Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (28791)	5/7/2002 8:32:57 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

They almost certainly have in mind some kind of corridor between the West Bank and Gaza like the one that linked West Berlin to the rest of West Germany during the Cold War, tweaked with creative modern engineering technology so as to allow unimpeded passage for Israelis going in a perpendicular direction. It shouldn't be too difficult to create a system of secure overpasses or such that would avoid any friction on a day-to-day basis. Would it be absolutely impervious to any disruption? No, of course not, but that shouldn't matter, because any officially sanctioned attempt at such disruption would constitute a casus belli and a giant international crisis, just like with the Berlin Blockade. That is, the security arrangements would only have to be enough to protect it from casual or unsanctioned attacks or drop-offs--anything more and the question would no longer be about security on the passageway but peace between the two states, at which point other, larger factors would come into play to settle the question. There's a longer version of the Malley/Agha piece here, by the way; perhaps it contains more discussion of the idea: intl-crisis-group.org BTW, re the piece itself, I agree with carranza's comment that the strongest part is the criticism of the interim or incremental approach. Their own solution is interesting and (IMO) sensible, but not politically feasible, I think. So in my mind the piece is like the Pollack Iraq piece--a useful intellectual exercise that shows the flaws in one commonly touted policy (using an "Afghan approach" to Iraq, replaying the incremental approach of Oslo) and putting forward an alternative that is logically sound but politically unthinkable (invasion, international intervention). tb@yup.com