Israel flag. Picture: THINKSTOCK
Israel flag. Picture: THINKSTOCK

Here’s a different perspective to the Israel-Palestine debate. It is purely factual, not historical or emotional.

As at July 2017 Israel has occupied the West Bank for over 50 years. Immediately prior to that the Jordanians occupied the West Bank.

The Palestinians want a sovereign state. Israel wants the Palestinians to recognise the sovereignty of Israel. If Palestinians want the Palestinian state to include all of Israel, they just won’t get it. The Israelis just won’t give it to them. The Israelis will not agree to Israel ceasing to exist. So we have a stalemate.

There are only three ways around this stalemate: war, negotiations or doing nothing.

When you choose a method of winning a fight, you have to weigh up your strengths and weaknesses. The Palestinians do not have the means to beat Israel militarily. And if they do nothing, nothing will change. So if the Palestinians want change they have to negotiate with the Israelis.

It is an immutable law of negotiation that there have to be at least two parties and both of them have to make concessions. Simple.

So if Israel wants peace it has to give the Palestinians land but not so much that Israel’s existence is threatened. If the Palestinians want land they have to accept the existence of Israel. The latter is the only demand that Israel cannot trade. Everything else is up for discussion: settlements, East Jerusalem, everything.

The "right of return" would largely have to be monetary compensation since its actual realisation would cause Israel to cease to exist. This would negate the reason for Israel to give anything in the first place.

Negotiations are always compromise. Irrespective of Guvant Govindjee’s virulently held views (Greedy Zionist colonisers, July 12), as of now this is where things stand.

SC WeissParktown North

Please sign in or register to comment.