Israel offers PA rail link between West Bank and Gaza

[Colorado Blue]

Israel has offered the Palestinian Authority a rail line linking the Gaza Strip and West Bank that would enable passage between the two areas after the disengagement.

According to the proposal, the tracks would run from the Erez checkpoint in the northern part of the Gaza Strip to the Tarqumiya crossing near the West Bank city of Hebron.

The overture to the Palestinians was made by Minister Haim Ramon, who is overseeing talks on the civil and economic coordination of the disengagement, along with Vice Premier Shimon Peres.

The idea was approved by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon before it was presented to the PA.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/585153.html

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Sounds like a good idea.

I think this would be very helpful, maybe a highway, as well. However, I am waiting for the posters to see this new idea and claim it is Israeli propaganda or a ploy of some sort. I am so sad that I have come to expect that.

[Colorado Blue]

2. Well, from me you won't hear that:)

Lila tov.

[bemildred]

3. Yeah, what's not to like? nt

[Igel]

4. It's one of my favorite problems in the morass.

The claim is that the Fence prevents a viable Palestinian state. I'm sure it does, but I'd have to say that if glorious peace breaks out and an era of cooperation and ... (yada-yada) dawns, the gerrymandered borders won't matter a bit.

But even if the Fence comes down and both sides have rationally coherent borders, if there aren't fairly open borders one of the two countries is going to be badly split. Either there's going to be a narrow strip of Palestine that Israelis will have to cross, or there's going to be a wide strip of Israel for Palestinians to cross (well, a comparatively wide strip).

Does anybody know how the Russians have worked out land access to Kaliningrad?

[Colorado Blue]

5. Rand Corporation submitted a plan, perhaps this one is

based on it, which would have a rail line edged by parks, so forth.

I think, well, that's nice. Obviously, too, people from West Bank and Gaza need to be able to reach each other easily, quickly and safely.

But then Israel will be cut in half. What's to prevent bad people from using the rail line - INSIDE of Israel now, to attack? And if it crosses the Negev, as I assume it will, how will that affect the environment, the Bedouin, and the farmers trying to cultivate their fruits and vegetables?

It would be altogether different if there WERE a real commitment to peace. But I don't get that feeling at ALL.

I wish I felt more optimistic that this idea, and the withdrawal, and the ceding of territory, were doing anything but weaken Israel badly.

When I read discussion threads on Ha'aretz, and articles also, about how Jewish people anywhere near the mosque are considered IMPURITIES, it makes me very pessimistic.

And then, I start thinking about Jordan. I think, well, Jordan actually IS the eastern part of the Palestine Mandate.

I realize this is probably a sacreligious idea but what is actually so terrible about the West Bank joining back up with Jordan? Jordan has offered - the only nation to do so - full citizenship, no strings, to all Palestinians. Why wouldn't that make a more viable state for everybody? And if Gaza citizens wanted to join of course they could, or they could elect to be part of Egypt, or they could be independent -

OK, so get mad at me. I'm trying to think rationally here, about what would REALLY be best for the people involved.

[eyl]

6. Regarding the merger idea

I really doubt Jordan would agree. The last thing they want is another several million Palestinians (don't anyone be fooled by all the "Arab brotherhood" BS; the Arab states have - and do - treat the Palestinians like crap, and between them have probably killed more Palestinians than Israel has), especially the Islamist radicals. The same is true for Egypt. And Gaza is too samll to exist independently.

My prefered solution would be an underground rail link* (an underground road is also a possibility, but I suspect it would get jammed too easily) between Gaza and the WB. It would isolate people traveling between the two portions of the Palestinian state from Israel, and it should allay any Palestinian concerns of sabotage by Jewish terrorist (I'm not an engineer, but if it's built reasonably deep, I assume it would be impossible to cause significant damage to the tunnel from above without a major military force). The necessary expertise already exists (Europe, for example, has several major tunnels built); I assume it could be made available.

*No Freudian comments, please :)

[Colorado Blue]

7. After Black September in Jordan, I believe you're correct in

your assumption - the same probably applies to Egypt. Otherwise I'm sure these countries would have offered to retake control of those territories by now.

Maybe a giant subway would be the best idea. That would have the least impact in many ways.

How long is this proposed railroad?

[Igel]

8. I try to avoid getting mad.

If I get mad it's generally because my wife's working late, or the kid has decided his goal in life is turning off my computer when I'm using it. Then I usually seem to displace my anger towards some poor, innocent DUer.

Anyway, I thought the idea was once floated to have Jordan just take the West Bank. Didn't it annex it prior to 1967, and refuse to take it back sometime later?

This really is just a question--I think I read something one that presumed this as background information, with no support or even explicit claim.

I also think eyl's right, though; Jordan's already mostly (ethnically) Palestinian, by some accounts. Like Lebanon, it doesn't want to mess up the ethnic balance of power any more.

Sometimes I feel truly sorry for the Palestinian in the street: nobody wants them, except as a tool.

[Colorado Blue]

9. I think, sadly, your conclusion is accurate. I was afraid of

folks getting mad at the suggestion because I think, among certain Hamasniks, as well as political purists and partisans, such an idea is regarded as an attempt to dilute "Palestinian-ness".

Similarly, the immigration laws of most Arab states have catches - it isn't so easy for Palestinians to acquire citizenship anywhere in the Arab world. At least one government, I forget which (Egypt?) claims this is to prevent the dilution of Palestinian-ness.

This makes me mad.

For one thing, it keeps people in cages. I can't imagine how miserable it must be. People need lives, they need jobs, communities, a future.

Secondly, as you say, keeping people separate and hurting makes them an effective weapon.

That's obviously hurting EVERYBODY, keeping the conflict alive.

Thirdly, it's sort of a way of conferring retroactive Palestinian statehood and ethnicity on people. Indeed, in recent times, such statehood was REFUSED. Regional and local roots exist - some very old and deep - surely!

But many people immigrated into the area after the early 20th century and, in order to claim status as a "Palestinian refugee", one need only to have lived in the area since 1946. And the political doctrines of "Greater Syria" and "Pan Arabism" were actually more in line with the political viewpoints of the time, as I understand it? Did Jordan or Egypt ever try to create a separate entity or state? I don't think they did?

There was an al-Jazeera article posted someplace, I'll track it down, claiming the usual: the creation of Israel was the root of all the problems of the Arab world.

Having these particular pawns keeps that idea on the front burner and keeps the heat off the responsible parties.

I don't know if Jordan was offered the West Bank back and refused it, or not? We should look that up. Hussein certainly had good reasons not to want it!

The Discovery (Military) Channel show I saw about 6 Day War remarked, it was an absolutely brilliant war except for one problem: NO EFFECTIVE EXIT STRATEGY.

No kidding:)

[eyl]

10. Finding post titles is tedious :)

"Did Jordan or Egypt ever try to create a separate entity or state?"

Not that I'm aware of.

"I don't know if Jordan was offered the West Bank back and refused it, or not? We should look that up. Hussein certainly had good reasons not to want it!

The Discovery (Military) Channel show I saw about 6 Day War remarked, it was an absolutely brilliant war except for one problem: NO EFFECTIVE EXIT STRATEGY."

There was a strategy; it just didn't work. The Israeli government declared (June 19, 1967) it was willing to return the Territory to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in return for peace treaties (I should also note that among the Israeli public, the sxpectation was that the terrotiroy would be speedily returned; my father, who was in the IDF at the time, has a story of how he and a friend went AWOL to visit the Old City of Jerusalem while they could).

The Arab responce, as given in the Khartoum Conference, was "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it". That response, in turn, hurt the more conciliatory forces in Israel, and brought about the beginning of the settlements, as a pressure tactic (note that in the WB and Gaza, initially the settlements were established on locations of Jewish communities destroyed in 1948).

[Colorado Blue]

11. Peace - the ultimate exit strategy. I guess I'd forgotten THAT

idea.

I'll find the immigration law piece and append it later. Got to go out.

Also it would be good to post information about the settlements that were destroyed and then rebuilt. I posted one article about that but nobody paid much attention. It was called "Sacrificial Phoenix".

[eyl]

12. I'll try to do something next week

if I can find the time (if the moderators OK it, since it probably won't be based on a recent article); I'll PM you

[Colorado Blue]

13. That would be great. Meanwhile here's the link to the

citizenship laws:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x92841