I've seen you make this remark on numerous occasions. If Israel was to pull out and declare the borders, are you suggesting this is feasible without:



1) Full Israeli control of Jerusalem

2) Control of all borders between Gaza/Egypt and West Bank/Jordan

3) Annexation of enough territory from those two areas that comprises most/many of the "settlers", lest they be abandoned to their deaths

4) Control over any air-traffic into and out of the future Arab-held territories (for fear of, say, nuclear material being flown over by the bushel from Teheran)

5) Denying any future right-of-return claims to Palestinians



Do you really think that if the "pull-out" was made under these conditions, that it would really shift the focus of the hatred of the Arab world? There isn't enough there to keep the focus on Israel?



Will the world really look at the inevitable continuing violence of Palestinians as an "act of war" justifying Israel's military response when they surely will not have accepted the pull-out on Israel's terms in the first place?

Matt:



Yes, I do think the fact of statehood would be sufficiently paradigm shifting that it would be more difficult to get the entire Arab world worked up about an extra 50 yards of territory on some border somewhere. Statehood is a serious summons, people seem unlikely to die too eagerly for the equivalent of 54-40 or Fight.

Your last sentence makes it sound as if teenaged Arabs have really been blowing themselves up for a "two-state" solution. Still, I can appreciate the argument about 50 yards of territory (though I can't actually say myself how much territory is likely to be involved).



I don't however think that Jerusalem is just "50 yards" to the Arabs (and after all, America has never dared house their embassy in Jerusalem for fear of this issue). The 5 million Arabs that claim to be refugees and descendants thereof aren't to be discarded in their emotional appeal to work people up either.



So, do you think America/Colin Powell is likely to fully endorse an Israeli pull-out along the lines of the 5 conditions I laid down, or will some of those conditions have to be modified/eliminted? If so, which do you feel have wiggle room?

oj -



As Matt points out, point (1) is unlikely -- why will people become willing to "Move on"?



Your point (2) is already happening, without a state.



Your point (3) supposes Israel would get world support for war against a Palestinian state that sponsored and harbored terrorists. But Iraq has done the same against us, the Iraqi threat is greater due to WMD, and we are more popular and more feared than Israel -- yet we haven't gotten world support for our attack.



Also on point (3): in occupation, Israel can get close to terrorists and kill them without collateral damage. At war against another state, there would be more dead non-terrorists. This would surely hurt Israel.



Re point (4): I don't know why you think Jim Crow is less acceptable than genocide - maybe in the minds of a few American leftists, but not elsewhere.



Also re point (4), I don't see the parallel between the American Indians and the Palestinians. Isn't it the Jews who have been on this lands for millenia, the Arabs who arrived only centuries ago?



Your point (5) also seems to me mistaken. I don't see anything immoral in Israel refusing citizenship to Palestinians.



Other than these objections, I think you have made a strong case.

My own view is, once the terror master sponsoring the Palestinian terror machine (e.g.: Saddam) are done away with, Israel's targeted killings will do away with the rest, and the whole Palestinian terror machine will collapse. (We should execute Yasser Arafat as part of the post-Saddam cleanup.) At that point, the Palestinians will look to alternatives to a losing war themselves, and a proto-state can be developed for Palestine, behind Israel-dictated borders, with a U.S.-Israeli managed federal government handling military affairs while democratic institutions handle ordinary governance. Then, as Palestinians develop a peaceable, open society, we take our hands off the bike and let them ride.



Similar to your approach, just a bit slower and more communitarian.

Your proposal is interesting, and you appear to have good intentions

perhaps. But it is very flawed unfortunately. The problem is that just

because you, or the US, or Israel, say we declare you have a 'state'

does not make it so. It will solve nothing and no one will be fooled,

least of all the average Palestinian.



Your fifth point does raise a most intriguing point though, one that

rests upon the founding ideology of the Israeli State. Any non-jew

can never be a full and equal citizen of Israel, and indeed they are

not. It would appear that this solution is ruled out therefore - but

what an interesting proposal it would make!



It it increasingly hard to have a reasoned and proper debate on

Israel/Palestine nowadays, without a degeneration into name-calling

and viciousness. I applaud any attempt to have one. A great weight

will fall from all our shoulders, throughout the world, if an

equitable solution can be found. But the idea that you can

unilaterally declare your "solution" and think it solves anything is

absurd. I think you know that - which is why I said 'perhaps' in my

sentence.

Matt:



Leave the Palestinians what they have now. Pull back settlers who would be within the borders of the new state. They're going to have to allow a Palestinian state to have an airport. Deny the right of return.



The State department won't endorse any such thing because they love to negotiate.

pj:



So what was wrong with Jim Crow if it's okay when applied to Palestinians?

pj:



If I were a Palestinian and the US and Israel took over the PA at this point, I'd join the terrorists.

Alastair:



And just like the unilateral war we're about to have with Iraq, what choice will anyone have? Just pull out and tell the Palestinians and the rest of the world to deal with it.

Alastair--



Why do you say that non-Jews cannot be full Israeli citizens?

oj - Jim Crow is not OK, it's just not less acceptable than genocide. And I'm not talking about the U.S. and Israel "taking over," just barring the Palestinians from having a military, and being willing to intrude with their own against terrorists, should these arise. The U.S./Israeli I'm talking about is very similar to the role the U.S. military plays today in Afghanistan.

David,



Maybe 'citizen' was the wrong word. Please forgive me but the

terminology of 'citizenship' or 'nationality' means slightly different

things to people in the US,the UK, France etc. I do not even want to

represent this as a purely Muslim or Christian versus Jewish argument

because it is clearly also one of 'reform' versus 'orthodox' Judaism

(are 'reform' Jews really Jews? So it goes not very long ago). It is

obviously perfectly possible to be a non-jewish Israeli citizen, but

the fact remains that for many reasons you are 'second class' by your

religious belief. Land ownership is one the most obvious examples. The

fact remains, to be a non-Jew in Israel means you have fewer rights

than Jews. That is what I meant.



May I finish in pointing out that I am in no way 'anti-Israel'. I

fully support Israel's existence and want it to be free, peaceful,

democratic and prosperous. I hope and pray that there can be a just

and equitable way out of the mess this blighted corner of the world

has found itself in.

pj:



If you refuse citizenship to Palestinians in a one-state solution you're treating them the way we treated blacks in the South.

pj:



How will the new Palestine control the terrorists if it has no military?

pj:



The US went to Afghanistan as liberators and were basically greeted as such. Do you seriously believe the Palestinians would greet the IDF as such?

oj - Obviously the Palestinians would have inferior rights during this transitional period, but they have that now under Yasser Arafat autonomous gov't. It would be an improvement in their position and would lead toward full independence once civil institutions were stronger.



The new Palestine could call in Israel if it needed arms to control the terrorists.



Some Palestinians, I think, would regard Israel as liberating them from the Arafat regime. However, the important thing is not what they think, but the question: are they willing to uphold civil institutions to obtain independence and get rid of the Israelis? Even anti-Israeli Palestinians may answer yes to that.

The cold reality is that 'empowered minorities ruling over determined

minorities is common all through

out the Middle East. The Alawites

in Syria, the Sunni in Iraq, the

Maronites of Lebanon, & more

pertinently the Hashemites in Jordan (who were the original proprietors of what is now called the Occupied Territories)

of the West Bank

pj:



So let me just make sure I have this straigh--you're saying that, after Yorktown, if the British had told us that we needed a transitional period before we were ready for self-rule and that they'd administer us in the meantime, we'd have accepted that?

If we'd lost at Yorktown, Trenton, Saratoga, and Cowpens; if Washington, Greene, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, and the next top 100 rebel leaders were dead or captured; and if the people were close to starving without British aid -- then, yes, we'd have accepted that deal.

You're missing the point--Oslo was Yorktown. Israel conceded eventual statehood. All they're doing now is deciding how many will die--on both sides--before it's official.

Oslo wasn't Yorktown. Olso was the British deciding after Lexington and Concord that it wasn't worthwhile trying to hold onto the colonies, heading home, and finding that the colonists wanted to continue the war and were attacking London. And so the British came back, defeated the colonists. Now, it will soon -- after Saddam is gone, and Israel finishes its operations against Arafat and the other terrorists -- be parallel to my last scenario -- the rebel leaders dead, all the colonial battles lost, and the people destitute and tired of conflict.

pj:



Is there going to be a Palestinian State? Then Israel lost. All we're doing now is truckling over terms. They should just impose the most favorable ones possible and get out while they're behind.

There will be a Palestinian state, it will be on Israel's terms, and that is not a "loss" for Israel. The issue is, by being patient can Israel get better terms than they could impose unilaterally today? I think yes -- because they can develop civil society among the Palestinians, making the new Palestinian state more peaceable than one created and abandoned today.

pj:



There we just differ. I suspect that upon actually takling over the new Palestinian authorities would have a dezionization and purge anyone who'd collaborated in your civil society project.