East and West Palestine, and Israel?

East and West Palestine, and Israel?

By Ariel Natan Pasko

Has anyone really thought through what Condi Rice means when she said recently, "Israel [must] continue to make the hard decisions that must be taken in order to promote peace and...the emergence of a democratic Palestinian state." Or before that, "Israel also must recognize that the Palestinian state, which is within our grasp, must be viable and contiguous, meaning with enough land to function well." Or when she told the Senate confirmation hearing that a future Palestinian state must also be contiguous with Arab neighbors and mentioned Jordan. Many analysts understand from this that Washington wants "Palestine" to have a common border with Jordan, Egypt and eventually Syria, and a territorial link between Judea, Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza. As she said, "There cannot be peace in the Middle East unless the Palestinians gain a state that satisfies their aspirations." But at what cost?

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abba announced a mutual cease-fire at the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting. Yet, while high-flying platitudes such as Sharon's "today we are starting a new period of tranquility and hope," and Egyptian President Mubarak declaring "a new era" and a "new positive spirit," were made at the meeting, Hamas' representative in Lebanon insisted that Hamas is not bound by the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire declaration, "because this is a unilateral stand and was not the result of the outcome of an intra-Palestinian dialogue." Islamic Jihad leaders in Gaza also denied they were part of a cease-fire.

Behind the backdrop of the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, it's rumored that there's a proposal to bring Egyptian influence back into Gaza, and Jordanian influence back into Judea and Samaria. They are supposed to help the "Palestinians" reform their security services, "democratize," and stabilize society, so that the Palestinian Authority's Abbas can govern. This plan it is promised, will bring the Roadmap back "online" and lead to Palestinian independence.

Was that East and West Pakistan? We know what happened to them...

If a Palestinian state is born, East and West Palestine (i.e. the West Bank and Gaza) will suffer a similar end. Or, do they intend to carve up Israel to gain territorial contiguity? Will Israel be reduced to a Northern and Southern Kingdom as in the bible? Will Tel-Aviv and the Galilee - formerly the coastal and northern parts of Israel - become disconnected from the Negev, the newly formed Southern State?

Whatever they tell you know this, states collapse, countries or areas of a country merge with other states, and some ethnic groups go extinct in time. East and West Palestine is just such a creature. It will be still born at best, on long-term international life-support. But that won't save it from the fate of East and West Pakistan. So, even if an illegitimate child-state is born, expect it's early demise.

Why you might ask?

For starters, because they're never was an independent Palestinian Arab State or identity. The closest thing they have to an independent identity is hatred of Jews and Israel, and the desire for statehood. If they achieved statehood and actually lived peaceably with Israel, their whole purpose to existence would end. History abhors a vacuum and the so-called "Palestinian identity" will probably be subsumed in a greater Arab or Muslim identity, Hamas will work to insure that. Beyond this, Jewish identity is stronger. Simply put - Israeliness not withstanding - Jewish identity, the connection to our ancient and modern homeland, will prevail over a sick child-state and it's international doctor-backers. You know, I feel that the Quartet (the United States, EU, UN and Russia) is about to play the role of Dr. Kevorkian (the suicide doctor). They're about to help the "Palestinians" commit national suicide.

Why is this child-state doomed?

Because it won't be a democracy, my proof, ask yourself, will Jews living in towns in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza be allowed to stay and be equal Palestinian citizens - including voting rights and electability to parliament - as Israeli Arabs can be in Israel? No, they're talking about ethnic cleansing, uprooting hundreds of thousands of Jewish "settlers," making "Palestine" Judenrein (free of Jews). And a state born in such sin will never redeem itself. An independent Palestine might be described by some as a democracy, but in fact will more closely resemble a Nazi State (remember Arafat's uncle Haj Amin al-Husseini, Hitler's friend).

Does anyone really believe that Abbas will gain control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad? He's having problems within his own Fatah movement. East and West Palestine will be a Terror State and its eventual end will gladden the hearts of millions around the world.

If born, this moral-AIDS ridden Terror State won't be a democracy. Lacking democracy, freedom, prosperity, and real control over their own lives, Arabs will continue to suffer deprivations at the hands of their corrupt leaders and be used (by the likes of Hamas) to attack Israel. Because it won't integrate the different elements of Arab society into an organic whole, they will never overcome their deeper inner contradictions. As long as they have an external enemy, the Jews, they might hold off the internal feud, but for how long?

East and West Palestine won't last because they aren't the same societies.

Gaza is medieval, insular, Islamic, poverty stricken, overcrowded and in just plain language, "a hell hole". It has no culture beyond terrorism, and no chance of commerce or serious relations with Egypt its neighbor to the west, they'll be under Egyptian "occupation," remember. After Sharon's "disengagement" plan is implemented, cut-off from Israel, who got tired of being attacked by them, with whom will they interact, the Bedouin of the Sinai? The "West Bank" by contrast is more cosmopolitan. Although overwhelmingly Muslim, there are a significant minority of Christians. It has the potential to be more secular, more democratic, and more tolerant. Trade and cultural relations with Jordan exist and will continue to flourish. East and West Palestine will suffer from uneven development. If the child-state is born, and democracy does "rear its ugly head," with its tolerance and pluralism, western movies, music, gambling casinos and bars, you can count on the Ayatollahs and Sheikhs of Gaza to rant and rave against "the infidels" in East Palestine, i.e. the West Bank.

I firmly believe that an independent Palestinian State will suffer the same outcome as East and West Pakistan.

For those of you who don't remember, East and West Pakistan fought a bloody civil war in 1971, and the outcome was Bangladesh, an independent state. Although both parts of Pakistan were Muslim - the only reason for its separation from India in 1947 in the first place - cultural and ethnic differences led to serious animosity between the two sides.

But developmental inequality is what pushed the final button. East Pakistan was an economic basket case (as it continues to be today). "Blessed" by being at the convergence point of several natural phenomena; the southern third of East Pakistan/Bangladesh sits on the mouth of the Ganges River, where it empties into the Bay of Bengal. Never short of water, they regularly suffer from floods from the Ganges overflow and yearly Monsoons (hurricanes). A former International Relations professor of mine - originally from Thailand - once commented, that Bangladesh is situated in one of the harshest inhabited areas of the world. "Why would people want to live there?" He asked. "It would do the international community good, to simply move the entire population out of there. It would save a lot of lives, money, and time in disaster relief efforts."

East Pakistan - the more populous area - for years complained that they weren't getting their fair share of central government budgets. After a period of military rule, in December 1970, the East Pakistani Awami League won absolute control over the newly formed parliament. With the Awami League set to control the government and demanding autonomy for East Pakistan in a federated state, General Yahya - junta leader from West Pakistan - chose to disband the assembly and invaded the East. Civil war broke out and after a half a million Bengalis (East Pakistanis) were massacred, India invaded to establish order. Ultimately India recognized Bangladeshi independence, and so did the international community. But India continues to suffer till today from the Muslim fanatics of Pakistan.

Is that the prognosis for East and West Palestine? Will Gaza scream foul? Is a civil war or societal degeneration in the offing for the unborn child-state, or would a partial birth abortion better serve the international community?

The world should think seriously about the "real" viability (or not) of a territorially divided Palestinian state. Show me a successful model, anywhere in the world, of an independent country divided in two parts by another state. Or, will there be continuous warfare between Israel and Palestine to foster unity between the Arabs and to gain contiguity?

East and West Palestine is an experiment doomed to failure from the start. Like my former professor's advice about Bangladesh, I suggest about East and West Palestine, that "It would do the international community good, to simply move the entire population out of there. It would save a lot of lives, money, and time..."

Few things in life are certain, but these two are worth betting on; first, that East and West Palestine won't survive long if born, and second, that the territorial integrity of the Land of Israel will. The Jewish people didn't survive 2,000 years of dispersal and persecution, just to return to their homeland, gain independence, and then give it away to 7th century Arab imperialists and early 20th century Arab squatters.

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko

(c) 2005/5765 Pasko

Posted by Ted Belman at February 11, 2005 09:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/7732

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference East and West Palestine, and Israel?:

» Comments. from Spicedsass
There is new comment on my post way down the list and as it is... [Read More]

Tracked on February 13, 2005 01:06 PM


Comments

1. Marty said:

Excellent analysis, and one of the first that makes clear that Condi's statment history speaks louder than most thought. It is the same type of clear-speak that was used in Iraq after we gave up on WMD. Things on the ground changed and the reason for being in Iraq changed.

Bush-Cheney-Rice have come to grips with the Arab notion that in order to get terror to stop, you must feed the monster.

Here they want to feed the monster Israelis security and land to placate the oil producers. It is easier to pay off and placate killers and terrorists then to reason with arrest or kill the unending supply of them. Bush needs this. He needs something to point to as a success in the M.E. So far, Iraq is a mess, there will be no Iran invasion, and therefore what does Bush ahve to show for all we have paid in people, cash and credibility.

Posted by: Marty on February 11, 2005 09:35 PM

2. Dr. Cornelius Buhler said:

You are so right! Islam is a pagan religion, with Satan as their God.Satan cannot love anyone, neither can followers of Islam. The Bible predicts a division of land, but alas, I am sorry to say, we are party of this crime!

Posted by: Dr. Cornelius Buhler on February 11, 2005 09:46 PM

3. ligneus said:

I have thought sometimes looking at the map of Israel that it would make sense for Gaza to be part of Israel. Apart from the world screaming genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. what would be the main problems in doing that? If it's not a totally dumb question that is. When you think of how the Jews have been expelled or driven from most Arab countries without so much as a raised eyebrow from all the democracies, what's the difference?
But then I don't know enough of the history of how long the Arabs have lived in Gaza, how they come to be there etc. Is there a web site on the history of the region?
I realise I'm being a naif here posing these questions, I think of it as the Emperor's New Clothes method of looking at things. If I'm being really dumb, feel free to shoot me down. [Yes, I know you will, without my invitation!]

Posted by: ligneus on February 13, 2005 11:43 AM

4. BobW said:

Shalom Lignens,

In modern times, the Gaza Strip was NOT part of Egypt. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. Gaza was part of the League mandate given to Britain. Gaza was NOT part of the UN partition plan for the new Israeli state. It was to be part of the new Arab state. The UN vote allowed for creating the 2 states. Israel proclaimed sovereignty. The Arabs attacked. The armistice borders changed the UN proposed frontiers. All this is just background.

Your question is not dumb at all. Gaza has been inhabited by Arabs for ages. So, too, the Jews. The current reason there are so many Arabs in the small area is because after the 1967 war, when Israel was in control of Gaza, the Government of Israel built a decent municipal infrastructure and superstructure making the place highly desirable, especially when compared to the slums of Cairo or living in the desert.

Most of my material is paper-the refined pulp from trees. Maybe some Israpundit participants can post some links for you to study.

The fundamental issue to be dealt with is to defeat the Arab lies that the Jews are intruders.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on February 14, 2005 01:50 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)