Log Out
Visit Yaakov's column >>

YAAKOV

Home Page
Ponderings and Links on Israel and Jewish Issues and Technology
Articles Posted: 72  Links Seeded: 601
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 5/15/2012

Top Disengagement Strategist: Convergence Won´t Bring Stability

Seeded on Sun Jun 4, 2006 1:23 PM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: -
, , , , , , , , , ,
Seeded by Yaakov
Advertise | AdChoices

Even the guy who was in charge of planning the expulsion of Jews from Gaza and the Northern Shomron does not think that Israel got all that it could of out of the deal, nor does he think that expelling more Jews from the West Bank and giving up more land in exchange for nothing will lead to a better situation.

His main points:

  • Convergence (the term used by the current Israeli government for kicking Jews out of the West Bank and giving it over to Hamas) will lead to a two-state solution. However, a two-state solution is not viable
  • Even if Hamas/PLO have Gaza and 92% of the West Bank, it is not a state that can support itself. Gaza (365 square kilometers) will have 2.5 people by 2020 and there is no reason to think that Arabs in the West Bank will fare better economically. This will not lead to a peaceful neighbor for Israel
  • His alternate solution: Israel gets part of the West Bank, Egypt and Jordan donate some unused land to the new PLO-state, Israel gives up some Negev land to Egypt in exchange. Better for Israel defensively, more viable for Arabs geographically and demographically.

It is interesting to see what are the real opinions of government decision makers after they leave office and are no longer bound to be yes-men.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

the egyptian

Yaakov, disengagement won't bring peace; on that we can agree. But it will go a long way toward rehabilitating the moral standing of Israel in the eyes of the world, even if you don't think that's fair.

The alternate solution is rather interesting. I've often thought that in the extreme long term Israel would have to part with parts of the Negev, because a Palestinian state that is divided into two parts will never be a viable solution. Creative thinking on his part.

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Jun 6, 2006 12:41 PM EDT
Captain Nemo

a Palestinian state that is divided into two parts will never be a viable solution.

Why not, egyptian?

    #1.1 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 5:20 PM EDT
    the egyptian

    Well... OK, never is a bit strong. But as a matter of economics, unless there is some sort of connection between Gaza and the West Bank the Palestinian economy will always be stunted. Trade within Palestine (to say nothing of exports to the rest of the world) is almost impossible when goods manufactured in one part of the state cannot get to consumers living in another part of the state without the permission of a third party (i.e. Israel). Other clever solutions to this problem that I've seen are an underground tunnel or an aboveground rail link (for goods only, not passengers) that are not under the control of the Israelis.

      #1.2 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 5:27 PM EDT
      Dennis M Wright

      Well I suppose there was West Berlin before the Germanies were reunited. That worked with a rail link and an air corridor.

        #1.3 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 5:33 PM EDT
        Yaakov

        Divided into two parts? How about three?

        1. Gaza
        2. "West Bank" South of Jerusalem (Judah)
        3. "West Bank" North of Jerusalem (Binyamin) and Shomron

        The connection between the North and South areas will also be difficult, since the only way they can connect is to the East of Jerusalem, and Maaleh Adumim is an established city there (30,000+ people) that Israel is planning on connection to Jerusalem and will not give up (it is about 4-5 miles to the East of Jerusalem). To the East of Maaleh Adumim there is some inhospitable desert up until the Dead Sea and border with Jordan.

        I see that there is talk about a rail link or tunnels between Gaza and the other sections. From Israel's perspective though, this is a very grave security risk (assuming that the two sides continue to be hostile, and there is no reason to assume that they will not be). Right now, Kassam missiles are fired from Gaza daily, terrorists are trained to attack Israel and other weapons and explosives are amassed and constructed. This will only be multiplied if they are allowed to have a port in Gaza. If there was unobstructed transfer of good between Gaza and the West Bank areas under PLO/Hamas control, this would allow all of these weapons and missiles to be transported to sections of the West Bank that would put virtually every square inch of Israel in bullseye.

        (If this situation were to come to pass, it would not be in the Arab's best interest either, since Israel would not hesitate in "re-ccupying" all of the land west of the Jordan River should Israeli cities come under consistent fire from within the West Bank).

          #1.4 - Thu Jun 8, 2006 7:37 AM EDT
          Reply
          Captain NemoDeleted
          namelessforce

          I think Israel should have kept the lands it gained throughout the years through wars, not given them back. Giving up land has achieved nothing. That has only given terrorists more land to operate on.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#3 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 9:15 PM EDT
          Leave a Comment:
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          Newsvine Privacy Statement
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.