Posted on 03/14/2005 3:55:13 PM PST by SJackson
A new word has recently crept into the lexicon of would-be Middle East peacemakers and those who comment about such issues.
The word is "contiguous", as in "being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point," according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. It lately is being used to describe the final disposition of a second Palestinian-Arab state, which itself seems to have become a forgone conclusion right under our collective noses.
Everyone is using the term these days, from American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to US President George Bush, to President of the European Union Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg. They now speak of a "contiguous Palestinian state" as though it has always been part of the peace process equation. Previously, the concept was relegated to the list of seemingly outlandish goals of Israel's enemies to help bring about the end of "the Zionist entity".
Rather quickly, though, this concept has gone from pipe dream to fact. Now, what the international community is saying - no, insisting - is that the coming "Palestinian state" must be "contiguous". In other words, the three territorial areas that will be excised from Israel - Samaria and Judea ("the West Bank") and the Gaza Strip - must all be attached.
But "Google" back to previous comments from world leaders about the Middle East, the peace process or the "Palestinian state" prior to, say, December, and you'll barely find it mentioned. For example, President Bush never used the word in his historic June 24, 2002 speech about the Middle East.
Of course, this is not the first time a new buzzword has been attached to the discussion about this part of the world. It joins "self-determination", "right of return", "occupation", and even "Palestinian" itself, as words or phrases that have taken on a new meaning as they have been linked to this phenomenon euphemistically called "the Middle East conflict".
While each of these terms has carried dangerous implications for Israel - all invoked by the Arabs and their supporters throughout Europe, the United States and the media to squeeze the tiny Jewish state to near capitulation - this newest word added to the mix of demands made on Israel poses the greatest threat yet to Israel's existence.
Here's why this is not mere hyperbole:
Take a look at a map of Israel that includes its Arab neighbors, as well as the territory that the world has earmarked for this future Palestinian state. Somewhat smaller than New Jersey, Israel, like the Garden State, has a very narrow waist. Now look at "the West Bank" and the Gaza Strip. Notice that in order for these areas to be connected or "contiguous", Israel must literally be cut in half.
Whether unwittingly or not, Bush, Rice and others' pronouncements play right into exactly what Yasser Arafat had envisioned as part of his "phased-plan" of 1974: get what you can through diplomacy, then get the rest through violence. A senior Palestinian Authority Imam, Ibrahim Mudyris, advocated this very strategy in his Friday sermon broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television earlier this month.
Unable to destroy Israel through traditional military means or via countless terrorist attacks, Israel's enemies and their facilitators are hoping that this "divide-Israel-and-conquer" ploy may be the solution to their problem at last.
Of course, there are those who insist that this "new" Palestinian-Arab leadership headed by Mahmoud Abbas wants to live in peace with Israel, so, therefore, Israel should trust it. But already, its actions - executing those who warned Israel about violence and incorporating wanted terrorists into its security forces, for starters - contradict any verbal expressions of peaceful co-existence. Abbas himself, Arafat's deputy for 40-plus years, has only spoken out against shootings and homicide bombings as a poor tactical choice, rather than as anathema to a civilized society.
What concrete actions have the Palestinian-Arabs taken since Arafat's death to demonstrate this sudden desire for peace with Israel? The government has done nothing, actually, while the people have elected Hamas members to lead them in localities. This is the same Hamas that openly continues to call for Israel's destruction.
But why must Israel, who agreed to the United Nations' partition compromise, while the Arabs rejected the proposal that would have created a separate Arab state in 1948, make this additional, and perhaps fatal, sacrifice? After all, the territory for this second Palestinian-Arab state (Jordan was the first) is being taken from land Israel acquired in a defensive war from Egypt and Jordan (who had illegally occupied it). Is Israel the only party that must make "painful compromises"?
Some try to justify this latest compromise to be imposed on Israel by using the example of Alaska and how it is cut off from the continental United States by hundreds of miles of Canadian territory as proof that a nation can safely allow itself to be bisected. Of course, the Canadians have never sent rockets into Juneau or Seattle, or teens with bombs strapped around their chests, for that matter. The same cannot be said about the Palestinian-Arabs.
No, before world leaders should engage in any serious talk of "contiguity", it is incumbent for the Palestinian-Arabs to prove that they have turned a new leaf. Get the anti-Israel incitement out of the schools and off of TV and radio. Palestinian-Arab leaders must renounce - in Arabic - any and all claims to Israeli territory or return of so-called "refugees" to cities, towns and villages in Israel. Talk is too cheap to warrant such blind trust. Let's remove this word "contiguous" from the Middle East lexicon before we cross this Rubicon prematurely.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
The goal of ISLAM is to destroy all infidels.
They do not get to decide.
Next item...
* SM© = Sweet Muslims
Heck, I was going to argue the opposite: that having Alaska as a non-contiguous part of the US isn't viable and that British Columbians would be happy to be liberated from their Canuckistani oppressors. 54°40' or fight!< /humor>
But I've assumed what is meant is the West Bank would be contiguous and not cut up by Israeli settlements, roads or military zones. If that's what they mean, they should use more precise language.
There are a lot of things I could say here. Since Israel's foes cannot beat the IDF in a fair fight on the battlefield, they are going for the "nibble away" approach, to nibble away Israel by degrees in an attempt to achieve their evil goal. The idiot Euabians, and sadly, the US aministration, are playing right into their hands.
allah fubar
You're probably correct. Way too much talking, given the fact that nothing has happened on the ground. But much of the world hasn't interpreted it that way, and State hasn't issued a correction. As ludicrous as it seems, for the first time it might be on the table.
That's officially known as The Phased Plan of 1974. It's not like they haven't made their intentions clear.
Yep, I've read the 1974 plan. They've been clear as a bell, but too many either don't care, just ignore it, or think that if we send lots of aid and "encourage" them to be "democratic" that they'll be good boys and girls and everything will be all roses and teddy-bears. When one's enemies still have in their national covenant the extinguishing of one's country, those are not people to talk to or make nicey with. But I know I'm talking to the converted.
Maybe Abbas just lied to get elected as he can now rig future elections in his favor, as is the fashion in the Arab world. But if there will be reasonably free elections in the future in Palistan, I don't see how Abbas can renege on this. So, more "process" with no deal is my prediction.
Israel must simply and forcefully say no.
I'm not sure they owe an answer to this nonsense at all.
I think you're right, which is why it's important to continue with a unilateral disengagement, despite the pain.
Oh, they must answer. Only when Isreal states the land belongs to Israel with confidence will others respect them.
Agreed!
You're right.
Texas and New Mexico need to send some ranchers to teach the Israelis about "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up."
Shrub needs to get back to Texas and pick up some barnyard brains so he can understand that if the terrorist state of palistine is created contiguous, then Israel will not be contiguous and will be destroyed. The answeer is to march all the squaters of islamic of arab heredity to reservations in Jordan and Egypt and solve the problem once and for all with the pretenders home where they belong.
There is a contiguous "Palestinian" state. It's called Jordan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.