Needlenose

It’s bad enough that Israel and the Palestinians diverge on a basic and heretofore non-negotiable item in their discrepant visions of an independent Palestinian state, the nature of Jerusalem post-independence.  The Israelis consider Jerusalem in its entirety as the capitol of Israel and are continuing to evict Arabs and expand their illegal settlements in direct contradiction of world & US policy and Palestinian aspirations.

However that’s only one indication of the shape of things to come were Israel to get its way.  Whatayahoo naturally assumes a demilitarized Palestine, and more importantly, one still containing Israeli troops, ostensibly to patrol ‘the borders’ with that scary terror state of Jordan.

So if Whatayahoo and his ilk get their way, we’re looking at an Arab Palestine composed of a wiggly little patches of territory gerrymandered around Israeli colonies, surrounded throughout by an armed wall and riddled inside with Israeli troops, without a significant city to call a capitol.

Arab Palestine would have no port, all movement between Palestinian townships would be through Israeli military checkpoints, all goods and travel into and out of the territories would be monitored, controlled and subject to shutdown at any time at Israel’s whim.

Hmm that sounds like a Bantustan to me.  Hey Whatayahoo, I hope that works as well for you as it did for Botha’s Apartheid South Africa!

Nearly every debate I have with folks in the pro-Israeli camp seems to end with my opponent saying “Well we just can’t negotiate with those people, they are extremists and terrorists.”  Israeli apologists seem to have some sort of collective amnesia about pre-nationhood Zionist terrorism in the cis-Jordan, and a seeming blind eye to Jewish extremism in the occupied territories today.  Case in point, extremist settlers are now attacking Palestinian villages in ‘reprisal raids’ in response to Israeli security forces dismantling illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank – tactics they call the ‘price tag’ of the government’s actions.

It would be encouraging, I guess, to think that the Israeli government has taken at least a few token steps to dismantling the illegal settlements, but the fact that the ultra-orthodix (and nationalistic) Shas party will likely be a key member of the new ruling coaliton doesn’t bode well any such activity in the future.

In the meantime, Palestinian villagers will pay the ‘price’ for any settlements that come down.  Oh and before you C.A.M.E.R.A. folks come and flame me, Olmert concurs:

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned yesterday that an “evil wind of extremism” is blowing among certain parts of the Israeli public – without naming any group – and that this is threatening democracy.

Speaking to his Cabinet, he complained that extremists were undermining “the ability of those in charge in Israel to make decisions”.

Olmert was apparently taking a swipe at hardline settlers who’ve said they’ll try to torpedo any attempt to remove dozens of sanctioned settlements as part of a future peace deal with the Palestinians.

Just reflect on the price America is paying in world opinion and opinion on the Arab Street for its unblinking support of Israeli West Bank policy.

*Update* Wow what happened to the CAMERA trolls?  Once upon a time I could mutter something bad about the cisJordan and they’d be flaming all over the comments.  *sigh*

Palestinian leaders have responded to Sharon’s threats to unilaterally impose the boundaries of a Palestinian ‘Homeland’ with the promise to call for a “single Arab-Jewish state.” Colin Powell dismissed the idea of a one-state solution (although he opposes a two-state solution for Iraq), saying:

“We’re committed to a two-state solution,” Powell said in Washington. “I believe that’s the only solution that will work: a state for the Palestinian people called Palestine and a Jewish state, state of Israel, which exists.”

What a cunundrum! The Sharon alternative, potentially featuring a torturously gerrymandered and discontinuous Palestinian state similar to the Bantustans of Apartheid, or a single country where extremists on both sides could continue to use acts of terror to advance their ‘no compromise’ positions.

Personally, I don’t see how the Bantustan solution would really stop the violence. A reactionary-dominated Israeli government would most likely choose to keep many of the older settlements in place, along with their water sources. Denied water, numerous Palestinian villages and towns would not be economically viable. With no access to ports (except in Gaza, where goods would have to pass through a foreign country to get to the West Bank), the Palestinian Homelands would not be an attractive manufacturing center. Who would invest in such a place? Where would its inhabitants work? How would they feed their families? Pushing the Arabs farther into the corner at a time when extremists are on the verge of acquiring dirty bombs and potentially even nuclear weapons strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

The linked article goes on to point out the ‘demographic’ issue; the Jewish population of the country, at 5.5 million, would hold only a slight majority over the theoretical Arab population of a unified state – 4.7 million. With a higher Arab birthrate, along with limited ‘right-of-return’ legislation that future ‘coalition’ governments might pass, Israel would be quickly looking at Jews returning to the minority in the region.

Along with sticky issues such as ‘right-of-return’ or compensation for lost property, the new, presumably secular state would need to deal with the extreme poverty of its new citizens, major infrastructure development and water rights. Security and crackdown on extremist elements of both sides would be another major challenge.