Someone explain this to me

on 59 Comments

The two-state solution would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The two chunks of land are 30 miles apart.

I always heard the word "contiguous" Palestinian state. What is contiguous (in contact with) about Gaza and the West Bank?

Would you accept a state that you had to travel an hour or whatever on a road through someone else’s land to visit your relatives, if you were even allowed past checkpoints? Would Zionists? Would American liberal Zionists accept such conditions for a Jewish state?

Is such a state viable? I noticed on my recent trip that the culture of Gaza and the culture of the West Bank are outwardly very different. Is that any surprise? Did non-contiguity work in West Pakistan and East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh?

I’ve never understood this. And I don’t mean to undermine the peace process or anything, but it doesn’t seem fair.

59 Responses

  1. Julian
    February 14, 2010, 10:57 am

    Alaska is what 500 miles from the mainland USA through Canada?
    Unfortunately the Palestinian mindset is to refuse every offer that does not include the end of Israel.

    • Taxi
      February 14, 2010, 12:37 pm

      So then you wouldn’t mind living in Gaza yourself right Julian?

      You WOULD then accept for yourself and your family what the Palestinians are offered right?

      Yeah right asshole!

    • cvillej
      February 14, 2010, 5:01 pm

      “Alaska is what 500 miles from the mainland USA through Canada?”

      What’s that you say Julian? The Palestinians can just buy their way out of all this for the same price the US paid for Alaska – 7 million dollars?

      Your history sucks.

    • Dan Kelly
      February 15, 2010, 8:15 am

      Alaska and the U.S. mainland as analogous to Gaza and the West Bank? You have to try really hard to come up with such an asinine comparison.

    • JGlatzer
      February 18, 2010, 4:01 am

      what connection does anyone in mainland usa have with alaska? i think you proved the point

      if anyone used the term “the jewish mindset” the racist alarms would go off. but why is it ok for you to say this about palestinians? grow up and making racist comments on the internet

  2. slowereastside
    February 14, 2010, 11:36 am

    ” Did non-contiguity work in West Pakistan and East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh”

    Good argument, Phil, but that’s a crap example. Pakistanis and Bengalis don’t even speak the same language and the two have almost nothing in common beyond general Indian subcon factionalism and the fact that both are largely Muslim countries (and even there, they ‘speak’ two v. different kinds of Islam).

    • potsherd
      February 14, 2010, 1:16 pm

      East and West Germany are a better example – integration of the two regions was a hard task and isn’t yet quite complete.

  3. Oscar
    February 14, 2010, 11:43 am

    Julian, stuff a sock in the hasbara. For years, Hamas has accepted Israel’s “right to exist.” The rub of it is that Hamas accepts Israel’s rights to exist within the 1967 borders. link to

    That’s not good enough for you. You’re a Zionist that demands the whole kit-n-kaboodle, so you continue to paint Hamas as cartoonish Arabs that seek to destroy Israel. This is spun to stupid Americans as a group that wants to kill Americans because they “hate us for our freedoms.” It’s plain intellectual dishonesty, and the Mensa-caliber posters on Mondoweiss call you out on it time after time. (Cue: Mooser.)

    As for Phil’s question, there’s now some movement toward a three-state solution — after all, there is no possibility for a two-state solution now with the “facts on the ground” unless the Quartet grows a pair, and has NATO forces come in as peacekeepers to push the settlers out in pursuit of the 1967 border solution.

    Israel does not want peace. Peace would mean an end to the “Greater Israel” objective. The Knesset’s prposed bill seeking to push the Palestinian population into the arms of Jordan and Egypt tells you everything you need to know about the Israeli endgame. Operation Cast Lead was primarily about decimating the infrastructure of Gaza to force the population out of its homeland into Egypt.

    • Mooser
      February 14, 2010, 7:25 pm

      “s plain intellectual dishonesty, and the Mensa-caliber posters on Mondoweiss call you out on it time after time. (Cue: Mooser.)”

      Whoa, whoa whoa! I have a strong emotional reaction to what I have seen Zionism do to American Jews, and what I think its consequences will be, and it also offends my sense of what it means to be Jewish and a Jew’s relationship to God.
      Apart from that, I am a dead loss on the subject, really.
      It’s the many other excellent posters who have the facts to demolish the hasbara claims in a real way, and have them ready to hand, and can make the applicable points with them. They are the ones who deserve credit and notice. And there’s a reason for that: my reaction was strong, emotional and early, complete by some time after the ’67 war. After that I really didn’t even want to know, in terms of the excruciating details of Israeli intransigence and cruelty. But I can say the Israelis have never, ever let me down, and have more than fulfilled my every expectation. Okay, the real reason is because I can’t remember anything since I got a cell phone: two phone numbers and a couple a pass words and I’m dangerously overloaded, reduced to writing lists of the Kings of Judah on my shirt-cuffs to pass a Scripture-Knowledge quiz. So now you know how I got thrown out of Mensa.
      If I seem to know anything, it’s just cause I almost always remember to use spel-chek. People sometimes think you’re smart if you spell well. W-E-L-L ! See what I mean?

      • Mooser
        February 14, 2010, 7:33 pm

        Anyway, I have been invited to join a new organisation for people with my kind of brain-power. It’s called “Densa”.

    • wondering jew
      February 16, 2010, 5:32 am

      Just to be clear, this is Meshal’s quote on the antiwar link:

      Because of many factors, we now accept to build a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967. But that doesn’t mean that we recognize Israel. But we are prepared to make a long-term truce with Israel. Accepting the status of Israel without recognizing it.

      RR (interviewer) : But no recognition? Doesn’t that mean continued tensions and war?

      KM: No. There are plenty of examples where no recognition does not mean war. China and Taiwan, for example, have not recognized each other, but they trade and cooperate with each other. By withholding a formal recognition, we just don’t want to give Israel the legitimacy for having taken our land in the first place.

  4. Richard Witty
    February 14, 2010, 12:00 pm

    The term contiguous refers to the contrast of an entire West Bank as sovereign rather than the Bantustans.

    There is nothing contiguous in the world. Every setting is relatively “you can’t get there from here”.

    The best in the objective conditions should be the goal, not some “its not fair”.

    • Chaos4700
      February 15, 2010, 1:06 am

      There is nothing contiguous in the world.

      I forget. Is “Everybody sucks!” Number 3, or Number 4? I suppose I should have this memorized by now, considering how rote Witty is.

      So now only the West Bank is Palestine? Big surprise, Witty making Palestine smaller and smaller every day. Israelis shouldn’t have to put up with any breaks in their continguous “greater” Isreal, but the Palestinians? Shit on them, every time. Oh well, they’re just “brown people” to Witty, I suppose.

  5. matt
    February 14, 2010, 12:01 pm

    Whether you support it or not – and I think, were it still a serious possibility, I’d support it – there is nothing fair about the two-state solution. That said, it’s true, as another poster wrote, that the U.S. manages non-contiguous territories without much of a problem. If they removed all the obstacles and built a high-speed passage between Gaza and the West Bank, you’d be able to get from Hebron to Gaza City in like 30 minutes. Much easier than getting from L.A. to Honolulu.

    • potsherd
      February 14, 2010, 1:18 pm

      The problem is, that whatever connection is made between Gaza and the WB, Israel will try to control it, will erect roadblocks and stop passage, no matter what any peace treaty says.

    • Dan Kelly
      February 15, 2010, 8:11 am

      If they removed all the obstacles and built a high-speed passage between Gaza and the West Bank, you’d be able to get from Hebron to Gaza City in like 30 minutes. Much easier than getting from L.A. to Honolulu.

      Do I have to point out how ridiculous an analogy this is?

  6. Shmuel
    February 14, 2010, 12:58 pm

    The non-contiguity of the WB and Gaza, and the consequent need for some sort of “safe passage” arrangement, is yet another major concession the Palestinians have made – beyond ceding 78% of their homeland, and agreeing even to the possibility of exchanging land of equal value – for the sake of peace. Yet even this has not been good enough for Israeli policy-makers of all political hues, who will accept nothing short of total Palestinian submission, while continuing to create their “facts on the ground”.

    • wondering jew
      February 15, 2010, 3:04 am

      To turn the Palestinian concession regarding “safe passage” into two concessions is stretching the truth. What the Palestinians did was accept Resolution 242 as the basis for their state. Resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories- the West Bank and Gaza. Those two territories are not contiguous. (This is a fact of geography that is neither a creation of Israel nor a concession by the Palestinians.) The only way to make these into one territory would be through “safe passage”.

      • Shmuel
        February 15, 2010, 6:04 am

        Correction accepted, WJ. It is a “further” concession only in the sense that it is a further hardship, beyond giving up 78% of the land.

        BTW, Oslo established “safe passage” as a separate issue from statehood and final status; one which was supposed to have been implemented many years ago (and was promised more than once by Israeli governments).

  7. Rehmat
    February 14, 2010, 1:34 pm

    Philip your comparison of Pakistan with the non-exitent Palestinian state is historically incorrect.

    Very few people know that the Pakistan Muslim League which secured Pakistan under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah – was established by Bengali Muslim leaders. Though the two wings of the newly established country were 1100 miles apart – the leaders believed that the people of the two wings, though different in culture and language, will remain united under their common religion of Islam. The two wings split in 1970s not because the majority of the people wanted that but because the Pakistani secularist leaders, India, the US and Israel wanted that.

    As far as Zionist regime has its grip on the western powers – the so-called “two-state” solution is not going to be materialized – because it involves not only Gaza and the West Bank but also the occupied East Jerusalem. Even if Hamas recognize Zionist occupation of the Ottoman Palestine – Tel Aviv will find some other excuse to deny Palestinians the remaining 22% of Palestinian land.

    From Tel Aviv to Islamabad
    link to

  8. southernobserver
    February 14, 2010, 2:57 pm

    Certainly it is not ideal, although it does seem to provide at least sea access. The real problem is that as previously discussed on this blog, israel is working hard towards breaking up the westbank, so that it represents a series of cantons only, that can be broken up at a moments notice. As I understand the maps, it looks like effectively a four or even five ‘state ‘ solution.

    • potsherd
      February 14, 2010, 5:47 pm

      And the Israeli gunboats will patrol the seas and stop passage whenever they feel like it.

  9. southernobserver
    February 14, 2010, 3:03 pm

    Robert Fisk has a analysis of the problem here, specifically including the possibility of a land bridge. It is a very sad piece, essentially dispairing. Would even 65 or 75% of israeli settlers remaining on 2% of the 1967 palestine work, particularly as the last and supposedly best offer actually was to take 6.5%?

    link to

    • wondering jew
      February 15, 2010, 2:53 am

      I’m glad southernobserver linked to a Robert Fisk article, for my comment comes from another Fisk article. The article is called “State of Denial” and mixed in with his criticism of Israel is his assessment of a one state solution. After he quotes Tzipi Livni’s doubt whether there would be room for Jews in such a one state, Robert Fisk said that he shared Livni’s doubts.

      Also of note: John Judis in The New Republic takes on the assertion that the Israel lobby was the key to the decision of going to war against Iraq.

      • Donald
        February 15, 2010, 11:44 am

        One area where I think liberal Zionists have a legitimate point is on the dangers of a one state solution–one can easily imagine it turning into a civil war. The majority on both sides could favor peace (even if grudgingly) but just have a minority of fanatics on one side or the other (and there happen to be some on both) to start launching terror attacks and it could polarize things real fast. Think Lebanon in the 70’s and 80’s or Iraq after Bush’s “liberation”.

        The problem is a fair or at least tolerable for Palestinians version of the two state solution seems increasingly remote. Both solutions look about equally unrealistic these days.

      • Shmuel
        February 15, 2010, 12:08 pm

        Donald, I agree that both solutions are about equally unlikely at this point, and talk about any solution at all is either entirely theoretical, or advocacy with an eye to some indefinite future date. In the context of advocating theoretical solutions however, I believe a one-state (federal or otherwise) solution is far more likely to succeed than any of the two-state ideas that have been proposed to date (including the official position of the Palestinian leadership up to and including the Taba talks). One state would resolve more of the chronic issues at the heart of the conflict and would provide a healthy ideology and psychology for a future based on equality, human rights and maximum justice for all concerned (the only lasting basis for peace). Furthermore, it would provide a framework for a kind of collective “cognitive behavioural therapy”, creating coexistence and cooperation through coexistence and cooperation (or in Rabbinic terms: action performed without conviction will lead to action out of conviction).

        With regard to the legitimate and justified fears of Palestinians and Israeli Jews alike, Mazin Qumsiyeh writes, in his bookSharing the Land of Canaan:

        These fears should be dispelled not by words or utopian dreams but by a program based on partnership, concrete laws, international guarantees, and the separation of powers.

  10. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells
    February 14, 2010, 4:25 pm

    I thought the ‘plan’ was always supposed to be a tunnel?

  11. AreaMan
    February 14, 2010, 5:20 pm

    People use “contiguous” when they probably mean “connected”. The different variations of the 2-state plan usually feature some roadway under control of the proposed new state of Palestine. It might work, it might not. More people, like Condoleeza Rice, use the word “Viable”. I think that set a new record for vagueness.

    The West Bank would be connected to several Arab countries which could connect to Egypt, I suppose, and then to Gaza, so cutting the road wouldn’t do much. I think the Jordon vs Syria contest might flare up, and Syria would try to invade the West Bank, or penetrate it they way they do Lebanon. Syria believes all of Jordon, Palestine, and Lebanon belong to “Greater Syria”. So, would Israel help defend the West Bank Palestine against Syria? Can you imagine it? Media meltdown! Blog blowup!

    Jordon doesn’t want the West Bank, but they don’t want Syria to have it either. Things could get dicey.

    • Richard Parker
      February 15, 2010, 5:41 am

      Are you totally fucking crazy Areaman or have you been smoking some bad skunk?
      The West Bank would be connected to several Arab countries which could connect to Egypt, I suppose, and then to Gaza, so cutting the road wouldn’t do much. I think the Jordon vs Syria contest might flare up, and Syria would try to invade the West Bank, or penetrate it they way they do Lebanon. Syria believes all of Jordon, Palestine, and Lebanon belong to “Greater Syria”. So, would Israel help defend the West Bank Palestine against Syria?
      – What’s the Jordon[sic] vs Syria contest ?
      – If Syria believes that Jordon [sic], Palestine, and Lebanon belong to Greater Syria, then they’re dead right. It was Sykes-Picot (Frogs and Brits again) who split them up and divided the spoils between them.
      – Why should Syria consider even invading the West Bank?

      Stop toking that stuff and read some history

      • Dan Kelly
        February 15, 2010, 8:21 am

        AreaMan’s intent is obviously to obfuscate truth and reality. Hasbara troll. Ignore.

  12. potsherd
    February 14, 2010, 5:51 pm

    Contiguity is one way of being connected, but any connection is subject to disruption by Israel when it wants to impose punitive measures. And who would there be to stop them? The demilitarized Palestinian state? The UN?

    Israel wants a Palestine that is defenseless, and would certainly use force to prevent it from making natural alliances with its Arab neighbors.

  13. Avi
    February 14, 2010, 6:02 pm

    Over the years there have been various proposals to “connect” Gaza with the West Bank as part of the “final status” negotiations. One plan proposed a tunnel from the southern tip of the West Bank to the northern part of the Strip. Another plan proposed a bridge. The problem always was that this corridor could easily be shut down by Israel at whim. All the rhetoric offered by US politicians amounts to lip service. There would be nothing “viable” or “contiguous” about such an arrangement.

  14. Chaos4700
    February 15, 2010, 1:08 am

    Seems to me that the only contiguous solution is the one-state solution — ooooh, but that means Israel would have to be a functional democracy for someone other than Jewish migrants, doesn’t it?

    • Taxi
      February 15, 2010, 1:29 am

      Yes it does indeedee!

      Peace is the enemy – land is the friend.

    • wondering jew
      February 15, 2010, 5:08 am

      Chaos- read Robert Fisk’s “State of Denial” article in the Independent. He states his own doubts regarding the viability of a one state solution.

      • Avi
        February 15, 2010, 6:02 am

        You’ve found one journalist stating his opinion on the matter and you’ve been hawking that opinion like it’s the best thing since sliced bread. You must be ecstatic.

        Of course, Robert Fisk doesn’t explain WHY. And so far, neither have you.

        I’d like to hear the list of excuses……you can start with “they’re all anti-Semites”. That one always works.

      • wondering jew
        February 15, 2010, 9:29 am

        Avi, you’re such a gentleman I feel bad for ignoring you.

      • Avi
        February 15, 2010, 11:13 am

        Don’t feel bad. Your response is a good excuse to avoid the topic at hand.

      • wondering jew
        February 15, 2010, 11:46 am

        The Islamist movement that we are currently witnessing bears little resemblance to the tolerance that accompanied much of the history of Islam in the Arab world. The evidence of the intolerance that Robert Fisk found when entering Gaza- the pouring out of alcohol in the view of the outsiders who wish to enter- was evidence to Fisk of the inanity and lack of tolerance of the Hamas rulers.

        There are a few voices in this comments section that utter with equanimity their advocacy of sending the European Jews back to Europe. Those who support the right of the Jews to stay in I/P certainly have a right to fear that Hamas and other organizations will be serious about their Jew hatred as expressed in their vile charter. Whether for wrongs they have suffered, or for a view of Islam that feels that tolerance is something that needs to be jettisoned from time to time, the idea of a single state solution contains a threat to the Jews who live in I/P and to dismiss these fears is either disingenuous or stupid. Pick one.

      • Avi
        February 15, 2010, 12:00 pm

        Aha, but Hamas, which grew out of a moderate, mostly secular Palestinian society is suddenly an eternal fixture of a future Palestinian society?

        Don’t you see how exacerbating factors like the occupation, the siege, the bombardments, the wholesale slaughter play a significant role in that radicalization?

        Incidentally, it was Israel who nurtured and supported Hamas for years until they became a viable movement.

        And while Hamas imposes this radicalism on Gaza, a practice that most Gazans have come to dislike, Palestinians in the West Bank complain of Abbas’ thuggish and brutal “security forces”.

        In other words, in the narrative of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict , Hamas is merely a red herring.

      • Cliff
        February 15, 2010, 12:01 pm

        You speak about this Jew-hatred as if it’s exceptional. This reminds me of that Golda Meir quote about how peace will happen when Palestinians love their kids more than they hate Israel or something along those lines.

        Does any of the hatred arise from the wars, killings, and occupation/colonization? Do Palestinians NEED radical Islam to HATE their occupier?

        What about the economic de-development of Gaza? Wouldn’t poverty also contribute to these feelings as well? The mechanism of control Israel has on Palestinian life?

        And, if we compare the logistical differences. Between the conditions of daily life for a Palestinian, to that of an Israeli Jew – what conclusions do you draw?

        With all that Israel has gained, and yet you still see a lot of hatred and racism in Israel towards Palestinians – couldn’t this argument work against you?

        You’re painting an exotic image of Islamist Hamas.

        I don’t doubt the hatred of Jews within the Hamas camp.

        I just don’t think you’re putting any of it in context. And you’re imagining a One-State that happens instantaneously and without any kind of plan, that would phase in and integrate the Palestinians into Israel.

      • potsherd
        February 15, 2010, 12:08 pm

        WJ, you have to discount these fears, because they are exaggerated, paranoid, unreasonable, based on obsession about what might happen. Too many of these people will always see a threat where non exists, always see enemies. It is insane to cater to the insane and let their paranoid imaginings determine policy.

      • Cliff
        February 15, 2010, 12:15 pm

        Are we going to formulate a solution according to Israeli Jew’s fears?

        If that’s a standard (fear), then what kind of solution do you think the Palestinians want (within that POV)?

        We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.

        — Gen. Yehoshafat Harkabi (former head of IDF Intelligence); Maariv, 2 November 1973. Cited by David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p.181 third edition (2003).

        The ‘security’, ‘right to exist’, and ‘radical Islam’ memes never get old.

      • wondering jew
        February 15, 2010, 12:19 pm

        And thus I quoted Robert Fisk, to show that the Israeli fears are not exaggerated but shared by an objective journalist.

      • Taxi
        February 15, 2010, 12:50 pm

        It’s called the ‘fear of the guilty’!

        Fearful of the avenging justice of the victim.

        It’s called karma, just ask any Rabbi about karma.

        If like me, you would never bother talking to a Rabbi, then just watch any Hollywood movie and you’ll see how whoever was victimized at the beginning of the movie, always ends up revenging in a satisfying manner. It’s called karma and the criminal thugs in Israel should be fucking quaking in their well-worn army boots.

        Any decent human being puts the cares of the victim above the concerns of the criminal. Yet this is never so in Israel.

        There is no justice in the fucking holy lands with Israel in power!

        How long can the world allow this brutal rogue regime to continue for?

        Four years ago the CIA gave Israel some twenty years.

        But we all know how generous the CIA can be eh?

      • Avi
        February 16, 2010, 3:34 am

        Show me the paragraph where Robert Fisk explains his stance on this “FEAR” issue.

        He doesn’t.

        THAT’S YOUR FEAR, but you’re using Robert Fisk to support your argument even though Fisk may or may not share your views AND fears.

        Show me a sentence in his article that supports your claim!

      • wondering jew
        February 16, 2010, 4:11 am

        “I have a doubt whether Jews will be able to live in that state at all.” I rather think Tzipi Livni is right about that,

        This is the quote from Fisk. Tell me what it means.

      • tree
        February 16, 2010, 4:44 am

        Fuller quote from Fisk:

        Tzipi Livni turned up to tell us that over the past 40 years “a certain reality has been created on the ground” – she meant settlements – “which takes very little of the surface of Judea and Samaria”. This was extraordinary. The leader of the Israeli opposition believes the colonisation of the West Bank “took little” territory. If Area C – the Israeli-occupied part of the West Bank – is already lost, then Mr Fayyad and his chums in their ‘Authority’ have less than 10 per cent of the original mandate ‘Palestine’ to claim. Livni, too, was against “a two-nation state” because “I have a doubt whether Jews will be able to live in that state at all.” I rather think Tzipi Livni is right about that,

        He’s not talking about Israeli fears (and certainly not his own fears.) He’s talking about Israeli chutzpah. Israelis consider themselves as rightly more privileged than Palestinians and could not live in a state that treated both groups equally. That’s Fisk’s point.

      • wondering jew
        February 16, 2010, 5:18 am

        I suppose one can interpret his words that way. I certainly did not understand that from his words.

      • wondering jew
        February 16, 2010, 5:19 am

        His next comment regarding handing the keys over to Hamas indicates that my interpretation is nearer to the truth.

      • tree
        February 16, 2010, 5:27 am

        Only in your mind. The handing over the keys comment refers to the” two state solution”, not the one. I don’t see anything there that indicates that Fisk is referring to “Israeli fears” about a one state solution, and cettainly nothing there that indicates that he shares that fear. He just doesn’t think its possible, and thinks it much more likely that Israel will attack Lebanon again, killing more civilians. That is Fisk’s fear.

      • wondering jew
        February 16, 2010, 5:38 am

        When Livni says, “I have a doubt whether Jews will be able to live in that state at all,” do you think she meant because the Jews are too arrogant to accept equality?

      • wondering jew
        February 16, 2010, 7:53 am

        If someone says, “I think you are right,” but what they mean is “I think you are right, but for a very different reason than yours”, then they would say, “I think you are right, but for a very different reason than yours.” Since Fisk says simply “I rather think Livni is right about that,” the fairest interpretation is that he shares Livni’s reasoning. And any other interpretation seems patently unfair and indeed dishonest.

  15. radii
    February 15, 2010, 1:35 am

    A one-state solution is slowly emerging on its own – and if daring and bold Palestinian leaders can get their factions united they could just go ahead and declare themselves a nation (along the ’67 borders of course) and just say “we’re an occupied nation.”

    As for a two-state solution, that option seems to evaporate as each day passes, but if it were to be done it won’t be with Bibi, Lieberman, and the other Likkudnik fascists – they are pursuing an ethnic-cleansing operation unabated and have no interest in any deal. So Livni or some other leaders take over and decide upon a deal – they’ll never give enough land back to make it worthwhile to the Palestinians. They should vacate ALL the settlements but that will never happen peaceably, or at all probably. So will these new big communities become integrated? I kinda don’t think so, but that is one way to create a lasting peace. But the citizens must drop their racism and hatred and apartheid thinking first and the likelihood of that is around zero percent.

    Divide-and-conquer is the oldest strategy in warfare and Gaza and West Bank have been strictly divided by the zionists quite intentionally. I imagine israel wants the beachfront property in Gaza for their corrupt developers with organized crime ties to the leadership regime to develop (it does seem that all the israeli leaders get caught in corruption scandals at some point).

    The only way a 2-state situation is viable and sustainable is if Gaza and West Bank are physically connected – and not by just a roadway – this means many tens to hundreds of square miles of land given to the Palestinian state on either side of this connecting strip of land – which zionists will never give up.

    2-state is all but dead, and pretty soon, if the Palestinian factions can get their act together, they will unilaterally declare a state and seek recognition from other nations around the world (and, my, won’t the Lobby be furiously busy then?)

    • Eva Smagacz
      February 16, 2010, 4:26 am


      Palestine Legislative Council in exile declared Palestinian Independence on 15th of November 1988. Palestine is officially recognised as occupied by International Court of Justice and UN. Palestine maintains Embassies with over 100 countries, and is recognised it as an independent state by 130 countries.

  16. Richard Parker
    February 15, 2010, 5:24 am

    Gaza is separate because Israel hemmed those refugees into a tiny and oppressive Egyptian protectorate for 20 years from 1948-1967. Much of it consists of mouldering refugee camps that are still there after 60 years, bursting with young men who want to take bitter revenge on what Israel did to their parents (otherwise they would be peacefully hoeing and planting their own farms on land taken from them)

    Gaza has nothing to do with the word ‘contiguous’ in this context. They have been separated for 60 years, not just 40. ‘Contiguous’ means the West Bank, where Israel has installed ‘settlers’ to purposefully break up the connections between Palestinian cities, such as East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, Qalqilyah, Tulqarm, and Jenin.

    See: link to

    Intentionally, the map-maker portrayed it as an island paradise, with all the Israeli-controlled parts merged into the sea. A brilliant conception.

    That’s what contiguous means.

    I live in a real, genuine archipelago, and I know just how very difficult it is to go from one place to another

  17. Richard Parker
    February 15, 2010, 6:17 am

    I will be travelling to Cebu City on Saturday (120 miles as the crow flies, with a couple of very small diversions to miss obstructing islands) The exercise will take a bit over 24 hours. That is an average 5 miles per hour.

    1 Wake at 4am to meet the Surigao ferry leaving at 5:30. The trip takes 4 hours.
    2 Wait in Surigao until the Cebu ferry leaves at 7:00pm. This trip takes about 12 hours overnight, so we arrive in Cebu at about 7:00am the next day.

    None of this involves checkpoints and delays manned by aggressive IDF soldiers.

  18. Rehmat
    February 15, 2010, 8:26 am

    AreaMan – you got to learn Middle East history from some objective source.

    Historically, Jordan is an artificial state carved out by the British colonialist out of the former Ottoman Wilaya in Palestine (a part of Balfour Declaration agenda for the settlement of the unwanted European Jews in Palestine in the future) and was given to one of the sons of Sharif Husain of Makkah – Emir Abdullah, who was shot dead in 1951 when word leaked out that he had offered to recognize Israel. Jordan’s current population is little over six millions which includes two million Native Palestinian Muslims and Christians pushed out of Israel by the Jewish terrorist groups between 1948-51. Over-all Palestinias make approximately 60% of the Jordan’s total population.

    Jordan is considered the most trusted ally of the US and Israel. King Abdullah II would love to put his hands back on the West Bank – as he is already King of the East Gaza.

    link to

  19. potsherd
    February 15, 2010, 10:47 am

    Abdullah does not share your opinion, Rehmat.

Leave a Reply