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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
If the Palestinians were to constructively address theseconcerns, such as by dismantling the terror infrastructureas required by the Roadmap, Israel’s anxiety could beassuaged. Israel would then be more forthcoming inbilaterally negotiating the ways and means for safepassage of Palestinian persons and goods.In recent events, the “benchmark” proposals propelledby the United States have neglected to foresee thesecurity threat to Israel. The benchmark proposalsaddress passenger and cargo convoys between Gaza andthe West Bank. However the document does not discusssecurity arrangements for these convoys. Given thathitherto, the PA has done nothing to combat anti-Israelterror, there is not reason to believe that it would in factkeep these convoys free of arms and terrorists.If the Palestinians desire a legitimate form of safepassage, then instead of turning to the world audienceand attempting to isolate Israel, they would be betterserved by simply negotiating with Israel in good faith.It is on such a basis that any renewed peace processshould begin. Every effort should be made to avoidthe unworkable Palestinian dream of a territoriallycontiguous state that reserves the option of terrorism.page 55AlaskaJuneauCanadaPacificOceanUSASeattle
Page 2:
© 2007 Jerusalem Center for Public
Page 5: Executive SummaryOn March 27, 2007,
Page 10: page 10A masked terrorist of the Al
Page 13 and 14: The United States and its state of
Page 15: Examples of Viable, Non-Contiguous
Page 21 and 22: II. Safe PassageA. Origins of Safe
Page 23 and 24: Israel could, for security or safet
Page 25 and 26: discussed in the Introduction. In l
Page 27 and 28: worldwide with many, believing his
Page 29 and 30: ownership of the vehicle and the ca
Page 31 and 32: The construction of the main sectio
Page 33 and 34: The essence of territorial sovereig
Page 35 and 36: that is accepted by the dominant st
Page 37 and 38: Clearly, while the future Palestini
Page 39 and 40: weapons to Palestinian terrorist gr
Page 41 and 42: that there is a more subtle and mor
Page 43 and 44: Weapons available include:Weapon So
Page 45 and 46: Examples: Viable StatesUnder Intern
Page 47 and 48: new political community should be r
Page 49 and 50: eligious affiliation. Pakistan’s
Page 51 and 52: the overrunning and destruction of
Page 53: Not only is the need for Palestinia
Page 57 and 58: models have been used. All three mo
Page 59 and 60: Law, 69 (1994).105See Malcolm N. Sh
Page 61 and 62: 194Ulrich Fastenrath, Servitudes, 1
Page 63 and 64: 279Available at: http://en.wikipedi
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?