Linking the Gaza Strip with the West Bank: - Jerusalem Center For ...

page 54Most importantly, contrary to the inflammatory assertionby Yasser Arafat, should Israel choose not to create anyform of safe passage, she would not be relegating thePalestinians to a non-viable “Bantustan” of a state.To reiterate, there is no shortage of examples of noncontiguous,yet fully viable states.Further, ‘Palestine’ is endowed with rich natural gasreserves, discovered off the coast of Gaza. 307 Contrary towhat most people would imagine Gaza to be -- a dustbowlwith no economy -- Gaza could yet be a new Qatar,economically thriving off its bountiful gas reserves.In fact, as commented upon by distinguished journalistBret Stephens, “a country’s viability or ‘sustainability,’ ischiefly a function of the quality of governance, not theextent of terrain.” 303 Given this, the best determinant of anation’s viability is not its size, but according to Stephens,its democratic nature, economic structure, educationalinstitutions and its commitment to the rule of law. 304The Palestinians, it would appear, as the recipient ofmore foreign aid per-capita than any other people, 305could succeed in these areas. They could also fail evenwith “territorial contiguity,” “continuity,” “connectivity”and what some world leaders deem as necessary for a“viable state.”ֿAs noted by Professor Alan Dershowitz, opponents ofthe two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflictoften base their rejection on the fact that the proposedPalestinian State may not be completely contiguous.They reject the notion that the Palestinian State could beeconomically or politically viable if there is indeed to beno land link between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.Dershowitz however sees no reason for this deeplyingrained belief. He argues that while the Gaza Strip maybe non-contiguous from the West Bank, the state will stillbe viable. The Gaza Strip will not be isolated from therest of the Arab world. It will be contiguous with Egypt,and because it has a seaport on the Mediterranean, itwill have access to the rest of the world. Similarly, theWest Bank will be contiguous with Jordan and throughJordan will have ready access to the Aqaba seaport, 306the Indian Ocean, and the Far East.There is therefore no reason to believe that a PalestinianState, lacking a territorial link between the West Bankand Gaza, will not be viable, where “viable” is understoodas capable of independent existence. This fact ishighlighted not only by the successful, non-contiguousstates that exist today, but also by what Bret Stephensidentifies as essential for a state’s viability.Sovereign safe passage for the Palestinians wouldrender Israel non-contiguous, divided into disconnectednorthern and southern regions. If territorial contiguity isindeed an essential feature of viability, why then has the‘threat’ to Israel’s contiguity attracted no public concern?Where does the risk lie, given the clear intent (andcapability) of various terrorist groups to launch virtuallydaily attacks on Israeli civilians, and given their clearlystated objectives to destroy Israeli morale, and to enticeher to respond with disproportionate force and thereby toalienate Western governments? If any state’s viability isat risk, Israel’s predicament, as augmented by Palestiniansafe passage, deserves careful consideration. Yet, to thebest knowledge of the authors, none of the proponents ofPalestinian safe passage have even mentioned this.Finally, it is essential to note that whatever noncontiguitymay remain between the parts of a futurePalestinian State, such non-contiguity was not causedby Israel. Indeed, calls for territorial contiguity and safepassage are beyond the maximalist Palestinian demandthat a Palestinian State be established along the pre-1967 armistice lines. This is the case as prior to 1967,the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were in fact noncontiguous.Indeed, the West Bank fell under Jordanianannexation, while the Gaza Strip fell under Egyptiancontrol. Thus, when demanding contiguity between thetwo, the Palestinians are in fact demanding even morethan a return to the pre-1967 armistice lines. 308Although some insist upon a territorial link betweenthe West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which would be inderogation of Israeli sovereignty, Israel is not required toaccede to this unprecedented demand. As demonstratedabove, Israel has legitimate security concerns arising outof the various proposals for implementing safe passage.