These two articles offer a different perspective on the values of a two state solution. While I have my doubts about the outcome, these voices are real and need to be heard in order to have a better sense of the current stalemate and end-game by the Palestinian leadership.
by David Bedein
Consequences Of A Palestinian Arab State
At a time when a Palestinian Arab sovereign state is so widely discussed, very few have taken the time to consider the consequences of establishing such an entity.
1. Encirclement: Will a proposed sovereign Palestine not swallow up Jordan, most of whose population is Palestinian, leave Israel with a hostile state from the Iraqi border to the Mediterranean Sea, with a corridor across the Negev between Gaza to Hebron?
2. Israeli Arabs: Will the Arabs of Israel’s Galilee and Triangle region not sue for “autonomy,” and then demand the fulfillment of U.N. Resolution 181 – an Israeli withdrawal to the 1947 lines (which would entail the evacuation of Jews from Nahariya, Acre, Nazareth, Jaffa, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat and Beer Sheva?)
3. Terror: Will a new Palestinian entity disband terrorist organizations? After all, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has so far refused to dismantle or disband the Al Aksa Brigades of the Fatah which coordinates aerial attacks into Israel’s Western Negev region together with the Hamas.
4. Armament: Why should there be any expectation that a sovereign Palestine will uphold any commitment for demilitarization, since the Palestinian Authority has never upheld any such commitment since the Oslo Accords?
5. Refugees: Based on the Saudi plan as a basis for a Palestinian state, does that not mean that Israel will have to absorb descendents of refugees and displace thousands of Israelis from places like Haifa, Tfzat and Jaffa and collective farms built on the ruins of Arab neighborhoods or villages from where Arabs fled in 1948?
6. Air space: Will the Israel Air Force be forbidden from flying over the “West Bank,” just as it was banned from the Lebanese skies?
7. Alliances: Based on diplomatic experience with the Palestinian Authority, will a Palestine not violate every prohibition on signing military agreements with countries hostile to Israel, placing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on Israel’s borders?
8. Water: Like the Palestinian Authority before it, will a sovereign Palestine not carry out pirate drillings, and threaten the mountain aquifer overlooking Israel’s coastal plain?
9. Jewish sovereignty: Will the momentum of a Palestine not erase the right of the Jews to the land of Israel in international consciousness?
10. Loss of independence: Will Israel not become a protectorate that is subject to the Quartet – the U.S., the EU, the U.N. and Russia?
by GIYUS and IsraeliGirl
Change in small dosage is promising, swift and radical changes are deadly
Much has been said about the Arab Spring we’re witnessing in the Middle East and Northern Africa. The winds of change bring about promise of democracy and freedom for a region that has long been living under dictatorship regimes. But will these promises be fulfilled?
Freedom is a sacred element in western society. Once you experience freedom there is no going back. But have the revolutions in Egypt or Libya brought freedom to the people? Sadly that’s not the case.
Egypt, where a bloody revolution toppled Mubarak’s regime after 30 years, is now strongly ruled by the Military. Since the revolution the country is in a long and vague transitional period as it struggles to find an agreed method for democratic elections.
This vacuum is the greatest risk of such rapid changes. Radical Islamic elements are a strong force behind the Arab Spring revolution. But it is not freedom and democracy these elements seek. Freedom and democracy, the foundation of the western world, is what Radical Islam would like to abolish. The ultimate goal of radical Islamic movements is a global Islamic regime and the implementation of Sharia law for all.
Supporting the Arab Spring revolutions is a temporary choice allowing radical Islamic movements to capitalize on the change and take over.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic movement which has been banned in Mubarak’s time, has been gaining grounds and increasing its political impact in the country. Many Egyptians fear that it will dominate the elections if it will take place this fall, which will be the end of democracy in Egypt. Radical Islam has taken over Sinai region, a desert region near the Israeli border, and made that region a Wild West territory.
Take Libya as another example. Radical Islamists are among the leaders of rebels who have toppled Tripoli and are hunting down Moammar Gadhafi. Western powers chose to ignore these radical elements for now. However, if these radical Islamists elements among the rebel government succeed in gaining dominance in Libya, it would divide Libyan society between male and female and block the media and educational system from creating a secular society that can integrate with the West. Is this freedom? Is this democracy?
Change is good if done responsibly, taking into account society status before and after. In a closed society of the Arab world, swift changes can be deadly and can impact the whole region.
Change does not have to be radical to make an impact. Take a look at Uganda, an African nation where in the last 23 years, President Museveni has presided over a rapidly growing economy and a rapidly transforming society. Economic growth has led to rapid population growth; so the country is suffering from a youth bulge. But it has also led to rapid urban growth; vibrant economic activity in cities has attracted many youth out of the idleness of the village to seek opportunities in urban centers. Growth combined with government policy led to mass education as student enrolment in private and public schools, is at an all time high.
Almost 9 million students are enrolled in primary school today, up from 2.5 million in 1990, and university enrolment now stands at 70,000, up from 6,000 in 1990. All these changes are taking place in the context of rapidly spreading mass media; Uganda now has over 200 private FM radio stations, over 150 newspapers, 20 local television stations and more than 3.2 million people access internet.
These great slow changes have created greater demand from society, which create frustration when the country is not able to fulfill these demands. As a result, Uganda has seen its share of protests against regime policies. But as no political party is banned, these issues are being dealt with through direct dialogue between President Museveni and the younger generation of leaders.
Responsible change is what this region needs. Let’s hope other countries will follow Uganda’s example so we could all enjoy peace and stability in Africa and the Middle East.
