To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:09:07 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Political Inventions
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:24:08 -0500 Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
writes:

... the Nazi-like invasion of surrounding
> territories by the (right wing, fundamentalist) "settlers."   These
> "settlements" are naked land-grabs and have caused great misery.
> They are also the main sticking point in any peace efforts.   They
*should* be
> razed to the ground and wholly abandoned, but since it was Sharon who
initially > established them, that appears unlikely.
>

On the face of it, it is not a wrongful act to buy land and settle on the
land - people do that every day just about everywhere in the world.  The
real problem with the settlements, I think, is in the intentions of the
settlers, and of Israel, and not in the act of settling and habitation
itself.  Doubtless most of the settlers wish to have Israel officially
take possession of and sovereignty over the West Bank, Palestinians be
damned.  The Palestinians now living in the West Bank territory, under
that scheme, would have to accept second-class status under Israeli rule,
or leave Israeli jurisdiction.  But I observe that that is pretty much
what the status is now.

Now, suppose that the West Bank territory (and Gaza) were given to the
Palestinians for them to have a sovereign state.  Would the Jewish
settlers now in those areas have to move?  Not necessarily, but they
would have to accept living on land embedded in a Palestinian state, even
if the land on which the settlements lie were exempted from Palestinian
jurisdiction.  In reality, they probably would have to move, since it is
unlikely they could get along peacefully with the Palestinians (nor the
Palestinians with them) at this stage of history, and it also seems
likely that the Palestinians would wish to expel them, and would in fact
do so, unless such action were prohibited by the terms of the peace
agreement.

During Ottoman rule, and under the British Mandate, Jews and Palestinians
got along peacefully living together in Palestine, except toward the end
of the Mandate era, when it became increasingly apparent that creation of
the long-anticipated Jewish state was imminent.  The peaceful conditions
in the first 40 years or so of the 20th century are explained, I think,
by the fact that Ottoman rule, and British rule, were mostly even-handed,
not favoring any group over another.

> In the meantime, the leaders of the Arab states have offered normal
> relations to Israel if it returns the lands it seized in 1967.  This is
a Major > Breakthrough -- and one Israel has turned its back on.
>
> --Ted White
>

It does seem that Israel (or at least its current government) is not
eager for there to be a Palestinian state, though there have been some
indications that Israel would be willing to consider such an agreement.
The stock reason Israel gives for holding the West Bank and Golan is that
Israel needs defensible boundaries.  Presumably, the security guarantee
offered by the Arab states addresses that concern.  But the Arab states
cannot absolutely guarantee that no attack against Israel will ever be
launched by, or from, the Palestinian state, or more generally by
terrorists from any other state.  What they can do is refrain from
offering a safe haven to terrorists, and actively try to stop terrorism
based in their own countries.

Perhaps the Arab proposal is worth trying.  Gaza and the West Bank could
be given to the Palestinians to be a Palestinian state, but Israel will
still need water from the Golan even if the Golan is returned to Syria,
and it might be possible to make an arrangement whereby Jerusalem would
become a neutral zone, accessible by all.

Also, I don't think that the 1967 borders are necessarily the only
reasonable outcome.  It may be that some realignment of those borders
would serve both sides well.  The Golan is much more useful to Israel
than it is to Syria.  Perhaps Syria would be willing to lease the Golan
to Israel.  Perhaps land in the Sinai (which is almost uninhabited and
perhaps not worth much to Egypt) could be offered as an inducement to
Israel.  Israel might see the Sinai as having tourism potential (the
mountain where Moses received the Ten Commandments is there) and
long-term development possibilites, when advances in technology allow for
a supply of water.  The Gaza territory might be extended into the Sinai,
along the coast, to provide more land for the Palestinians.  Perhaps it
would be no more expensive for the U.S. to offer Egypt, Syria, and/or
Jordan monetary compensation for land given up, than it would be for the
U.S. to continue to spend billions aiding Israel.

Ron Kean

.

________________________________________________________________