Should Israel trade land for security?
Big question with a short answer.
Yes.
Why?
She has before, and it has worked.
I undertake this writing assignment with deep humility, knowing the deep scholarship, and historical and Biblical knowledge at the disposal of my valued debate partner.
But even with my more shallow basin, I know that after the Six-Day 1967 war, Israel occupied conquered a lot of territory, notably the bigger-than-Israel Sinai peninsula, which it returned to Egypt in 1979 for a peace that holds to this day.
In 1992, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for settling certain land and water disputes and recognizing Jordan’s sovereignty over areas along their border. That peace holds to this day.
I think I know what you are thinking.
May I guess?
In 2005, Israel unilaterally left the Gaza strip, and peace did not ensue. But it is a different situation than the other two deals.
Peace did not flow because Israel signed no peace treaty with any other party. Occupying Stabilizing Gaza had become a migraine, and Israel rolled the dice, hoping the Gazans would see the benefits of peace. Alas, tragically, as per usual, they did not. As Israeli politician Abba Eban once said of Palestinians, they “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
My position is that only the controversial, and moribund, two-state solution will provide Israel with security, but my belief is conditional, and has a time element.
Meaning, not now.
There is too much hatred on both sides, post Oct. 7, for a peace deal now. It may have to wait for a generation to pass, as world opinion grows increasingly hostile toward Israel.
World opinion is not the only thing, but it is something. World opinion wants the “Palestinian people” (meaning the Arabs) to have its own state. It is pointless to argue that Jordan is majority Palestinian right now. That dog won’t hunt. Even Israel’s (rapidly declining) friends mimic Hall and Oates saying “no can do.”
Nor will the “God gave it us” argument work. That God represents 0.2% of the world’s population. Hell, even secular Jews won’t buy that argument. Not to mention that previous Israeli governments put portions of Judea and Samaria on the block, so don’t go there.
What are the alternatives?
? Continue the status quo, with most of the world accusing Israel of “occupying” Arab land on what is called the West Bank, which Jewish “settlers” (they prefer “residents”) believe is land granted to the Jewish people by God. I base my opinion in part on reporting I have done from the West Bank.
? Create a unified Jewish and Arab democratic state. Truly a nonstarter because Arab birth rates are higher than Jewish. Israel would soon be Arab majority, and no longer the world’s only Jewish state.
? Annex the West Bank, with Arabs barred from citizenship. That would be inconsistent with democracy and would be the actual apartheid state Israel is now falsely accused of being.
Do not believe for a moment that I trust the good will or good intentions of Palestinian Arabs. I do not.
While I might agree concede Arabs have a “right” to a state where many of them have lived for generations, I do not concede they have a right to an army. The treaty would grant them a police force, but not an army because they have no need for an army. They are in no danger from Israel, and they know it. Everyone knows it, even if they won’t say it.
Without getting too much into the weeds, as currently drawn, the current borders would leave Israel with a 7-mile waist between the West Bank, and the Mediterranean.
With a guide, I stood on the heights of Samaria (I believe) and looked west where I could see airplanes landing at Ben Gurion airport, and the sea beyond that.
My debate partner believes should a war break out, Israel would be sliced in half at that point, dividing the country into two halves and creating a chaotic defense situation.
With respect, my friend is fighting the last war.
How could Palestinians mass tanks on their territory? Where would they come from? How could Palestinians mass an army on their territory without being detected and decimated by Israel’s superb air force?
You are worried about a 7-mile waist? Tehran rained rockets, missiles, and drones on Israel from 1,000 miles away.
If the aim of the Palestinians, or the Iranians, or anyone else, is to destroy Israel, it does not need boots on the ground. Not while it can rain death from the skies.
An unarmed Palestinian state poses the most minimal threat to Israel. Both Egypt and Jordan share borders with Israel, and they are no threat. Syria and Lebanon also are neighbors, they are weak, and also are no serious threat.
What does that leave on the table?
Jerusalem. Who gets it?
They both do.
One idea is to allow joint administration of the city, by both Jews and Arabs. There could be two mayors, one Arab, one Jewish,
That would not be unique. The tiny independent Republic of San Marino, located in central Italy just east of Florence, has two Captains Regent, who share responsibility for the tiny nation.
Or Jerusalem, a U.N.-desigated World Heritage site, could be declared an Open City, which usually happens in times of war.
From Wikipedia:
For a city to be officially recognized as “open” and therefore immune from attack, several conditions must be met:
? The city’s forces must declare their intent to abandon all defensive efforts.
? All military equipment and forces must be evacuated from the city.
? The opposing military force must acknowledge and accept this status.
? The city must be ready for peaceful occupation by the opposing forces.
Notable examples
? Paris (1940): The French government declared Paris an open city during World War II when German forces were approaching, which helped preserve the city’s landmarks.
? Rome (1943): Following heavy Allied bombing, Italy declared Rome an open city. While it did not prevent a German occupation, the declaration was an attempt to protect the city’s historical and architectural significance from further attack.
? Manila (1941): U.S. General Douglas MacArthur declared Manila an open city to protect its civilians from a Japanese invasion. However, the Japanese military did not respect the declaration, leading to a brutal occupation.
I’m just spitballing here, but you see the possibilities.
Jews would be citizens of Israel, Arabs would be citizens of Palestine. As long as Israelis have unfettered access to treasured religious sites, and can live in Jerusalem free from harassment, does it matter that much if two flags, or no flags, fly over the city?
Yes, it may matter to some, but this can’t be a zero-sum game. Is it worth trading some land for peace?
My answer is yes, but the only vote that counts is that of Israeli citizens.
——-
This addendum addresses some additional points raised by my friend and (in this case) adversary, Jerry.
He paraphrases Naftali Bennett as saying there is no room in the heartland of the land of Israel for a second sovereign state. My reply? The new Palestine would be outside Israel, not within it.
Yes, Israel is tiny, and, yes, I can see surrendering (yet) another slice, for permanent peace. The “it belongs to us” didn’t work for the Sioux, it is not working for Putin. And it is not working for the Palestinians.
The Deal of the Century imagines some kind of internal autonomous areas. That sounds familiar. Oh, yes! Bantustans created by South Africa. Is that a model built for success?
Not for me, not for the Palestinians, not for the rest of the world.
