Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Looking to the future


Pro-Israel rally in New York City

Solving the "Palestinian Problem" –Daniel Pipes

Israel's war against Hamas brings up the old quandary: What to do about the Palestinians?

Let's first review what we know does not and cannot work:

Israeli control. Neither side wishes to continue the situation that began in 1967, when the Israel Defense Forces took control of a population that is religiously, culturally, economically, and politically different and hostile.

A Palestinian state. The 1993 Oslo Accords began this process but a toxic brew of anarchy, ideological extremism, antisemitism, jihadism, and warlordism led to complete Palestinian failure.

A binational state: Given the two populations' mutual antipathy, the prospect of a combined Israel-Palestine (what Muammar al-Qaddafi calls "Israstine") is as absurd as it seems.

[That] leaves only one practical approach, that which worked tolerably well in the period 1948-67:

Shared Jordanian-Egyptian rule: Amman rules the West Bank and Cairo runs Gaza.

Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor's Ilene R. Prusher found that the idea of a West Bank-Jordan confederation "seems to be gaining traction on both sides of the Jordan River." The Jordanian government, which enthusiastically annexed the West Bank in 1950 and abandoned its claims only under duress in 1988, shows signs of wanting to return.

Is it time to think of Gazans as Egyptians? Jerusalem could out-maneuver [Egypt’s] Mubarak. Were it to announce a date when it ends the provisioning of all water, electricity, food, medicine, and other trade, plus accept enhanced Egyptian security in Gaza, Cairo would have to take responsibility for Gaza.
[Jerusalem Post]



Mideast Peace Rests with Arabs -Bernard Lewis

In several Arab countries at the present time, and in wider Arab circles, there is a growing perception that they face a danger more menacing than Israel: the threat of militant, radical Shiite Islam, directed from Iran.

Iranian tentacles are spreading westward into Iraq and beyond into Syria, Lebanon and the Palestine territories, notably Gaza. This double threat of Iranian empire and Shiite revolution is seen by many Arab leaders as constituting a greater threat than Israel could ever pose.

[I]t is not impossible that some consensus will emerge, along the lines of Sadat's accommodation with Israel, for the maintenance of the status quo. Such a peace, like that between Egypt and Israel, would be at best cool, and always threatened by radical forces, but it would certainly be better than a state of war, and it could last a long time.
The writer is professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
(Bloomberg)


Militant Islam Threatens Us All -Benjamin Netanyahu

The struggle between militant Islam and modernity - whether fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, India or Gaza - will decide our common future. It is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
(Wall Street Journal)

2 comments:

LHwrites said...

I have said before it looks like the Arabs are waking up to the fact that there are real threats out there, and Israel is not really one of them if you do not attack them first. I do not believe Egypt wants land and people back, and Israel will lose the closest thing it has to an ally if it tries to force that issue. Little Jordan might like the idea but I think it will be hard, though more realistic perhaps, to kill the dream of an independent Palestinian state and will take a lot of work from a united world and true global MidEast peace initiative, which I have yet to see. Maybe the current situation, and the chance to see Hamas and Iran go down in power and stature, will help launch this, but I would not count on that.

Bruce said...

It does appear to be a long shot...but in the odd world of the MidEast twists and turns make virtually anything possible.