The One Tunnel ‘Solution’ (cough!)…
H/T Phil Weiss.
Bernard Avishai writes about a new ‘approach’ to the TSS. The language is quite striking, just by the title alone: “A Plan for Peace That Could Still Be” implies that even this Zionist scribbler has largely lost faith in a TSS.
Anyway, the genius of this plan is to compensate Palestinian loss of territory with an Israeli ‘concession’ of… land underground (where in the general Zionist narrative Palestinians really belong)! A tunnel, 25 miles long, is to be built to solve the contiguity problem. The tunnel is to run from the South Hills of Hebron to Gaza.
On a semi-serious note this is essentially ‘three dimensional geography’ as originally proposed in the form of Clinton’s ‘kissing points’ but a whole lot longer…
posted by Gert @ 9:07 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The title doesn't actually suggest that the writer doesn't believe in the two-state solution. It suggests that many don't believe in it anymore, but he does.
As for the idea of a tunnel: There would be a contiguity problem with Palestine being split between the West Bank and Gaza, obviously, and Palestinians should be able to travel between the two parts of their country freely. The only way to do that is through Israel. However, you can't expect Israel to automatically let any Palestinian enter its territory - it doesn't let any foreign citizen in automatically. A tunnel or bridge would solve the problem of needing a visa from Israel to go to the other side.
Do you have another solution to the contiguity problem (other than one state)?
Nope. It's [contiguity] one of the biggest, genuine obstacles to a TSS
As I've always said, providing a SECURE corridor between Gaza and the WB that doesn't compromise Israeli territorial contiguity is one of the logistical reasons there can never be a just partition of Palestine. The point is that they could dig the tunnel 25 miles deep and it still wouldn't be safe if Israel felt any need to interrupt Palestinian territorial contiguity. It is worth mentioning in this connection that Israel committed itself to facillitating free movement between the two enclaves and never complied with the obligations it undertook then. So it would be imprudent to expect them to do so in future. I hasten to add that international peacekeepers/monitors/what have you have never proven effectual in deterring Israeli incursions across the Blue Line and can't realistically be expected to protect an 'independent' Palestine.
I haven't read Avishai's article right though yet, and may not if this is the same exalted philosopher who's been touring around peddling his profound insight that you CAN have peace without justice, after all. But I thought he was attributing that plan to Olmert. He may have spoken approvingly of it elsewhere in the piece.
Post a Comment
<< Home