Senator Obama should understand that the Palestinians do not “need” more land. They may desire a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, but a ”desire” is not a “need.” Such a corridor is no more a requirement of self-sufficiency than was a land corridor running through India and connecting Muslim Pakistan and Muslim Bangladesh following the partition of India in 1947. If the island state of Malta is able to prosper with a land area of 122 square miles then the Gaza Strip, at 146 square miles, should be able to do the same. In fact, there are 17 countries that are less than 200 square miles in size. All are economically and politically viable.
History has taught us that appeasement and intimidation should never be the basis for American policy. What the Palestinians deserve is a leadership that cares more about the welfare of its own people than in its unremitting obsession with the destruction of Israel.
If adopted by a future Obama administration, the candidate’s proposal would nullify any pretense that the U.S. backed safe and secure borders for Israel. Without geographic and economic continuity, the main population centers of Israel would be divided, the security services would be further strained, Israeli military mobilization would be severely impaired, military training bases would be isolated, traffic from the port of Eilat would be slowed, and the cost of exploiting the Negev’s mineral wealth probably would rise significantly.
Shorn of platitudes, the Obama speech to AIPAC was a sober warning to all who support the Democratic candidate for president. The subtext was clear: under an Obama administration Israel’s security is not “sacrosanct.” Everything is “negotiable.” And the Jewish state will be pressured to concede its very territorial continuity to satisfy Obama’s vision of peace in the region.