Thursday, January 29, 2009

Israel's dilemma

Israel has been haunted for years in search of a peace plan not knowing how to overcome some very basic problems in the current trend of negotiations.

One has been the security factor.  As military options have made reaction time become even shorter, the narrow neck of coastal Israeli land has never been more perilous.  

Another has been the higher birth rate among non Jewish peoples in the entire Israel/Palestine area.  It is a ticking time bomb for some sort of solution against the current almost one state reality of the region.

This, mixed with the more balanced coverage of the media covering the conflict, has also pushed Israel between a rock and a hard place.

As time has gone on much of the negotiated solutions have addressed so much land with so many people.  The West Bank has become a maze of horror to attempt this balancing act.

From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Israel just cannot seem to let go of any land.

So I got to thinking.  Just what WOULD Israel give up?  This I pondered long and many months.

Then of course the line "It does not mention any Hiltons on the Gulf of Aqaba in the Bible."

So I started there.   Slowly moving north.  Area by area.  Could Israel live without Eilat?  What about Dimona?   Would Israel give up Beersheba for peace?

This thinking went back and forth for literally months.   What would the Israeli's give for peace?   What would they be willing to trade to make that narrow gap along the sea miraculously grow wider and wider?

Then I found about the South District of Israel.  

Now we were talking.  But it was just too much.  Close.  But too much.   Mainly too many people and too many military considerations again (bases, nuclear research facilities).   There was also sights such as Masada.  I just did not think that that could be on the table.   Also there was the great barrier of the Dead Sea and the evaporation ponds.  Can't buy fortifications like that.

So time and time again I revisited the maps of the South District.   Move this line over.  Put that one back.  This line up, that is 100,000 people who would feel the compulsion to move.  Move it back down, they can stay right were they are with no qualms.   In the upper reaches I kept coming back to Highway or Route 35.  The road to Hebron.   Connected the West Bank and Gaza: check.  Nice balance of farm land below with potential for sale/trade with farmers in the Upper West Bank.

And finally it came to Ashkelon.   I had already decided upon Elat and Beersheba as being tradable.  Dimona and Arod not so much.   What would get people to pick up, take all their possessions and leave places like Ramallah and Nablus?  To say nothing of people in East Jerusalem.   Eilat and Beersheba was not enough.  Ashkelon would have to be part of the trade.

So I settled my mind on Route 35.   What below Route 35 would Israel give away?  Keep?  A wall right down the center of much of divided Route 35 could be up in no time.  Sulha 35 just grew from the image of Route 35.

Then, like a Sudoku puzzle, it seems that if this goes there, then that has to go there.  I just kept working like that all based upon Route 35.  Again Sulha 35 Plan

No comments:

Post a Comment