I wonder if Obama even expects a second term, because he seems determined to cram everything into this one, including things that stymied his predecessors. First health care reform . . . then he calls for immigration reform . . . and now, independence for Palestine.
Well, is this the time? Hamas and the PLA just made peace. I say that is good for the Jews – Palestinians vs. Palestinians right in your own back yard has got to be even worse than Palestinians United vs. Israelis. And it reduces the number of parties to negotiate with.
What about the 1967 borders? Is that doable, if “swaps” means Israel gets to keep East Jerusalem and suburbs? But, then, how are the Israeli settlers on the West Bank going to be dealt with? Palestine has to be contiguous – there’s no place for Israeli enclaves.
Yeah, the “mutually agreed swaps” is the out he has to the oversimplified headline of “pre-1967 borders”.
But why does Palestine have to be contiguous? It’s certainly desirable, but not necessary. The US isn’t contiguous. I know that’s not the greatest analogy in the world, but I don’t see why Palestine has to be contiguous.
Well, he’s not talking about a land corridor between the WB and Gaza, so far as I can tell. But, it certainly would impede the economic development of Palestine if it were full of independent enclaves that you have to go around, or pass through a checkpoint just to drive past; especially if those enclaves include a lot of prime land and water access, which in they do. Furthermore, Palestine can’t really be independent if it has to tolerate IDF troops in its territory – and wouldn’t they be necessary, to protect the settlements?
Presumably, any enclaves that remain would be “mutually agreed” upon, and the Palestinians wouldn’t agree if they thought it would mean their state wasn’t economically viable.
This will never work, though, because there is a significant minority on both sides that will not stop short of violence in order to have it all.
Map of Israeli settlements (magenta) on the WB. Note that some few are between the 1967 Green Line and the Wall – probably any “swaps” would put their territory on the Israeli side; but the rest would have to go. That’s about 300,000 Israelis – not too many for Israel proper to re-absorb, but presumably they would have to be compensated somehow (and not by Palestine).
Solution: We’ll give that minority the Gaza Strip. That is, each side’s violent minority gets the Gaza Strip. And lots of guns and ammo. Have fun, guys!
Well, that’s the danger of course–the surviving Neo-Gazans will have undergone some Nietzschean transformation, and a generation after we seal them up they’ll bust out, conquer the world, and force us all to convert to strict Judislamism.
How do you provide Palestine with a contiguous state without dividing Israel in half? The main problem is the UN guarantee of right of return. This was a stupid idea from the get go. I understand why it was done with the forced movements that happened before, during and after WWII but it won’t work.
As for 1967 borders? They were nearly indefensible with Israel being nearly cut in half. That will never fly.
And why use the pre-1967 borders. They came about as the result of the 1949 war. If you can accept that the UN partition plan was nullified by the 1949 war, why can’t you accept that those borders were nullified by the 1967 war? It doesn’t follow.
If enough people, like several in this thread who apparently have no alternatives to offer, say “It will never work”, then it won’t. The problem is to *make *something work. Obama, like most of his predecessors, is saying he’s willing to try.
They have all the cards. They have a Super Power ally that never says no. They have a stable, prosperous, expanding, 1st world economy. Their antagonist uses terrorism so they have the world diplomatic moral high ground. They are perhaps the only nation ever that has grown larger one housing development at a time.
Don’t be so confident that the world doesn’t see Israel as using terrorism as well.
Otherwise you’re right - the only “peace” they currently seem to want, or can even understand anymore, is that caused by subjugation. That approach does not have a history of working for long anywhere, though.
Didn’t Israel defend them, multiple times? They can’t be that indefensible.
I think at this point its largely a practical concern. Most of the Palestinians are on one side of the '67 borders, most of the Israelis are on the other. Unless you want to move several million people around, they seem the obvious place to divide the two states.
