Let me first say what I think would be a fair and rational solution: the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank should be ignored, and the peace process should go on as if they never existed. If settlers should happen to find themselves living in a Palestinian state, under Palestinian law, then let them emigrate if they want, it’s their problem. Many Arabs live in Israel, why must a future Palestine be completely Judenrein to be viable? But of course, the conflict there is neither fair nor rational and the world knows that those people will be slaughtered if they stay, provoking a host issues for Israel, so they must go.
My thoughts? It’s about time! I sympathize with settlers who are forced to leave their homes, their communities, etc., but I also sympathize with the millions of Palestinians who have undergone far worse hardships because of this conflict. Aside from the checkpoints and random acts of humiliation, Palestinians too have lost homes and been cut off from their communities. Much of the reason for this has been justifiable given the sheer savagery of suicide murderers and the only viable response from Israel. Just as many innocent Palestinians have unfortunately been made the victims of greater political forces, so too must the settlers realize that they must be evicted, regardless of the fact that many of them are there out of religious devotion, and regardless of the fact that they would live there even if it eventually became a part of a Palestinian state (although they are mistaken if they believe that they would survive to enjoy it). The reality is that 9,000 people cannot be allowed to control the security and potential peace process of several million.
Gaza is just the first step. The West Bank will be the real struggle. Of course, there was no reason for this to be so. In 2000, PM Barak offered to evacuate all of Gaza. Had Arafat agreed, this could have been coordinated rather than unilateral. His offer regarding the West Bank too, was reasonable. Barak proposed dismantling 63 isolated settlements in the West Bank, and annex several of the larger blocs of settlements, which would have constituted 5% of the West Bank. In exchange for this property, Israel would have ceded off part of its own territory to Gaza, increasing its size by approximately 1/3 (this, of course, was in addition to concessions that will likely never come again, such as East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and monetary compensation for refugees).
I bring this up, not to rehash the 2000 peace deal, the refusal of which I maintain was the greatest crime Arafat ever committed against his people, but to point out that the 5% solution is still viable. As did after Oslo, with Hamas using their newfound freedom only to build arms and plan new attacks against Israel, the view of the Right will be vindicated, and the West Bank will be viewed as an Israeli problem to solve unilaterally and primarily for demographic reasons, rather than a mutual issue for negotiation.
Monday, August 15, 2005
My Thoughts on Gaza
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Although the Palestinian "official/debate point" view is that land exchanges should have involved land of equal or greater "value" to that traded, I think the Barak proposal to add land to Gaza made sense. Since the historical perspective of 1948 is always brought up "(78% of the land already acknowledged by the PLO to Israel!)", more than half of that was desert in the South. Gaza being as densely populated as it is, I think is the territorial bloc that could use more land, and if the Israelis can make use of it, (as Sharon later planned to with the addition of housing in this area to prevent a future swap), then so can the P.A. The West Bank is quite big comparitively and the buffering population centers along the 48 ceasefire line are not as likely to be moved as easily.
That said, it's worth mentioning that greenhouses slated for negotiated possession to the P.A. were dismantled while they and the predictable ad hoc militia-sponsoring bigwigs played politics over who could have achieved the most graft over winning the rights to operate these structures.
1948 is always brought up, and rightfully so, but it should not hold sway over subsequent events, such as 1967. had there been none of that talk of driving the Jews into the sea and the massing of armies on Israel's borders, the Palestinians could be dealing with the governments of Jordan and Egypt, demanding a homeland, and killing teenagers in nightclubs and elderly people at hotels in Cairo or Amman. Except that would not be happening. It is the Jewish nature of the state of Israel that invites wrath.
That said, it is clear that the only way Israel can continue to stake a claim as a legitimate democracy, it must be out of Gaza, and more problematically, out of the West Bank. Given what a hassle extracting 9000 jewish Gazans from their settlements, does anyone want to place bets on how long it takes to make progress there? Especially when we have no idea what Sharon and the others thing the border in West Bank will look like? Methinks Palestinians will someday look at the 95% solution they could have had and will realize their leaders blew it for them big time.
dc
I think they (i.e. Sharon and any foreseeable successor) will be as uncompromising on Jerusalem as they think they can get away with. Same goes for areas close to the coastal strip, but to a lesser degree. The democracy/demography issue goes all the way back to 1967, but with half that problem solved by relinquishing Gaza, is much less pressing. Plus it gives the P.A. an excuse-proof platform through which to demonstrate to Israel their ability to carry through on security requirements in exchange for future land carrots.
Some issues are simply going to be nonstarters. But it will be telling if they are enough (putatively) to stop a peace process from going on. Right of Return is one (do they want a Palestinian state, or do they want both to be theirs, albeit by different means? And if so, what about the Jewish settlers?). Jerusalem is another, though perhaps part of Jerusalem might still be in play.
(MUL -- are you a former Rebunk reader or do you come to us from elsewhere? Just curious . . .)
Post a Comment