THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 7, January 7, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
SOLVING THE "PALESTINIAN PROBLEM"
By Dr. Danies Pipes
THE OLD QUANDARY THAT ISRAEL'S WAR AGAINST HAMAS BRINGS UP: WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS?
WHAT DOES NOT & CANNOT WORK -- THE ONLY PRACTICAL APPROACH: EGYPTIAN RULE IN THE GAZA
STRIP & JORDANIAN CONTROL OF THE WEST BANK
FULL STORY:
Israel's war against Hamas brings up the old quandary: What to do about the Palestinians? Western states, including
Israel, need to set goals to figure out their policy toward the West Bank and Gaza.
Let's first review what we know does not and cannot work:
Israeli Control. Neither side wishes to continue the
situation that began in 1967, when the Israel Defense Forces
took control of a population that is religiously, culturally,
economically, and politically different and hostile.
A Palestinian State. The 1993 Oslo Accords began
this process, but a toxic brew of anarchy, ideological
extremism, antisemitism, jihadism, and warlordism led to
complete Palestinian failure.
A Binational State. Given the two populations' mutual
antipathy, the prospect of a combined Israel-Palestine (what
Muammar al-Qaddafi calls "Israstine") is as absurd as it seems.
Excluding these three prospects leaves only one practical approach, that which worked tolerably well in the period from
1948 to 1967:
Shared Jordanian-Egyptian Rule. Amman rules the West
Bank and Cairo runs Gaza.
To be sure, this back-to-the-future approach inspires little enthusiasm. Not only was Jordanian-Egyptian rule
undistinguished, but resurrecting this arrangement will frustrate Palestinian impulses, be they nationalist or Islamist.
Further, Cairo never wanted Gaza and has vehemently rejected its return. Accordingly, one academic analyst dismisses
this idea "an elusive fantasy that can only obscure real and difficult choices."
It is not. The failures of Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, of the Palestinian Authority and the "peace process," have
prompted rethinking in Amman and Jerusalem. Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor's Ilene R. Prusher found
already in 2007 that the idea of a West Bank-Jordan confederation "seems to be gaining traction on both sides of the
Jordan River."
The Jordanian government, which enthusiastically annexed the West Bank in 1950 and abandoned its claims only under
duress in 1988, shows signs of wanting to return. Dan Diker and Pinchas Inbari documented for the Middle East
Quarterly in 2006 how the PA's "failure to assert control and become a politically viable entity has caused Amman to
reconsider whether a hands-off strategy toward the West Bank is in its best interests." Israeli officialdom has also
showed itself open to this idea, occasionally calling for Jordanian troops to enter the West Bank.
Despairing of self-rule, some Palestinians welcome the Jordanian option. An unnamed senior PA official told Diker and
Inbari that a form of federation or confederation with Jordan offers "the only reasonable, stable, longterm solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict." Hanna Seniora opined that "The current weakened prospects for a two-state solution forces
us to revisit the possibility of a confederation with Jordan." The New York Times' Hassan M. Fattah quotes a
Palestinian in Jordan:
"Everything has been ruined for us . . . we've been fighting
for 60 years and nothing is left. It would be better if Jordan
ran things in Palestine, if King Abdullah could take control
of the West Bank."
Nor is this just talk: Diker and Inbari report that back-channel PA-Jordan negotiations in 2003-2004 "resulted in an
agreement in principle to send 30,000 Badr Force members," to the West Bank.
And, while Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak announced a year ago that "Gaza is not part of Egypt, nor will it ever be,"
his is hardly the last word. First, Mubarak notwithstanding, Egyptians overwhelmingly want a strong tie to Gaza;
Hamas concurs; and Israeli leaders sometimes agree. So the basis for an overhaul in policy exists.
Secondly, Gaza is arguably more a part of Egypt than of "Palestine." During most of the Islamic period, it was either
controlled by Cairo or part of Egypt administratively. Gazan colloquial Arabic is identical to what Egyptians living in
Sinai speak. Economically, Gaza has most connections to Egypt. Hamas itself derives from the Muslim Brethren, an
Egyptian organization. Is it time to think of Gazans as Egyptians?
Thirdly, Jerusalem could out-maneuver Mubarak. Were it to announce a date when it ends the provisioning of all
water, electricity, food and medicine, as well as other trade, plus accept enhanced Egyptian security in Gaza, Cairo
would have to take responsibility for Gaza. Among other advantages, this would make it accountable for Gazan
security, finally putting an end to the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar assaults.
The Jordan-Egypt option quickens no pulse, but that may be its value. It offers a uniquely sober way to solve the
"Palestinian problem."
© Daniel Pipes 2009
Originally Published in the Jerusalem Post, January 7, 2009
Republished with the Permission of Daniel Pipes
Reprinted from the Daniel Pipes Mailing List, January 7, 2009
Article URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/6110
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Israel & the Arabs -- The Israeli-Arab Conflict
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
Egypt, Arabs, & the Middle East
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Daniel Pipes, a Ph.D. in Islamic History (Harvard University, 1978), is the Founder and Director of the Middle East Forum,
the Founder of Campus Watch, a signatory of the Project for the New American Century, a former board member of the U.S.
Institute of Peace, a former adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Golden Circle supporter of the
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, a former member of the U.S. Department of Defense Special Task Force on Terrorism and
Technology, and a former lecturer at the U.S. Naval War College, Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the
University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Pipes was the Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute from 1986 to 1993.
Author or co-author of eighteen books, Dr. Pipes is a regular columnist for Front Page Magazine, the New York
Sun, and the Jerusalem Post. His analyses of world trends and of forces and developments in the Middle East
have appeared in numerous North American newspapers, including the Washington Post, the New York Times,
and the Wall Street Journal. He frequently appears on American network television, as well as at universities and
think tanks, to discuss the Middle East, Islam, and the Islamist threat to the U.S.A. and the West. He also has appeared on
BBC and Al Jazeera, and has lectured in approximately twenty-five countries.
Dr. Pipes is a Polish-American Jew whose parents fled Poland in 1939, immigrated to the U.S.A., and assimilated well into
American society and culture. His father is Richard Pipes, an American historian specializing in Russian and Soviet history
and serving as Professor of History at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. During the Cold War, the
worldview of Richard Pipes was strongly anti-Soviet and anti-Communist.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity