Not an­other Arab state

The Jerusalem Post - - COMMENT & FEATURES -

In “When Be­gin re­jected Bibi’s good ad­vice,” (Jan­uary 10), Dou­glas Bloom­field makes the pro­nounce­ment, “Pales­tinian state­hood… is the sine quo non for peace with the Pales­tini­ans.” His­tory does not sup­port that opin­ion.

Arab lead­er­ship has re­jected ev­ery op­por­tu­nity to es­tab­lish a Pales­tinian state since the Peel Com­mis­sion of 1936. Ac­tu­ally, what they re­jected, and con­tinue to re­ject, is a Pales­tinian state along with a Jew­ish state.

Per­son­ally, I wouldn’t rec­om­mend to any­one that they es­tab­lish an­other Arab state. There is no rea­son to be­lieve that an Arab state es­tab­lished in the small area be­tween the Jor­dan River and the Mediter­ranean Sea would be any bet­ter for most of its pop­u­la­tion than those Arab states that al­ready ex­ist in this re­gion.

The Arabs who live in Judea and Sa­maria have a higher stan­dard of liv­ing than those who live in the Mid­dle East out­side of the State of Is­rael, whereas those that live in Gaza have about the low­est of any­where in the area. Is­raeli Arabs, es­pe­cially the Chris­tians, have con­tin­u­ously re­jected be­ing un­der the Pales­tinian Au­thor­ity.

“Land for peace” is a cute slo­gan that has no ba­sis in re­al­ity. When Is­rael ex­ited Gaza in 2005, we were given an op­por­tu­nity to ob­serve its con­se­quences. Enough said. HAIM SHALOM SNY­DER Pe­tah Tikva

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Israel

© PressReader. All rights reserved.