommodate
that of the Palestinians.
Thus, there will be no Palestinian strip of land connecting Gaza and the
West Bank, because that would dissect Israel. In this case the right of
"safe passage" across Israel will somehow be guaranteed, maybe by
a direct highway with no turnoffs. Likewise the joining of Samaria
(Shomron) and Judea will not be at the expense of the Jerusalem
corridor that connects Israel to Jerusalem and then via Ma'aleh
Adumim down to the Dead Sea, an area that was fought over
extensively during the War of Independence in 1948 and some of which
was regained by Israel in 1967.
Just as certain words become "catch phrases" that signify something
other than they really mean, we should not allow the Palestinians to infer
in their PR that the need for contiguity means that Israel must agree to a
Palestinian State that is basically in one coherent piece - that can never
happen.
Similarly while for some "disengagement" is seen as "retreat" so
for others it is seen as "separation", an inevitable process given the
violent antagonism of the Palestinians towards Israelis and their apparent
need to live in a Jew-free (Juderein) state. Living without Jews amongst
them may be their goal, but it will be a pyrrhic victory, since they will
have to work in Israel, and starting today Israel is opening its borders
once again to Palestinian workers. Up to 120,000 of them used to work in
Israel daily. If the terrorist organizations once again use this gesture as
a means to infiltrate terrorists into Israel, that will certainly stop the
progress and call into question the control that Pres. Abbas has over the
terrorist organizations, notwithstanding their supposed ceasefire.
A friend and colleague of mine, Israel Ringel, proposed in a letter to
Ha'aretz in 2000, a new Partition Plan, not the original UN one, but one
negotiated by the two sides freely, with a view to separating the two
communities as completely as possible.
In such a Plan, Israel would guarantee that the Palestinian State would
retain the same total area as Jordan held in the West Bank until 1967 (plus
Gaza) and if Israel would retain some areas of the West Bank that are heavily
settled byJews (such as Ariel, Ma'aleh Adumim and Kfar Etzion), Israel would
in turn transfer densely Arab populated areas that are within Israel to them.
This seems like a fair and balanced solution, but then what happens to
Jerusalem,what happens if the Palestinians don't agree to give up any of the
West Bank, what happens about contiguity, will it mean transfers of populations
(as happened during time of war) and not just of territories. All this remains
to be seen, and depends a lot on the goodwill of both sides.