Contiguous

Arutz Sheva ^ | 2-23-05 | Mike Levine

[SJackson]

Contiguous. Sounds like a big, fancy word. It's really not. It has a simple meaning. It means "adjoining" or "connected". An example is Canada and the United States, which are contiguous.

We are hearing the word "contiguous" a great deal now in connection with the nascent state of Palestine, which the world wishes to foist onto Israel and which Israel now has agreed to. But a contiguous state is not possible for Palestine without making Israel into a non-contiguous state.

Here's why:

The territories of Samaria and Judea (commonly called "West Bank") and Gaza are the two areas that may become the state of Palestine one day. They are separated by Israeli land, about 160 kilometers of it. That's a distance of about 100 miles.

That would be like New York City and Philadelphia being part of one country, but all the land in between - New Jersey and Pennsylvania - belonging to another nation.

So, the only way to make the West Bank and Gaza contiguous is to annex to the two sections of the proposed 'Palestine' a huge swath of Israel that now lies in between them.

Quite naturally, the Palestinians want to be able to travel to and from Gaza and the West Bank easily if they are to become part of one state. And there have been several solutions discussed in the past, including an elevated highway that would cover the distance with no exits into Israel underneath.

But now it seems that some, including US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, are talking about something far different. They are talking about something that sounds very much like Israel giving up the land between so that the West Bank and Gaza could become "contiguous". That, of course, would mean that Israel would become non-contiguous; a ridiculous solution.

Previously, the magic word to describe the sort of state Israel should bestow upon the Palestinians was "viable", meaning that all should be in working order - electricity, communications, transportation and infrastructure. That non-starter of an idea has now been replaced by "contiguous", which is even more impossible.

If President George Bush and Condoleezza Rice truly believe that it is more important for 'Palestine' to be one contiguous territory rather than Israel, which already is contiguous, then I guess we can expect to see the following headlines soon in American newspapers:

The United States Plans To Annex Western Canada In Order To Make Alaska Contiguous With The Rest Of The Lower States!

The US Corps Of Engineers Is Seeking Bids For Filling In The Pacific Ocean Between The West Coast Of Continental USA And Hawaii, In Order For The Two Parts Of The Country To Become 'Contiguous'!

[E Rocc]

So, the only way to make the West Bank and Gaza contiguous is to annex to the two sections of the proposed 'Palestine' a huge swath of Israel that now lies in between them.

This is a red herring. No one is saying that the West Bank and Gaza need to become contiguous. The word applies to the West Bank alone. President Bush is telling Israel that building a Palestinian state that consists of a bunch of small unconnected parcels is unviable and therefore unacceptable.

Gaza and the West Bank might be connected like West Berlin was connected to West Germany, with a special access road.

-Eric

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[SJackson]

This is a red herring. No one is saying that the West Bank and Gaza need to become contiguous. The word applies to the West Bank alone.

You're probably right, but Secy Rice did say a Palestinian state must be contiguous, and it was interprited this way by many on both sides of the issue. One of the problems of "negotiating" in the press. Frankly your idea, a connecting road or tunnel, has never been a stumbling block, whereas a geographical strip miles wide was always a non starter.

[Bones75]

The elevated highway idea sounds workable.

Oh and that bit about annexing part of Canada to make Alaska contiguous with the rest of the US. Let's do it!

Bones

[Real Cynic No More]

The first paragraph pi$$ed me off. Canada and the United States are not 'contiguous'; they are adjacent but are not part of a 'whole'. Alaska and Hawaii would be contiguous with the other United States if they were adjacent, but they are not, but they are part of the 'whole' United States. Kentucky and Tennessee are contiguous. I hate it when a pundit misuses terminology to make a point and deride someone else.

[E Rocc]

You're probably right, but Secy Rice did say a Palestinian state must be contiguous, and it was interprited this way by many on both sides of the issue. One of the problems of "negotiating" in the press. Frankly your idea, a connecting road or tunnel, has never been a stumbling block, whereas a geographical strip miles wide was always a non starter.

Very much a non starter. The irony is, that would make Israel non-contiguous.

The access road (perhaps cris-crossed with bridges and/or tunnels as appropriate, and likely including a rail link) is one possibility among many to be traded off. It would give Palestine a port.

I expect that Israel will end up with virtually all of the high-density settlements blocs contiguous to the Green Line, and consular privileges adjacent to the major holy sites, particularly Patriarchs. Palestine will get the access road, most of the West Bank, and I also expect that they will end up with Temple Mount itself and the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem. Perhaps the Armenian Quarter as well. They can put their ceremonial capital there. The Western Wall must go to Israel, so the borders must be carefully drawn.

This will not bring immediate peace, but it will begin the process of marginalizing the fanatics on both sides. President Bush is looking far into the future on this one.

-Eric

[American in Israel]

It cannot be possible that any state that is divided can be a strong Nation. Just look at Alaska and the rest of America and you know why Israel must be divided into two small states so the Arabs can have their connected Palestine.

This is all smoke and mirrors for the destroy the Jews bunch, you could no more build a State with Palestinians than you could make good soup from dog dung. The Palestinians have had 50 years to build a state on their own, with more welfare support than any state in history, so far the areas they control have gone down hill not been built up.

Some people just want war, not a state.

[chukcha]

All this logical, logistical crap! They should stop splitting hair.

Not another Arab state! Period.