The fallacy of land for peace

Submitted by Pat (United States), Nov 21, 2006 at 12:12

How many times did we hear that all Arabs wanted was the return of their lands that Israel had seized in the Six Day War? The treaty with Egypt was supposed to be proof of Arab intentions. Instead Egyptians assassinated the president who had regained the Sinai peninsula. Palestinians bomb Israel daily from sites in Gaza that are available to them only because Israelis were pressured to accept "land for peace".

Would smuggling of arms into Gaza be reduced or made more difficult if Israel still controlled the Sinai? What if they leave the West Bank? Would Jordan, which also has a peace treaty with Israel, become the next conduit for arms? The Golan Heights would seem to be a no-brainer.

Is it only a coincidence that the Iranian Revolution happened that same year? Instead of ushering in an era of peace, it seems to have been the catalyst for war upon the West. Instead of being a model for peace, the government of Egypt had to prove itself to its citizens and its fellow Muslims by fomenting anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism - almost as a penance for signing a treaty with Israel.

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".