A new word has recently crept into the lexicon of would-be Middle East peacemakers and those who comment about such issues.
The word is "contiguous", as in "being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point," according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. It lately is being used to describe the final disposition of a second Palestinian-Arab state, which itself seems to have become a forgone conclusion right under our collective noses.
Everyone is using the term these days, from American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to US President George Bush, to President of the European Union Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg. They now speak of a "contiguous Palestinian state" as though it has always been part of the peace process equation. Previously, the concept was relegated to the list of seemingly outlandish goals of Israel's enemies to help bring about the end of "the Zionist entity".
Rather quickly, though, this concept has gone from pipe dream to fact. Now, what the international community is saying - no, insisting - is that the coming "Palestinian state" must be "contiguous". In other words, the three territorial areas that will be excised from Israel - Samaria and Judea ("the West Bank") and the Gaza Strip - must all be attached.
But "Google" back to previous comments from world leaders about the Middle East, the peace process or the "Palestinian state" prior to, say, December, and you'll barely find it mentioned. For example, President Bush never used the word in his historic June 24, 2002 speech about the Middle East.
Of course, this is not the first time a new buzzword has been attached to the discussion about this part of the world. It joins "self-determination", "right of return", "occupation", and even "Palestinian" itself, as words or phrases that have taken on a new meaning as they have been linked to this phenomenon euphemistically called "the Middle East conflict".
While each of these terms has carried dangerous implications for Israel - all invoked by the Arabs and their supporters throughout Europe, the United States and the media to squeeze the tiny Jewish state to near capitulation - this newest word added to the mix of demands made on Israel poses the greatest threat yet to Israel's existence.
Here's why this is not mere hyperbole:
Take a look at a map of Israel that includes its Arab neighbors, as well as the territory that the world has earmarked for this future Palestinian state. Somewhat smaller than New Jersey, Israel, like the Garden State, has a very narrow waist. Now look at "the West Bank" and the Gaza Strip. Notice that in order for these areas to be connected or "contiguous", Israel must literally be cut in half.
Whether unwittingly or not, Bush, Rice and others' pronouncements play right into exactly what Yasser Arafat had envisioned as part of his "phased-plan" of 1974: get what you can through diplomacy, then get the rest through violence. A senior Palestinian Authority Imam, Ibrahim Mudyris, advocated this very strategy in his Friday sermon broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television earlier this month.
Unable to destroy Israel through traditional military means or via countless terrorist attacks, Israel's enemies and their facilitators are hoping that this "divide-Israel-and-conquer" ploy may be the solution to their problem at last.
Of course, there are those who insist that this "new" Palestinian-Arab leadership headed by Mahmoud Abbas wants to live in peace with Israel, so, therefore, Israel should trust it. But already, its actions - executing those who warned Israel about violence and incorporating wanted terrorists into its security forces, for starters - contradict any verbal expressions of peaceful co-existence. Abbas himself, Arafat's deputy for 40-plus years, has only spoken out against shootings and homicide bombings as a poor tactical choice, rather than as anathema to a civilized society.
What concrete actions have the Palestinian-Arabs taken since Arafat's death to demonstrate this sudden desire for peace with Israel? The government has done nothing, actually, while the people have elected Hamas members to lead them in localities. This is the same Hamas that openly continues to call for Israel's destruction.
But why must Israel, who agreed to the United Nations' partition compromise, while the Arabs rejected the proposal that would have created a separate Arab state in 1948, make this additional, and perhaps fatal, sacrifice? After all, the territory for this second Palestinian-Arab state (Jordan was the first) is being taken from land Israel acquired in a defensive war from Egypt and Jordan (who had illegally occupied it). Is Israel the only party that must make "painful compromises"?
Some try to justify this latest compromise to be imposed on Israel by using the example of Alaska and how it is cut off from the continental United States by hundreds of miles of Canadian territory as proof that a nation can safely allow itself to be bisected. Of course, the Canadians have never sent rockets into Juneau or Seattle, or teens with bombs strapped around their chests, for that matter. The same cannot be said about the Palestinian-Arabs.
No, before world leaders should engage in any serious talk of "contiguity", it is incumbent for the Palestinian-Arabs to prove that they have turned a new leaf. Get the anti-Israel incitement out of the schools and off of TV and radio. Palestinian-Arab leaders must renounce - in Arabic - any and all claims to Israeli territory or return of so-called "refugees" to cities, towns and villages in Israel. Talk is too cheap to warrant such blind trust. Let's remove this word "contiguous" from the Middle East lexicon before we cross this Rubicon prematurely.
The word is "contiguous", as in "being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point," according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. It lately is being used to describe the final disposition of a second Palestinian-Arab state, which itself seems to have become a forgone conclusion right under our collective noses.
Everyone is using the term these days, from American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to US President George Bush, to President of the European Union Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg. They now speak of a "contiguous Palestinian state" as though it has always been part of the peace process equation. Previously, the concept was relegated to the list of seemingly outlandish goals of Israel's enemies to help bring about the end of "the Zionist entity".
Rather quickly, though, this concept has gone from pipe dream to fact. Now, what the international community is saying - no, insisting - is that the coming "Palestinian state" must be "contiguous". In other words, the three territorial areas that will be excised from Israel - Samaria and Judea ("the West Bank") and the Gaza Strip - must all be attached.
But "Google" back to previous comments from world leaders about the Middle East, the peace process or the "Palestinian state" prior to, say, December, and you'll barely find it mentioned. For example, President Bush never used the word in his historic June 24, 2002 speech about the Middle East.
Of course, this is not the first time a new buzzword has been attached to the discussion about this part of the world. It joins "self-determination", "right of return", "occupation", and even "Palestinian" itself, as words or phrases that have taken on a new meaning as they have been linked to this phenomenon euphemistically called "the Middle East conflict".
While each of these terms has carried dangerous implications for Israel - all invoked by the Arabs and their supporters throughout Europe, the United States and the media to squeeze the tiny Jewish state to near capitulation - this newest word added to the mix of demands made on Israel poses the greatest threat yet to Israel's existence.
Here's why this is not mere hyperbole:
Take a look at a map of Israel that includes its Arab neighbors, as well as the territory that the world has earmarked for this future Palestinian state. Somewhat smaller than New Jersey, Israel, like the Garden State, has a very narrow waist. Now look at "the West Bank" and the Gaza Strip. Notice that in order for these areas to be connected or "contiguous", Israel must literally be cut in half.
Whether unwittingly or not, Bush, Rice and others' pronouncements play right into exactly what Yasser Arafat had envisioned as part of his "phased-plan" of 1974: get what you can through diplomacy, then get the rest through violence. A senior Palestinian Authority Imam, Ibrahim Mudyris, advocated this very strategy in his Friday sermon broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television earlier this month.
Unable to destroy Israel through traditional military means or via countless terrorist attacks, Israel's enemies and their facilitators are hoping that this "divide-Israel-and-conquer" ploy may be the solution to their problem at last.
Of course, there are those who insist that this "new" Palestinian-Arab leadership headed by Mahmoud Abbas wants to live in peace with Israel, so, therefore, Israel should trust it. But already, its actions - executing those who warned Israel about violence and incorporating wanted terrorists into its security forces, for starters - contradict any verbal expressions of peaceful co-existence. Abbas himself, Arafat's deputy for 40-plus years, has only spoken out against shootings and homicide bombings as a poor tactical choice, rather than as anathema to a civilized society.
What concrete actions have the Palestinian-Arabs taken since Arafat's death to demonstrate this sudden desire for peace with Israel? The government has done nothing, actually, while the people have elected Hamas members to lead them in localities. This is the same Hamas that openly continues to call for Israel's destruction.
But why must Israel, who agreed to the United Nations' partition compromise, while the Arabs rejected the proposal that would have created a separate Arab state in 1948, make this additional, and perhaps fatal, sacrifice? After all, the territory for this second Palestinian-Arab state (Jordan was the first) is being taken from land Israel acquired in a defensive war from Egypt and Jordan (who had illegally occupied it). Is Israel the only party that must make "painful compromises"?
Some try to justify this latest compromise to be imposed on Israel by using the example of Alaska and how it is cut off from the continental United States by hundreds of miles of Canadian territory as proof that a nation can safely allow itself to be bisected. Of course, the Canadians have never sent rockets into Juneau or Seattle, or teens with bombs strapped around their chests, for that matter. The same cannot be said about the Palestinian-Arabs.
No, before world leaders should engage in any serious talk of "contiguity", it is incumbent for the Palestinian-Arabs to prove that they have turned a new leaf. Get the anti-Israel incitement out of the schools and off of TV and radio. Palestinian-Arab leaders must renounce - in Arabic - any and all claims to Israeli territory or return of so-called "refugees" to cities, towns and villages in Israel. Talk is too cheap to warrant such blind trust. Let's remove this word "contiguous" from the Middle East lexicon before we cross this Rubicon prematurely.