Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 15, 2009 in International, War | 3 comments

A Demilitarized Palestinian State

Part of Netanyahu’s agreement to establish a Palestinian state is the condition that the state be demilitarized. It isn’t as radical an idea as it’s made out to be. It is also flat wrong, and will make Israel less secure in the process.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • DLS

    Wow. You’re right, at least partially, this time. I’m not sure about the motive this time, but there is a flaw in Netanyahu’s stance that is something I mentioned long ago and it’s obvious, though understandable.

    Not being able to have a military (which is what Netanyahu means by “de-militarized”), or not being able to enter into mutual defense pacts with other Arab nations or Iran (which Netanyahu has also opposed), means that such a “state” is not fully sovereign, and this probably won’t be accepted by the Arabs, which I’ve said for years.

    (Readers who are unsure of this should look at the inverse situation of the more unreal stances among some Quebecois seperatists who want “independence” but want to retain Canadian citizenship, currency, et cetera. They don’t want to be fully sovereign, either for quirky reasons or just to reduce their costs and obligations to Ottawa. The related issue: what things define or constitute complete [separate] sovereignty?)

    It’s perfectly understandable other than that, given the Arabs’ decades-long criminal-conduct record, with a contemporary new Palestinian state with a military being the equivalent of “Hamas on steroids” with not just military assets smuggled to it but an openly raised huge army, tanks, artillery, bombers, and such.

    It’s a flaw and won’t be accepted by the Arabs, but overall Netanyahu was refreshing in that he at least for now somewhat deflated Obama’s reaching-to-extremist position and public overreach that undercuts the bargaining position of Israel. Nothing else really is at issue — Jerusalem need not be divided and of course there is no “right of return,” which correctly involves only the 1948 people but not any descendents or other relatives, anyway, for example. The Green Line is of course not sacrosanct or “holy.” Etc.

  • DLS,
    I think Jerusalem will be a huge sticking point. I personally like the idea of making it UN run Vatican. A state within two states…

  • DLS

    Chris WWW: Agreed on Jerusalem. I’ve advocated the same as an alternative (“that way neither party gets it nor has a reason to resent the other party and fight over it”) and even thought that if ever the UN itself were relocated, Jerusalem is a good candidate site.

    Demanding no military (thus, however, no complete or true sovereignty) for a Palestinian state is something Netanyahu has insisted on before, in at least one or two books and I suppose in other writings. I don’t know if he’ll counter any rejection of this and demand for full sovereignty with what is logical and rational on its own, borders for Israel that go to the height of the adjacent lands (which would be presented as an alternative to maintain a strong adherence for inherent safety for Israel), but which extend so far this also would also be rejected. (The Green Line is nothing magical or proper by everyone is learning that any eventual borders won’t often range too far from it, and will probably constitute a set of cessions on both sides of the line to each nation.)

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :