Contiguity Conundrum
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
It’s a message that could only have been crafted by a bunch of diplomats. President Bush last week in one breath managed to say that borders in the Middle East must be negotiated directly between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs – and then he proceeded to negotiate the border himself with Yasser Arafat’s longtime sidekick, Mahmoud Abbas.
“Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations,” Mr. Bush said in an appearance with Mr. Abbas on Thursday in the White House Rose Garden.
It’s a mistake for America to take a position on this matter of “contiguity.” There’s no American national security interest at stake. There’s no moral issue involved, save the immorality of wresting from Israel land to which it has a historic, legal, and biblical claim and handing it to an organization that has been launching terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in discos, wedding halls, pizza parlors, and vegetable markets. What’s more, the requirement is hypocritical. America itself is not contiguous, what with Alaska separated by Canada from the lower 48 states. Why should America be exerting pressure on its friend Israel to give its terrorist enemies “contiguity” that not even America itself requires?
Moreover, as the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, argues, “If there is contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza, then Israel will not be a contiguous state – in fact, it will then be cut in two.” Asks Mr. Klein, “Why is the president only concerned about the Arabs’ contiguity, which will then harm Israel’s security?”
A lot of those who voted for Mr. Bush in the last election will be reacting with surprise and disappointment to the news that it is “the position of the United States” that Israel is to be sliced in two. It’d be a fine opportunity for the Congress to clarify just what is the position of the United States.
