December 05, 2012
Another Map Disproving E-1 Contiguity Claims
A few days ago, we posted a map demonstrating that Israeli development in the so-called E-1 corridor between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem doesn't preclude a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank — certainly no more than a Palestinian state in the West Bank would make Israel itself noncontiguous.
Below is another map showing the same thing. This map was drawn up by Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton's chief negotiator during the Camp David peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, for Ross's book The Missing Peace. The map represents Clinton's peace proposal, which was rejected by Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.
The map clearly shows the E-1 area under Israeli control and a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.
So although Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times both repeat the mantra that Israeli building would (in Friedman's words) "sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state," this is simply not true. The development of E-1 might impact Palestinian demands about the contours of a future state. It might impact the sides' conflicting claims on Jerusalem. But whatever the pros and cons, it does not prevent a contiguous Palestinian state, and it certainly does not prevent a viable Palestinian state.
Posted by GI at December 5, 2012 02:32 PM
The key here is that UN242 required both sides to discuss, and negotiate a settement of the borders, etc. along with which refugees from the wars would be allowed to relocate to Israel proper. Abbas abrogated the resolution, the Pales leadership saying it was irrelevant, and allowed Israel to "procrastinate". The borders shown have several purposes for Israel and the Palestinians. By rejecting any compromise to their demands, the Palestinians are sending a strong message, all or war with us and consternation by the world ( UN, etc.), Either we have what we want and complete sovereignty, or else. Its the OR else that matters. Or wlse what? Israel can look to the Levy Commission, (already contested by many) for it's rights. It can go to the Geneva Convention, etc. for legal support. But in the end, its what Israel will accept and tolerate. The stronger the other side ( all its enemies become, the weaker Israel's stance). Anyone with any sense can understand that. Why the dispute? Israel must decide it's red lines, and not deviate, which it has consistently in the past. (Recall Bib's speech at Bar Ilan). While Israel has the power and arms and defensive capabilities, it rules.
The opposite, and Israel is short lived. Think about it, Iran will have nukes and Syria has the Sarin. Hamas/Hezbolah/Islamic Jiahd claim victories galore. Whether or not true, Israel did back down AGAIN. The politics in Israel (60P parties is a farce. The Arabs are watching, killing one another, and laughing at Israel. Disapora Jewry is divided along emotional, and not practicxal lines. Where are they coming from in all this, considering the last election.
Has liberalism and Tikkin Olam replaced the Torah, or at least some laws of Moses? Does abortion trump the security of 6m and perhaps 14m people? Did anyone notice the 2 Muslims indicted for attempting to blow up a Manhattan shul recently? Today the synagogue, tomorrow what?
Think about it.
Posted by: Noah Lev at December 6, 2012 11:28 AM
It seems to me that no matter if Israel is right or not the UN and it cohort arabs will always find fault with the Jewish State. The UN is even
ignoring it's own resolutions 242, etc. concerning
the establishment of the Jewish State (which by the way dates back over 3000 years). The arabs have always maintained a status of war with Israel and therefor legally has no right to any
land within the boundaries that the arabs lost during their 3, yes 3, invasions of the State of Israel. Where is it written that Israel has to return territory, that was theirs originally, when the arab states invaded. Jerusalem was never arab but Jordan invaded and occupied the Capitol
during the 1948 war. What short memories the anti-Jews (anti-Israel) have and the UN is definitely no help.
Posted by: William C Gelberg at December 6, 2012 02:18 PM
You should have a dialogue with Tom Friedman. You point out the obvious, that the building in E1 doesn't appear to make it impossible to have a continguous Palestinian state. Tom Friedman surely knows what you show on your map. Yet he thinks otherwise. I would love to hear his response.
I am concerned about the preaching to the choir by Israel. I am concerned by its tin ear in the face of international condemnation of its actions. Surely, Israel could exercise a little finesse in its dealings with the international community. I see only clumsy actions that isolate Israel. Disraeli is surely turning in his grave. The art of real politic seems unlearnable by the current leaders of Israel. I am so dissapointed.
Posted by: Peter at December 6, 2012 03:11 PM
I agree with the writer and I request both Mr. Friedman and Ms.Doud to retract their statements.
Posted by: Charles Lien at December 6, 2012 04:01 PM
It is also worth noting that the 1947 partition plan had both the Jewish state and the Arab state divided into three pieces, with contiguity at two locations where Jewish and Arab pieces met at a point. Presumably the idea was to have some tunnel / overpass arrangement.
Similar infrastructure is envisioned for E1. Indeed, the development map for "Ramat E1" has areas of housing narrowing to a point, presuably to have a tunnel underneath.
Some reporter needs to document this in a very concrete way so that it will be hard for the foreign press to ignore it.
Posted by: Michael Segal at December 8, 2012 04:24 PM
Guidelines for posting
This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.