January 07, 2009
A solution to Gaza?
As the world studiously ignores the thousands of missiles fired into Israel by the Palestinian terror group Hamas, pays no attention to the rage-filled demonstrations in Western cities lamenting the failure of Hitler to finish the Holocaust, and the media allows terrorist shills to spew their propaganda uninterrupted, I find myself glumly contemplating the future of Israel, and the future of Jews the world over.
Critics -- Lord knows, they're everywhere! -- claim that the Israeli operations in Gaza are "counterproductive," a criticism I find risible. At a minimum, the Israelis are finally letting the Arabs know that the days of tolerating missile attacks on cities without any penalty are over.
But what of an actual solution to Gaza (and the West Bank)? Daniel Pipes has an answer, one that looks to the past.
[There is] only one practical approach, which worked tolerably well in the period 1948-67: Shared Jordanian-Egyptian rule, with Amman ruling the West Bank and Cairo running Gaza.
The failures of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and the "peace process," has prompted rethinking in Amman and Jerusalem. Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor's Ilene Prusher found already in 2007 that the idea of a West Bank-Jordan confederation "seems to be gaining traction on both sides of the Jordan River." The Jordanian government, which enthusiastically annexed the West Bank in 1950 and abandoned its claims only under duress in 1988, shows signs of wanting to return. Dan Diker and Pinhas Inbari documented for Middle East Quarterly in 2006 how the PA's "failure to assert control and become a politically viable entity has caused Amman to reconsider whether a hands-off strategy toward the West Bank is in its best interests."
Israeli officialdom has also shown itself open to this idea, occasionally calling for Jordanian troops to enter the West Bank.
Despairing of self-rule, some Palestinians welcome the Jordanian option. An unnamed senior PA official told Diker and Inbari that a form of federation or confederation with Jordan offers "the only reasonable, stable, long-term solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."
Hanna Seniora opined that "the current weakened prospects for a two-state solution forces us to revisit the possibility of a confederation with Jordan." The New York Times's Hassan Fattah quotes a Palestinian in Jordan: "Everything has been ruined for us - we've been fighting for 60 years and nothing is left. It would be better if Jordan ran things in Palestine, if King Abdullah could take control of the West Bank."
NOR IS this just talk: Diker and Inbari report that back-channel PA-Jordan negotiations in 2003-04 "resulted in an agreement in principle to send 30,000 Badr Force members," to the West Bank.
And while Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak announced a year ago that "Gaza is not part of Egypt, nor will it ever be," his is hardly the last word. First, Mubarak notwithstanding, Egyptians overwhelmingly want a strong tie to Gaza; Hamas concurs; and Israeli leaders sometimes agree. So the basis for an overhaul in policy exists.
Secondly, Gaza is arguably more a part of Egypt than of "Palestine." During most of the Islamic period, it was either controlled by Cairo or part of Egypt administratively. Gazan colloquial Arabic is identical to what Egyptians living in Sinai speak. Economically, Gaza has most connections to Egypt. Hamas itself derives from the Muslim Brethren, an Egyptian organization.
Is it time to think of Gazans as Egyptians?
Thirdly, Jerusalem could out-maneuver Mubarak. Were it to announce a date when it ends the provisioning of all water, electricity, food, medicine and other trade, and accepts enhanced Egyptian security in Gaza, Cairo would have to take responsibility for Gaza. Among other advantages, this would make it accountable for Gazan security, finally putting an end to the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar assaults.
The Jordan-Egypt option quickens no pulses, but that may be its value. It offers a uniquely sober way to solve the "Palestinian problem."
There was precious little outrage during the three-decade Egyptian control of Gaza, and similarly no demand for independence from Jordan in the West Bank from '48 through '67; as a matter of fact, the idea of an Arab Palestinian national identity never really gained currency until the Egyptians and the Jordanians lost control of Gaza and the West Bank in the aftermath of the Six Day War.
I think Pipes is right: let Egypt and Jordan free their Arab cousins from the burden of Hamas and Fatah, and welcome them into their respective societies -- as they did from 1948 until 1967.
Posted by Mike Lief at January 7, 2009 06:35 AM
| TrackBack