David Ignatius suggested that, to bring peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict, President Obama "will first have to make some enemies" ["Obama Tugs at the Settlement Knot," op-ed, June 4]. But no policy has worked for 70 years since the Peel Commission first recommended a two-state solution in 1937, since the Arabs rejected the United Nations mandate in 1947 or since President Bill Clinton's two-state solution was approved by Israel but rejected by the Palestinians in 2000.
Perhaps, then, new thinking is needed to come up with a fresh solution. Israel will never accept a Hamas-governed state on its West Bank. Neither will Jordan, which would have to share a border of more than 60 miles with an Iranian-sponsored terrorist state and would be risking the end of its kingdom, in which 70 percent of the population is Palestinian.
Why not consider the idea of the West Bank federating with Jordan? The Palestinians get an end to the Israeli occupation; Israel and Jordan get territorial security, knowing Hamas will not threaten them. Like an American state that is part of the federal government, the West Bank would have its own governor, its own set of local laws and its own elected members of the Jordanian parliament. Nothing else has worked. It's worth considering.
JAY GARFINKEL,
Washington
The writer is host of the weekly radio program "Israel Magazine."
Monday, June 08, 2009
Why Not Consider Another Idea ?
Even the Washington Post lets a good letter slip through:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Answer: Because Jordan won't accept this unless they receive a contiguous, economically viable (in their opinion) territory in this bargain - which takes us back to square one.
As I have written at this bog many times: the problem is too big fo0r the territory in question. Jordan must be part of the redistribution of land. What, all of a sudden Jordan is more important than Israel?
Time for a really campy quote:
Size doesn't matter.
Well, it's not entirely true. It does matter. But coherence, borders and infrastructure needs matter a lot more. At least to the actual, factual people who are living in these lands, instead of abstract collectives.
The primary problem that the rest of the world (including me) sees with the settlements is that by their distribution pattern, they make it impossible to be downright incorporated into Israel in any possible land swap while still leaving a halfway coherent territory to be made into either a Palestinian state or a Jordanian province.
It also doesn't matter whether you consider Jordan important or not. It is thoroughly unfeasible to force anything on them, therefor any such solution including Jordan needs their consent. Which you cannot get if Israel keeps control of all the land it now has. At the very minimum, Jordan will want a land connection to all areas they are to incorporate, as well as full sovereignty over them. Do you consider this possible?
"The primary problem" is that
(a) the Hashemites are foreigners in Jordan;
(b) 70% of its population is basically "Palestinian";
(c) Syria wants to be Greater Syria and swallow Jordan.
(d) as does Iraq.
Don't waste your time trying to think about what would be Jordan's internal issues. They are of no concern. If you are actually serious about incorporation of West Bank territories into Jordan, better think about what could be offered to them to make them accept that deal.
Post a Comment