This is my proposal to end the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Egypt will be given the West Bank enlarged by land equivalent to the Gaza Strip. In return, Israel will be given the Gaza Strip and land at least 3 times larger than the West Bank in the Sinai Peninsula. Some of the land will be adjacent to water so Israel can build desalination plants. The Sinai is inhospitable, and Egypt doesn’t have the technology to develop it, but Israel does. With its new land, Egypt can give it to the Palestinians, make it a state within Egypt, or whatever it wants.
They would lose out on a ton of land in Sinai in exchange for less land in West Bank that they could only access with the blessing of other states, and which is populated with people who do not want to be Egyptian. Egypt would have no real way to exert control. The Egyptian people would get quite upset at Egyptians being displaced for Israel to be made bigger.
I don’t think even Israel would want this for various reasons either.
Egypt would get less but more fertile land. In my proposal Israel would be given Gaza in exchange for an equivalent piece of land adjacent to the West Bank. This piece of land could connect the West Bank to the Sinai. Consequently, Egypt would be connected to the West Bank. Palestinians will prefer to live in their present land under Egyptian rule than be displaced or killed.
Gaza isn’t nearly big enough for an equivalent sized strip of land to be able to connect West Bank to the Red Sea, at least not without bisecting Israel which they would have no interest in… so it all remains inaccessible.
Even back at the height of Arab nationalism and when Egypt actually administered Gaza it did not lay claim to Gaza and claimed to govern it on behalf of the Palestinian people until they had a state of their own, and refused to take Gaza even when offered as a part of the peace treaty with Israel. So it seems unlikely that Egyptian politicians would suddenly want to be in charge of Palestine now.
Jordan meanwhile had annexed the West Bank and laid claim to it for two decades even after Israel occupied West Bank but that was deeply unpopular with Palestinian people and led to unrest, assassination of the king and civil war in Black September, even despite the ongoing Israeli occupation of West Bank. That doesn’t indicate that Palestinians would be happy to suddenly be considered Egyptian rather than having a state of their own.
I made a mistake. The additional land would connect the West Bank to the Mediterranean Sea. Consequently, Egypt would have access to the land through the Mediterranean. Israel would be bisected but the two sections would be connected through the Mediterranean.
The situation has changed. Israel is displacing the Palestinians. Some could end up being refugees in Egypt.
The article being discussed indicates that a two-state solution is unlikely. Palestinians would be happy to be ruled by Egypt rather than being displaced or dead.
Connection by ports, one being glued onto the end of a paper thin corridor, is rather tenuous and that chickenneck is virtually impossible to defend. Egypt once had much easier connections over the sea that at least weren’t constrained by a tiny corridor to Syria as a part of the UAR but that fell to disaster when a coup was launched in Syria that rapidly assumed control of that area and resulted in Syria exiting the UAR.
Israel for its part is unlikely to go along either. It considers West Bank as some of the most important and most desirable land to annex for many reasons; long long ago it was the core territory of both the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel so they consider it as ancestral land, it is close to built up areas of present day Israel and already has many illegal settlements which in total contain well over half a million people so it already has strong economic weight to it. They are obsessed with strategic buffers and this idea would literally cut their state in half, plus leave some of their most populated areas right on the border with a state that would be very difficult for Egypt to exert any control over i.e. one likely to be easily overrun by Palestinian groups hostile to Israel yet able to use the area being technically Egyptian territory as a shield.
Neither the PLO nor Hamas nor other Palestinian groups of significance seem to be making any overtures to being annexed by anyone else, unless you have found some evidence otherwise? By all accounts I’ve seen they want a state of their own. And the states neighboring Israel have not taken new Palestinian refugees for decades specifically because of the concern that Israel would displace the Palestinian population to any country that allows it and not allow them back.
Who would Egypt have to defend the West Bank against?
Yes, the West Bank has Biblical significance but so has the Sinai. The Israelites passed through the land from Egypt. Under my proposal, Israel has the potential to become a much larger and populous country. If there is a rebellion in the West Bank, Egypt could ask Israel for assistance.
They may want a state of the own but as the article we are discussing suggests, that is unlikely. The choice would be to live under Egypt possibly as a state within Egypt or be displaced or dead.
Well, for one… Israel? There would still be a segment of Israeli society that want to control the West Bank at all costs that could take control of the government at some point, and now Egypt has a weakened strategic position in Sinai.
There’s a reason Israel was willing to give away Sinai for peace with Egypt but insisted on occupying West Bank when they’re sought peace with Jordan. They consider West Bank of far greater importance than desert land that you yourself said is much less productive. And do you think there would be the tiniest bit of a problem if there is a Palestinian rebellion in Egypt that has Egypt intentionally call on Israel to occupy the Palestinians? How would they ever regain Palestinian trust after that? And once Israel intervenes in such a way do you really think they would leave?
They may want a state of the own but as the article we are discussing suggests, that is unlikely. The choice would be to live under Egypt possibly as a state within Egypt or be displaced or dead.
The article says that two state is unpopular on both sides. That does not mean that Palestinians have given up and want to be annexed to random other countries. The idea of Palestinian backing single state supporters is that if enough pressure of some kind is put on Israel (which could be diplomacy and economic means or military and other depending on who you talk to), the apartheid treatment of Palestinians under occupation will be put to an end and they can exercise political power in conjunction with Israeli Arabs and currently displaced Palestinian refugees which would put Palestinians in the majority. There are groups in both Israel and Palestine that support a single state and it can be the good kind of single state where everyone gets along with equal rights or the bad kind of single state where everyone on the wrong side gets kicked out or worse or on some sort of spectrum between those depending on who you talk to. Obviously there are big problems with achieving a single state desirable to Palestinians because Israel does not want occupied Palestinians to have political rights nor for Palestinian refugees to have right of return so that Israel may be maintained as a Jewish state which is a giant obstacle. The two state solution was once considered the most viable path that but it’s been undermined for many many years.
The Sinai is desert, but Israel would be given a larger portion of land than it’s giving up. I would say 3 times larger. Israel has the technology to develop the Sinai, but Egypt doesn’t. Israel doesn’t have to send in troops to stop a rebellion. It would give Egypt the intelligence. Israel has the technology to eavesdrop on cell phone conversations.
Israel won’t give up the West Bank and Gaza especially areas Israelis have built settlements. In my plan, Israel would have to give those settlements. As you said the two-state solution has been undermined. Then try something else like my proposal.
This is my proposal to end the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Egypt will be given the West Bank enlarged by land equivalent to the Gaza Strip. In return, Israel will be given the Gaza Strip and land at least 3 times larger than the West Bank in the Sinai Peninsula. Some of the land will be adjacent to water so Israel can build desalination plants. The Sinai is inhospitable, and Egypt doesn’t have the technology to develop it, but Israel does. With its new land, Egypt can give it to the Palestinians, make it a state within Egypt, or whatever it wants.
Why would Egypt want this?
They would lose out on a ton of land in Sinai in exchange for less land in West Bank that they could only access with the blessing of other states, and which is populated with people who do not want to be Egyptian. Egypt would have no real way to exert control. The Egyptian people would get quite upset at Egyptians being displaced for Israel to be made bigger.
I don’t think even Israel would want this for various reasons either.
Egypt would get less but more fertile land. In my proposal Israel would be given Gaza in exchange for an equivalent piece of land adjacent to the West Bank. This piece of land could connect the West Bank to the Sinai. Consequently, Egypt would be connected to the West Bank. Palestinians will prefer to live in their present land under Egyptian rule than be displaced or killed.
Gaza isn’t nearly big enough for an equivalent sized strip of land to be able to connect West Bank to the Red Sea, at least not without bisecting Israel which they would have no interest in… so it all remains inaccessible.
Even back at the height of Arab nationalism and when Egypt actually administered Gaza it did not lay claim to Gaza and claimed to govern it on behalf of the Palestinian people until they had a state of their own, and refused to take Gaza even when offered as a part of the peace treaty with Israel. So it seems unlikely that Egyptian politicians would suddenly want to be in charge of Palestine now.
Jordan meanwhile had annexed the West Bank and laid claim to it for two decades even after Israel occupied West Bank but that was deeply unpopular with Palestinian people and led to unrest, assassination of the king and civil war in Black September, even despite the ongoing Israeli occupation of West Bank. That doesn’t indicate that Palestinians would be happy to suddenly be considered Egyptian rather than having a state of their own.
I made a mistake. The additional land would connect the West Bank to the Mediterranean Sea. Consequently, Egypt would have access to the land through the Mediterranean. Israel would be bisected but the two sections would be connected through the Mediterranean.
The situation has changed. Israel is displacing the Palestinians. Some could end up being refugees in Egypt.
The article being discussed indicates that a two-state solution is unlikely. Palestinians would be happy to be ruled by Egypt rather than being displaced or dead.
Connection by ports, one being glued onto the end of a paper thin corridor, is rather tenuous and that chickenneck is virtually impossible to defend. Egypt once had much easier connections over the sea that at least weren’t constrained by a tiny corridor to Syria as a part of the UAR but that fell to disaster when a coup was launched in Syria that rapidly assumed control of that area and resulted in Syria exiting the UAR.
Israel for its part is unlikely to go along either. It considers West Bank as some of the most important and most desirable land to annex for many reasons; long long ago it was the core territory of both the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel so they consider it as ancestral land, it is close to built up areas of present day Israel and already has many illegal settlements which in total contain well over half a million people so it already has strong economic weight to it. They are obsessed with strategic buffers and this idea would literally cut their state in half, plus leave some of their most populated areas right on the border with a state that would be very difficult for Egypt to exert any control over i.e. one likely to be easily overrun by Palestinian groups hostile to Israel yet able to use the area being technically Egyptian territory as a shield.
Neither the PLO nor Hamas nor other Palestinian groups of significance seem to be making any overtures to being annexed by anyone else, unless you have found some evidence otherwise? By all accounts I’ve seen they want a state of their own. And the states neighboring Israel have not taken new Palestinian refugees for decades specifically because of the concern that Israel would displace the Palestinian population to any country that allows it and not allow them back.
Who would Egypt have to defend the West Bank against?
Yes, the West Bank has Biblical significance but so has the Sinai. The Israelites passed through the land from Egypt. Under my proposal, Israel has the potential to become a much larger and populous country. If there is a rebellion in the West Bank, Egypt could ask Israel for assistance.
They may want a state of the own but as the article we are discussing suggests, that is unlikely. The choice would be to live under Egypt possibly as a state within Egypt or be displaced or dead.
Well, for one… Israel? There would still be a segment of Israeli society that want to control the West Bank at all costs that could take control of the government at some point, and now Egypt has a weakened strategic position in Sinai.
There’s a reason Israel was willing to give away Sinai for peace with Egypt but insisted on occupying West Bank when they’re sought peace with Jordan. They consider West Bank of far greater importance than desert land that you yourself said is much less productive. And do you think there would be the tiniest bit of a problem if there is a Palestinian rebellion in Egypt that has Egypt intentionally call on Israel to occupy the Palestinians? How would they ever regain Palestinian trust after that? And once Israel intervenes in such a way do you really think they would leave?
The article says that two state is unpopular on both sides. That does not mean that Palestinians have given up and want to be annexed to random other countries. The idea of Palestinian backing single state supporters is that if enough pressure of some kind is put on Israel (which could be diplomacy and economic means or military and other depending on who you talk to), the apartheid treatment of Palestinians under occupation will be put to an end and they can exercise political power in conjunction with Israeli Arabs and currently displaced Palestinian refugees which would put Palestinians in the majority. There are groups in both Israel and Palestine that support a single state and it can be the good kind of single state where everyone gets along with equal rights or the bad kind of single state where everyone on the wrong side gets kicked out or worse or on some sort of spectrum between those depending on who you talk to. Obviously there are big problems with achieving a single state desirable to Palestinians because Israel does not want occupied Palestinians to have political rights nor for Palestinian refugees to have right of return so that Israel may be maintained as a Jewish state which is a giant obstacle. The two state solution was once considered the most viable path that but it’s been undermined for many many years.
The Sinai is desert, but Israel would be given a larger portion of land than it’s giving up. I would say 3 times larger. Israel has the technology to develop the Sinai, but Egypt doesn’t. Israel doesn’t have to send in troops to stop a rebellion. It would give Egypt the intelligence. Israel has the technology to eavesdrop on cell phone conversations.
Israel won’t give up the West Bank and Gaza especially areas Israelis have built settlements. In my plan, Israel would have to give those settlements. As you said the two-state solution has been undermined. Then try something else like my proposal.