Two State parameters
The "two State solution" is now the mantra of the international set and of the Annapolis bunch. What should be the parameters of such a solution?
There is much debate over who should get what, or where the lines should be drawn. Many Palestinian supporters think they should get "all" of Palestine, and this of course includes Hamas, Hizbollah and the rejectionists in Iran and Syria (that's their "one-State solution). But there are 7 million Israeli citizens (including 1 million Israeli Arabs) and ca. 2.4 million Palestinians on the West Bank and 1.4 million in Gaza. That's a ratio of almost exactly 2:1, so Israel should get at least 2/3 of the area of "Palestine" and the Palestinians only 1/3. That's roughly the ratio of the size of Israel to the West Bank plus Gaza, and does not consider what the populations were in the past or what they might be projected to become.
Of course, Israel is militarily far stronger than the Palestinians and any combination of Arab forces (not necessarily including Iran). Although the Palestinians are militarily a nuisance (lobbing rockets into the western Negev and continually trying to send suicide bombers) this does not constitute an existential threat to Israel. Nevertheless, this is sufficiently dangerous that although the IDF could "wipe them out" there is no doubt that it would be better for Israel to strike a mutually agreeable deal with them. However, since the Palestinians do not keep agreements and refuse to compromise, Israel should not be drawn into making further concessions without reciprocation.
If there is a Palestinian State, the so-called refugees should re-settle there. There is no way that Israel will take them! Since the Palestinians assure Israel that most of them would not want to return, so that should not be a big problem for the PA. If it is, too bad, let them decide who they will take.
Jerusalem is a big pie that both sides want. Dividing Jerusalem seems at first a reasonable solution. But, no divided city has ever worked, and the possibility that Palestinians could have free access to western Jerusalem is too horrible to contemplate, imagine the terrorism that would result (whatever Abbas says). The fact that there are Arabs in East Jerusalem is irrelevant. There are Blacks in most of Washington, where whites fear to tread, but the USA isn't going to give it up to a Black Nation, and there are Mexicans in East LA, but that isn't going to be divided. Israel has stated as a matter of principle that Jerusalem is its undivided, eternal capital. To back down from that and to allow Palestinian sovereignty over any of Jerusalem would be unacceptable to a large majority of Israelis. That does not preclude the possibility of re-defining what constitutes Jerusalem as far as Israel is concerned (i.e. the municipal boundaries have been re-drawn and could be again).
Mutual recognition assumes an "end of conflict" situation. But, the Palestinians have been unwilling to consider an end of conflict or "final status" agreement, because most of them still harbor the intention of coming back from any two State agreement in order to retry to get a one-State resolution, i.e. the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State (the so-called "winning by stages" plan of Arafat). This is where the "two-Staters" of Fatah merge into the "one-Staters of Hamas". Israel must be sure to get an end of conflict agreement, but not to rely on it alone. We will need out Security Barrier and checkpoints long after any putative peace treaty is signed. But, don't expect that such an agreement is near to realization.
There is much debate over who should get what, or where the lines should be drawn. Many Palestinian supporters think they should get "all" of Palestine, and this of course includes Hamas, Hizbollah and the rejectionists in Iran and Syria (that's their "one-State solution). But there are 7 million Israeli citizens (including 1 million Israeli Arabs) and ca. 2.4 million Palestinians on the West Bank and 1.4 million in Gaza. That's a ratio of almost exactly 2:1, so Israel should get at least 2/3 of the area of "Palestine" and the Palestinians only 1/3. That's roughly the ratio of the size of Israel to the West Bank plus Gaza, and does not consider what the populations were in the past or what they might be projected to become.
Of course, Israel is militarily far stronger than the Palestinians and any combination of Arab forces (not necessarily including Iran). Although the Palestinians are militarily a nuisance (lobbing rockets into the western Negev and continually trying to send suicide bombers) this does not constitute an existential threat to Israel. Nevertheless, this is sufficiently dangerous that although the IDF could "wipe them out" there is no doubt that it would be better for Israel to strike a mutually agreeable deal with them. However, since the Palestinians do not keep agreements and refuse to compromise, Israel should not be drawn into making further concessions without reciprocation.
If there is a Palestinian State, the so-called refugees should re-settle there. There is no way that Israel will take them! Since the Palestinians assure Israel that most of them would not want to return, so that should not be a big problem for the PA. If it is, too bad, let them decide who they will take.
Jerusalem is a big pie that both sides want. Dividing Jerusalem seems at first a reasonable solution. But, no divided city has ever worked, and the possibility that Palestinians could have free access to western Jerusalem is too horrible to contemplate, imagine the terrorism that would result (whatever Abbas says). The fact that there are Arabs in East Jerusalem is irrelevant. There are Blacks in most of Washington, where whites fear to tread, but the USA isn't going to give it up to a Black Nation, and there are Mexicans in East LA, but that isn't going to be divided. Israel has stated as a matter of principle that Jerusalem is its undivided, eternal capital. To back down from that and to allow Palestinian sovereignty over any of Jerusalem would be unacceptable to a large majority of Israelis. That does not preclude the possibility of re-defining what constitutes Jerusalem as far as Israel is concerned (i.e. the municipal boundaries have been re-drawn and could be again).
Mutual recognition assumes an "end of conflict" situation. But, the Palestinians have been unwilling to consider an end of conflict or "final status" agreement, because most of them still harbor the intention of coming back from any two State agreement in order to retry to get a one-State resolution, i.e. the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State (the so-called "winning by stages" plan of Arafat). This is where the "two-Staters" of Fatah merge into the "one-Staters of Hamas". Israel must be sure to get an end of conflict agreement, but not to rely on it alone. We will need out Security Barrier and checkpoints long after any putative peace treaty is signed. But, don't expect that such an agreement is near to realization.
posted by Jack Cohen at 4:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home