By Ted Belman
Yesterday, I attended, along with a few dozen international journalists at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a debate on alternate solutions to the two state plan. It held great promise but failed to deliver.
Giora Eiland stated off by advising why the Two-state Plan could not work. Moshe Dann who was also present, covered Eiland’s position in an earlier article of his “Is the Two-state Solution realistic?” . What Eiland proposed was a regional solution.
A way had to be found to enable Israel to keep about 13% of Judea and Samaria, he said. This would move Israel’s border to the east thereby including in Israel a higher percentage of Jews living there. He was quite prepared to have 50,000 left behind to be evacuated later and made no argument for defensible borders. Jerusalem wasn’t worth a mention.
He suggested that Mubarak be induced to triple the size of Gaza by ceding adjacent territory to Gaza in compensation for what Israel wanted to keep. Jordan would be asked to also contribute some of their territory north of the Dead Sea.To induce them to cooperate, Israel would give some of the Negev to Egypt near the south end and allow a 10 km tunnel to be build to Jordan thereby giving Egypt access to Jordan and the Gulf states. This would also give them access to the Mediterranean and a great port could be built in the extended Gaza for all to prosper from. Mubarak could be given a Noble Prize for his generosity and all would live happily thereafter.
Shlomo Brom offered in rebuttal that such a Plan had no chance in hell. Its bad enough he said trying to negotiate a deal between two parties but attempting to do so among four parties would be a non starter. Besides he said there is no way Mubarak would give an inch. But he had a brilliant plan, negotiate with Hamas. Did I hear that right? Indeed I did.
According to Brom, due to the fact that Hamas and Fatah are not unified, no deal can be negotiated. So it is obvious that we should talk to Hamas. He made no comment on whether Hamas would change its position or what Israel would have to offer for nothing in return; something that Israel is getting good at.
Neither of them mentioned that the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel.
I pointed out that they were both still kneading the dead horse of a two-state solution and what was needed was an alternate solution. Israel should keep Judea and Samaria.
That suggestion was too absurd to even discuss.