Comments on: Israeli Chief Rabbi: Expel Gazans to Sinai, Make It ‘Like Arizona’

By: Aston Kwok

Aston Kwok — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:27:17 +0000

I largely agree with your response. (See my subsequent response to your latest blog entry.)
At this point, I wonder to what extent would Hamas be able to prove its credibility in the eyes of the Israeli government. One of the sticking point will be Israeli government’s open concern for weapon smuggling into Gaza. There will be people in Hamas who feel that weapon smuggling is a legitimate part of their continual resistance, while the Israeli security establishment will be paranoid about weapon smuggling into Gaza in the event of any ceasefire.
Can I borrow some lessons from the Irish experience here? It took IRA many years to finally agree to disarm. Many in Hamas will find halt to weapon smuggling very difficult pill to swallow.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:14:05 +0000

Aston Kwok: If you read my most recent post it contains a ceasefire proposal drafted by a settler rabbi and Hamas journalist who received approval of senior Hamas Gaza officials which guarantees an end to ALL rocket fire from all Palestinian sources. I agree that such an outcome is imperative for real peace and that Hamas must prove itself able to enforce such an outcome if it is to have any credibility. I believe that it can do so if it wants to do so & is motivated to do so. And I believe that if Israel puts on the table the provisions mentioned in the Froman ceasefire proposal that Hamas would prove itself credible. Can I prove this to you or even myself to my full satisfaction? No. But am I willing to test Hamas to see if it is credible? You bet.

By: Aston Kwok

Aston Kwok — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:47:56 +0000

Richard Silverstein said,

January 29, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

what is his solution to the overcrowded Gaza population

Gaza needs no other “solution” than removing the siege & allowing the people there to engage in normal commerce & travel. Allowing Gaza to have its own air & seaport so it can create a thriving economy along w. jobs. Of course, it (& Sderot as well) needs a truce with the IDF such as Hamas has offered numerous times to Israel.

Hmm… I recognize that ordinary Gazans desperately need to regain control over their airspace, seaports and border crossing to rebuild their economy. However, as far as I can understand, there still isn’t an adequate counter-response to the pro-Israeli argument, that there are still factions within Gaza that sees firing rockets into Sderot as legitimate acts of violence, and quite often they do it with the open support of the Hamas government. The offer of truce from Hamas is pretty meaningless since Hamas has stated in the past that it will not stop attacks on Israel by other factions from Gaza, such as Islamic Jihad. In fact it would not be too cynical to imagine Hamas providing logistical support to Islamic Jihad that fire rockets into Sderot. Correct me if I am wrong.

By: Zhu Bajie

Zhu Bajie — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:31:52 +0000

Arizona differs from Sinai in having a major river, the Colorado, for irrigation, etc. Sinai has no rivers. Mt. Sinai itself gets enough winter rainfall for some limited dry land agriculture, but the Sinai peninsula probably cannot sustain a larger population than at present.

The emptiest US state is N. Dakota. It has a semi-arid climate, not desert, and a major river, the Missouri, but great extremes of temperature. (There’s a reason only 500, 000 people live there!) The existing population probably doesn’t want new immigrants, either. (There are enough quarrels already between Dakota indians and White settlers!)

Sorry to interrupt politics with practicalities! Really, Amos Oz has the right idea: that you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.

Zhu Bajie

By: Amir

Amir — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:34:35 +0000

shamai leibowitz,
Metger is making a proposal. His proposal includes cooperation (and therefore acceptance) by America, England and the European Union. It is implicit, therefore, that it also requires acceptance by Egypt and the Palestinians because I don’t think that Metzger is so kooky that he thinks the US and EU would join Israel in invading Egypt conquering the Sinai desert and transferring the Gazan Arabs to there. I agree that this is not a realistic proposal that Egypt and the Hamas would accept, but it is not monstrous or hateful either.
Many Jews were in favor of establishing a Jewish homeland in Uganda (including Herzl at one point) or in Argentina or anywhere possible. Israel Zangwill established Jewish Territorialist Organization in 1905 and wanted to establish a Jewish homeland anywhere feasible and not necesarilly in the land of Israel. Today there are streets named after Zangwill in Israel. Nobody thinks he was a monster. These people searched for practical (in their view at the time) solutions to urgent problems. In the end, those that insisted that the Jewish state be established in the land of Israel prevailed.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:58:05 +0000

Shamai: Thanks for adding yr perspective. I would add that Metzger is a “nice” civilized Jew as opposed to outright rabid Jewish nationalists who would use terms like “expel” at the drop of a hat. So I wouldn’t expect him to be so blatant in his terminology. But Shamai & I have been observers of the Israeli political scene for decades & we know the implications & nuances of statements like his.

As for Solution Seeker’s proposal–while it might have merit in theoretical terms no country in the Middle East is about to willingly sell or trade its land to another no matter how laudable the intent of the project is. I’m afraid that Gazans will have to settle (hopefully) for a peace settlement that will enable them to rebuild their society & economy. Those who wish will be able to move to the West Bank or emigrate. And those who remain will be able to earn a living. Gaza will always be a densely populated & perhaps very poor place. But as a free place it will have many more options than it now has.

By: solution seeker

solution seeker — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:31:09 +0000

Thanks for clarifying that Shamai.

I like my proposal better.

By: shamai leibowitz

shamai leibowitz — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:53:04 +0000

Richard, Solution Seeker, Amir et. al:
I really don’t see the point of all this Talmudic-style discussion over the interpretation of his words. Here’s what he said:

“My opinion is, and I didn’t tell it until today or yesterday to anyone, I think that there is a solution. If American, England, European Union, will take care to build a new Palestinian country in Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, and to take all the poor people from Gaza—even now they have such a bad economic situation very bad – to move them to a wonderful new country with trains, with buses, with cars, like in Arizona in America.”
(emphasis added)

“to move them to a wonderful new country” - what’s ambiguous about that? Not “they will want to leave”, not even “let’s make conditions so miserable and horrific they will opt to make an exodues toward Egypt”.
Some things don’t have to be spelled out. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, when someone suggests “to move” a people to another country, it has only one meaning: forcefully transfer them. In international law parlance, it is called a war crime. It’s nice that you want to be melamed zchut on this Metzger, but, sorry, it doesn’t fly.

By: solution seeker

solution seeker — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:45:48 +0000

I meant RS, not RW.

By: solution seeker

solution seeker — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:45:10 +0000

RW: “The entire point of his proposal is that moving Gaza out of Gaza would remove the security threat to Israel. To leave Gazans there would negate the entire purpose of his proposal.”

Wouldn’t it just move the border and create a similar threat, this time coming from Sinai? If Metzger’s real goal is to expel the current occupants of Gaza, surely he would plan for Israeli Jews to settle the area. They would still be bordering on a Palestinian State and still be threatened by missles; only these would be coming from Sinai rather than Gaza.

Now Richard, I want to reiterate that I’m not disputing that your interpretation of Metzger could be right on the money about what he was really saying. Chances are, it is, but I did not hear in the interview that he explicitly was speaking of an expulsion of all Gazans and not simplying implying it as a way to enlarge Gaza to make it livable. Your cynicism is more than well warranted here, but I’m constantly on guard against the bias my own cynicism as well that of others may play in interpreting others’ comments. Are you, or others, aware of any subsequent comments he may have made since that would clarify what he is actually proposing? You are dead on about the failure of the interviewer to ask him the relevant follow up question. I’m wondering if anyone else has followed up with him for clarification.

I would be very curious about what some Palestinians actually think about the different potential implications of his comments. While I assume most would be strongly against any idea to be forcibly moved, again, what would they think of the solution I proposed earlier: enlarge Gaza through incorporating pieces of the Sinai and possibly the Negev in order to create a more sustainable and viable Palestinian state. Again, I realize my proposal has me being very generous with other people’s money and land, but a one state solution, however just, is unlikely to be acceptable to the parties in the region, and a 2-state solution can only work if both states are viable. Given that, is this a potentially win-win scenario? Palestinians win because they get a more viable state and something really worth not losing in another war. Israelis win because they get a peace settlement. Egyptians win because they get significant, and much needed long term monetary compensation for essentially selling off a piece of their desert, and they benefit from the stablization in the region and its subsequent peace dividend to all parties. A more realistic , OK, well less fantastic, scenario would have the Egyptians maintaining control of thet coast line and the resort areas and the new Palestinian territory beginning south of the coastal strip. Egypt could retain mineral rights as well, thus minimizing their financial loss from donating the land.