Consider a three-state solution
The reason a conventional two-state solution, while well intentioned, cannot 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 on the West Bank cannot be expected to govern both parts fairly.
What’s needed is a three-state solution.
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 West Bank be no longer 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 that 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. Terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah 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 unable, unwilling or more likely afraid to close the terrorist bases on their land that terrorism continues.
Finally, the burden of a cease-fire should not be Israel’s alone to bear. For any cease-fire 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
North Bergen