A three state solution

Submitted by jerry krasnow (United States), Sep 15, 2009 at 17:39

The defacto situation on the ground is that three entities govern the Palestine/Israel territory: Hamas in Gaza, Fatah in the West Bank and Israel in its nation. When Pakistan was split off from India into a western and eastern part (with India inbetween), it split into three states: Pakistan in the West, Bangladesh in the East and India inbetween. The two state solution requires that a corridore be established across Israel to link the two pieces of a future Palestinian nation. This concept was envisioned in the UN partition. It did not make sense then, it makes less sense now.

Why three states? The Westbank is a land locked area. To survive it must make peace with its neighbors. Through out the recent missile attacks from Gaza, few attacks came from the Westbank areas. It already has a defacto peace. Gaza is a different situation.

Gaza can obtain weapons from the sea and accross the Eqyptian boarder. Should Hamas be the ruler of a nation in Gaza, then it will have an army. Although Israel seeks to have any Palestian state(s) disarmend, allowing them to have army opens the possibility for peace. The Gaza leadership will either elect to fight a war or choose peace and prosperity. As nation to nation, the possibility for defeat exists. The status quo of underdog verse Goliath ends. At the end of the conflict, peace can emerge as the will to fight is broken (Daniel Pipes argument).

A two state solution is no solution. A three state solution can lead to peace.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".