A solution must reflect on-the-ground realities
North Bergen, N.J.: The reason a conventional two-state solution, while well-intentioned, can not work should be obvious. The West Bank and Gaza are not contiguous. To consider them a single, unified Palestinian state would foster the demand for a land bridge across Israel to connect the two parts. Israel could never agree to being cut in two. A single Palestinian Authority based in the West Bank can not be expected to govern both parts fairly. It’s because of the West Bank’s inability to properly govern Gaza that Hamas took root. What’s needed is a three-state solution along the lines of the Pakistan-Bangladesh partition. Recognizing that Gaza needs to be independent from the West Bank would be the first step.
The next step would be to recognize the legitimacy of the West Bank with the understanding that residents of existing Jewish settlements in the territory will no longer be recognized as citizens of Israel, but as citizens of the new state with the same rights and privileges currently enjoyed by Arabs living in Israel. Of course, any settlers who would prefer to be Israeli citizens rather than citizens of the new West Bank state should be allowed to return to Israel.
Further, the battle with Hamas and Hezbollah should not be Israel’s alone. Terrorist groups have been operating with impunity from states and territories like Yemen, Gaza and the West Bank, it is because Arab states and territories have shown themselves to be either unable, unwilling or more likely afraid to close the terrorist bases on their land that terrorism continues. Finally the burden of a ceasefire should not be Israel’s alone to bear. For any ceasefire to be effective, Hamas and Hezbollah must agree to it in good faith with the understanding that they begin providing for the needs of the civilians in Gaza rather than rearming.
Irving A. Gelb