Less Land for Less Peace: The 'Gaza Only' Solution

[rini]

In the Western world, well-intentioned people often refer to the absence of war as peace. This idyllic concept is typically associated with notions of cooperation and prosperity, and is regarded as the state of being to which all nations must aspire. On the other hand, in the Middle East, certain cultural realities call for a different approach than that which is employed in more civilized regions of the world. Instead of a full-blown peace, a more practical outcome to the Arab-Israeli conflict is needed.
As in many disappointing circumstances, finding a bearable solution might require lowering one’s expectations. And so, dropping the bar from demanding real peace to accepting some other state of non-aggression might be the last-resort recipe for success.

Under this scenario, Israel would grant an independent state to the Palestinians in Gaza only, and completely seal off the Palestinian state from Israel by providing a defensible border (which is mostly implemented already). The Palestinians would be free to govern themselves as they see fit and would have ample egress and regress via the Mediterranean and via the Egyptian border. Other Palestinians from all over the world would have a right to return to the Palestinian state as they please, and those Palestinians living in the West Bank would be strongly encouraged to move into the new Palestinian state, or into any other Arab country of their choosing. To expand their state, the Palestinians would be free to annex parts of the Sinai peninsula, which is adjacent to Gaza, is largely uninhabited, and from which many Palestinians originated. Even though the new Palestinian state would be somewhat smaller than what the Palestinians currently dream of, Israel too, would be getting something less than a full-blown peace, which has been the Israeli national dream since the establishment of the state of Israel. It seems only fair that both peoples would be required to compromise to finally end the ongoing hostilities which have claimed tens of thousands of lives in the past several decades of war.

Therefore, in the event of a cross-border attack on Israel, the IDF would be free to wreak unprecedented and unrestrained havoc on the Palestinian aggressors. Israel must have the fortitude to withstand any amount of hypocritical Arab and European-sponsored UN resolutions condemning Israel for defending its people. Only by understanding that actual peace is not possible can one move ahead with a more realistic plan for successful coexistence between the two cultures. So, far, the world has stood behind the concept of land for peace. Now, it’s time for the world to support the 'Gaza Only' solution of giving less land in exchange for getting something less than peace.







http://www.israelforum.com/dynamix/page.pl?sn=150

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Sharon the barbarian

solution! Why should the west befriend Israel as a representative of Western Values if Israel shirks it's western values?

[tinnypriv]

2. What the living fuck?

Is this parody??

[rini]

3. LOL, better than a dead one!

n/t

[The Magistrate]

4. It Is Rather Rich, Mr. Priv

There might be something to be said for sovereignty over Gaza as a first step towards a state of Arab Palestine, but this seems to imagine the populace of the Jordan Valley can be somehow crammed into those precincts, as well.

[bemildred]

5. I call it the "half ass" non-solution.

You can feel the eagerness in the words "wreak unprecedented
havoc". You can smell the desire to commit some war crimes in that.

I can't see that an argument is made as to why this is better
than a "no land, no peace" solution, or an "all the land, all
the peace" solution, but I think that is based in a premise
that there can never be peace, sort of a circular argument.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. This is nonsense

Okay, what about the West Bank?

Other Palestinians from all over the world would have a right to return to the Palestinian state as they please, and those Palestinians living in the West Bank would be strongly encouraged to move into the new Palestinian state, or into any other Arab country of their choosing. To expand their state, the Palestinians would be free to annex parts of the Sinai peninsula, which is adjacent to Gaza, is largely uninhabited, and from which many Palestinians originated.

"Strongly encouraged to move"? In other words, try to "persuade" the Arabs there to leave. Fat chance. I'd hate to see what persuasive methods might be employed to get a population to get out of their homes.

In the same paragraph, we have a new twist on the "Jordan is Palestine" theme, in which the Israeli use a third country to solve the problem of the Palesinians living Palestine. Let's let them annex a piece of the Sinai. Has anyone run this by the Egyptians? They might have an opinion about it.

However, the willingness to compromise for the sake of saving lives has not been historically an Arab trait that one could count on. On the contrary -- Arab culture, which is largely shaped by radical Islam, has been characterized by a burning desire to perpetrate a Jihad-genocide on their non-Muslim neighbors. This historic fact must be taken into account ahead of time in any arrangement with the Palestinians.

Arab culture is largely shaped by radical Islam? That paragaph is an insult to Arabs and followers of the Islamic faith.

[number6]

7. ethnic cleansing

"those Palestinians living in the West Bank would be strongly encouraged to move into the new Palestinian state, or into any other Arab country of their choosing."

[IndianaGreen]

8. Best idea I've heard so far!

The sooner the better. Israel should remove all the settlers out of Gaza, and let the Gazans rule themselves.

I have always said that a Palestinian state could not remain united anymore than East Pakistan could remain with West Pakistan. The Gazans have a different destiny.

As to the West Bank, eventually they too shall be independent.

[Darranar]

9. Gaza is already rather crowded.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. I think they know that

As you see, their solution is to graciously allow this new Palestinian State in Gaza to annex parts of the Sinai.

[Darranar]

12. Their solution is to completely ignre them and their suffering...

it is similar to the transfer argument: the goal is not to MOVE them, it is to make them cease to exist so that there will be no more problems. Since no one as yet has devised a method of making people dissappear completely from the world, along with the memory of them, those arguments are worthless.

The writer would make Egypt give up territory when Israel should. The writer never considers the possible reaction of the Egyptian government; he never considers the reaction of the international community to ethnic cleansing (which is what "strong encouragement" means); he never considers that it is not legal, moral, or humane to force a population to move like that, he never considers the new terrorists that would be made by doing this, etc. He assume, falsely, that once it is done it will be all over.

[Lithos]

11. Locking

Two reasons:

It is an inflammatory article promoting ethnic cleansing as a core component.

It is also a vanity article as it is written by an anonymous writer (in this case Michael Rand is a self-admitted pseudonym which I feel is designed to be a vengeful play on words; Michael Rand is also the name of an editor of Tikkun magazine) and is only found on one site - IsraelForum.com

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground