WMN: t3_3h7t90_t1_cu5ix46

[TITLE]

CMV: I believe a Palestine state should be established in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt

[illegalmorality]

The state of Palestine has 4 million people residing within Isreal. The West Bank and Gaza strip together have 6,000 square kilometers of land. The North Sinai Governorate alone has 27,000 square Kilometers of land, that's more land than even Isreal has (22,000 sq km). [Here is what a State of Palestine could look like on a map, either with only the Northern part or the full peninsula.](http://sinaimaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/governorates-sinai-egypt.jpg) One could argue that the Sinai Peninsula is mostly desert and unfit for people to live in, but Israel was mostly desert when they began immigrating to the region too. Irrigation, agriculture, forestry, and artificial canals have been known to combat or reverse desertification. The people already residing there can be promised equal citizenship rights in the new state of Palestine. Egypt could even allow for the people there to have duel citizenship, so that they can choose to either stay in the new state or easily move to inland Egypt. If necessary, Egypt could offer incentives for Sinai people to move inland prior to the establishment of the state. If a "buffer" line/zone were felt to be necessary, it could be jointly run by Israel and Egypt stationed outside the borders without much issue from the Palestinians. The U.N. Security council could send peacekeepers to the peninsula to monitor the region's development. There would be very little reason for any of the Security members to veto this decision if Egypt, Israel, and Palestine all agreed to this. Albeit, it's extremely unlikely this will ever happen, but I think it would be a good solution. Which is why I'm here, what is wrong with this plan? **Edit:** Added what can happen with the people already living there.

[possibletrigger]

Wouldn't it be simpler to establish a Palestinian state in Palestine? Everyone living there could be guaranteed equal legal rights. I would call the new country 'Canaan' in honor of its original inhabitants.

[Freelance_JIDF_Shill]

Not here to CYV, but this remark - "that's more land than even Isreal has (22,000 sq km)." is not true. Israel controlled a lot of territory, including the Sinai Peninsula, but returned most of it to the nation is conquered the land from (the west bank and Gaza were also on the table but both nations refused).

[el3r9]

Not true. Only the Sinai peninsula, the city of Quneitra, and Southern Lebanon were "returned", and even then Sinai was returned on the condition that Egypt never stations military there without permission from Israel. Every other territory occupied by Israel is still occupied and/or controlled, including the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

[Freelance_JIDF_Shill]

[STA-CITE]> Only the Sinai peninsula, the city of Quneitra, and Southern Lebanon were "returned" [END-CITE]Well, I said returned most of it, not all of it. [STA-CITE]> even then Sinai was returned on the condition that Egypt never stations military there without permission from Israel [END-CITE]So? The Sinai peninsula is still theirs. [STA-CITE]> Every other territory occupied by Israel is still occupied and/or controlled, including the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. [END-CITE]You're right about the Golan Heights, but Israel offered both Gaza and the West bank to their former owners - Egypt and Jordan respectively, but they refused.

[ben_nystrom]

One basic way of refuting this idea is by simply looking at the current situation in the Sinai Peninsula. First, the region has always been populated by people. The native bedouin people have lived in that region far longer than you seem to be giving them credit for. Most of them migrated there between 1300 and 1700. Quite a long time for a place that so inhospitable. Also, Israel might have been "mostly dessert" but the whole reason we need a Palestine state is because of the millions of people the Israel state forced into refugee status by making them leave. It might have been mostly dessert, but damn, it was home to a lot of people. Egypt certainly could offer the things you mentioned to the Bedouin people. Egypt has abjectly refused to do so, and has created a terrible caste system whereby terrorist groups have thrived in the region, so I do not see this happening anytime soon. But sure, in a perfect world, that could theoretically happen. (Are you familiar at all with what is going on in this region??, are we talking about the same Egypt, the northern Africa country that has gone through three leaders in the past five years? The one with the pyramids?) I'm not even sure I want to talk about a buffer zone right now. Its late, and the current buffer zone is being executed so terribly and horrendously right now that I do not think that term should be uttered in geopolitical conversations concerning this region. I guess more than anything I am confused by your view prompt. Are you saying that if the things you mentioned happened that a Palestine state could thrive? I mean if the planets align and ponies sprout wings with rainbows coming out their butts, then yea sure this might happen. I would rather you suggest Utah as a solution, or maybe suggest building an island in the middle of the ocean out of old two litter bottles of soda. At least then, there is a more realistic possibility.

[EagenVegham]

It's a good idea but there are many problems with it. How would you move people there? What do you do about the people already there? Why would Egypt give up some of their territory? Who is going to set up a new country? The logistics of this are too massive for this to ever conceivably be a thing.

[illegalmorality]

I was thinking Egypt can give incentatives for people to move inland, and Palestine could offer equal citizenship to the people whom already reside there. Something that the government of Israel has refused to do for the Palestinians, lest we repeat history's mistakes. The population in northern Sinai is 400,000. 100,00 people reside in the southern governate. We shouldn't force them out, but I think anyone who decides to stay can assimilate to the Palestinian state so long as they're promised equal rights and treatment.

[EagenVegham]

What incentives does Egypt have for doing this? They have no real reason to give up land to another sovereign nation.

[illegalmorality]

I believe president Morsi had planned on allowing a Palestine state in Sinai. It could work as a deterrent state, improve image, gain influence in the region, or whatever. This wouldn't make Egypt worse off in any way, the Sinai peninsula is largely undeveloped right now. Incentives to citizens to enter mainland would only strength the government.

[EagenVegham]

Okay, but what would become of the people? There is so much wrong with forcing the Palestinians out of their home into an area that is largely inhospitable. You say they could develop it with irrigation like Israel itself but that process took thousands of years to be where it is today and if it were easy, Egypt would have done something more with the land.

[illegalmorality]

A large part of the problems with Palestinians is the lack of equal rights that they have in Israel, residents in the Sinai peninsula can be promised equal rights in the new state. Maybe even Duel citizenship if permitted.

[scharfes_S]

Your solution to people not having equal rights in the land their ancestors have lived in for generations is to relocate them?

[illegalmorality]

At this point it feels like a two state solution is equivelent to giving Native Americans the state of Oklahoma.

[z3r0shade]

To be fair, the logistics weren't "too massive" when they literally took land and gave it to Israel (speaking as a Jew mind you). The two state solution is ultimately the best solution

[illegalmorality]

Honestly the two state solution seems too unrealistic due to the war that occurred last year. I don't think either side are willing to accept each other so easily anymore.

[The_BarHuma]

There are many Liberal Israeli parties that are willing to negotiate and possibly even agree with the two state solution. The biggest obstacle to peace is the Likud, Netanyahu, and other right winged parties in Israel.

[CatRelatedUsername]

I'd like a two-state solution, but I don't think it's viable in the long term. Honestly I think the only way this will ever be figured out is if there is a single mixed state.

[EagenVegham]

The UN ended up starting a civil war in the area that forced the Arab population that was already there to flee.

[z3r0shade]

Yea, that's kinda my point. Using "the logistics are too massive to attempt" isn't useful and obviously didn't stop anything before. It couldn't be worse than the last time

[William_the_Pleaser]

Honestly, it comes down to the simple fact that your plan only serves to strip Palestinians of what holy lands they have left. They're not just fighting for equal rights, they're fighting for what's been taken from them as a means to destabilize their region and establish what effectively serves as a colony (Israel) for Western ideals and geopolitical gains. This isn't a solution if you're intention is to help the Palestinian people. It is, however, a solution if you're looking to accomplish what had been set out to do when this all started.

[CatRelatedUsername]

1) What do you propose is done with the West Bank? 2) Even ignoring the difficulty of actually growing crops in the Sinai, Israeli efforts to reduce desertification were possible only due to large amounts of foreign funds and resources that poured into the state after its foundation. The Palestinian diaspora has no such source of funding, hence it is doubtful that they would be able to actually water in a climate that is even more harsh than Israel's is, on average. 3) Israel is generally thought of as being one of the most over-populated areas in the world, relative to it's carrying capacity. It is possible that global warming will exacerbate the issue along with the changing climate, and this would also likely apply to the Palestinian Sinai. 4) Egypt won't sign on to it because it weakens their hold over the Suez Canal by putting a foreign nation on the other bank pretty close to the canal. 5) Palestine won't sign on to it because, let's face it, they just won't. You're implicitly saying that the Palestinians should be forced to move out of their present lands for no reason other than their own ethnicity. 6) Israel won't sign on to it because lately the Israeli government has been against the establishment of any Arab Palestinian government in the region.

[illegalmorality]

1) The people already residing there can be promised equal citizenship rights in the new state of Palestine. Egypt could even allow for the people there to have duel citizenship, so that they can choose to either stay in the new state or easily move to inland Egypt. Egypt even could offer incentives for Sinai people to move inland prior to the establishment of the state. 2) North Sinai has access to the Mediterranean, and U.N. funding might be able to help fight desertfication that same way Israel has been helped. 3) Migration of Palestinians would move people away from the over-populated state of Israel to a higher land-mass location of the Sinai peninsula. 4) Egypt doesn't have to give the Suez Canel, the map I posted shows that the North Governate doesn't border the canel. Border patrol from Egypt, Israel, and maybe even the U.N. can prevent security concerns. 5) Yeah they probably won't. The two-state solution just doesn't seem realistic anymore because Israel can never accept it. Israel loses too much from a two-stat solution. This is just the best alternative I can think of. 6) Yes.

[CatRelatedUsername]

1) That doesn't answer the question: what do you intend to happen to the West Bank itself? 2) So? Almost all of the Sinai's fringe has access to bodies of water, but it's still mostly desert. In addition, the only part of the Sinai that is habitable *now* is an extremely thin strip along the coasts. Not to mention; are you expecting the United States to pay for this, like we pay for everything else the UN does? Why should we be the ones to support the financial burden? 3) A land mass that is almost entirely desert, and would require large amounts of engineering to actually make habitable. You're basically looking at an extreme form of what is happening to California *now*. And don't even start with desalinization, unless you're seriously suggesting the world pour tens of billions of dollars into the country for water production alone. 4) It still weakens their hold though; it remains very easy for the Palestinian state to move in a grab what remains of the Sinai without much hassle. Not to mention there is *already* border patrol by Egyptians and Israelis, and it *already* isn't working.

[illegalmorality]

1) West bank dissolves into Israel and Gaza strip remains connected to the new Sinai state. Maybe the Gaza Strip can be extended in exchange for this. Yes, this seems unlikely to happen, but it's more viable then the two-state solution. The Israel government clearly has no intention of giving Palestinians back any land. In fact, if you can change my mind that the two-state solution can happen, with both parties mutually agreeing to it, I'll scrap this solution. 2) America has funded more for less. If the Israel has been massively funded by the U.N., why not the state of Palestine too? If it can provide stability and prevent future wars, it could be well worth it. 3) Wouldn't a Sinai state be better then the living conditions of the West bank? 4) Then a further diplomatic solution would be necessary. That's just a result of the War on terror, which all three states would need to work together to combat. Edit: The desertification problem is a global problem in general. A new Palestine state in Sinai would still fair better then the West Bank regardless of this.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>West bank dissolves into Israel and Gaza strip remains connected to the new Sinai state. [END-CITE]And so the Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest sites in all of Islam, falls under the control of the Israelis, and you think this would lead to a *more* peaceful Middle East? [STA-CITE]>In fact, if you can change my mind that the two-state solution can happen, with both parties mutually agreeing to it, I'll scrap this solution. [END-CITE]That's not the point; the two state solution might not be viable, but this is honestly worse because it *is* not viable. You're evicting the Palestinians from their lands and ceding control of many Islamic holy sites to Israeli government, with the world's blessing. 2) Israel wasn't funded by the U.N. They were funded by the wealthy Jewish diaspora who wanted to aid the foundation of Israel. As I said earlier, there is no such source of funding for the Palestinians. 3) Are you honestly saying that living the middle of the Sinai desert is preferable to living in Jerusalem? Or Ramallah? Or Nablus? It's true that their territory would increase, but [this](http://www.sinaidesertfox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Jebel-Berqa-view.jpg) is representative of essentially all they would be getting. In what world is that an upgrade? You think you can coax them out with promises of equality, but what use is equality for them if they're going to scratch a living off of the sands of the Sinai? 4) You're kidding, right? The Israeli-Egyptian border security problems have been an issue for decades. The War on Terror is only 14 years old in September.

[illegalmorality]

∆ I did not know that Palestinians had religious roots behind the West Bank area. Are you sure it's completely impossible? [Supposedly half of Gazans already want to the leave area.](http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196500#.VdDmhZcwCqg) [Support for the two-state solution has been going down by both Palestinians and Israelis.](http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Poll-finds-fading-support-for-two-state-solution-between-Israelis-Palestinians-407222) 2) ∆ Good point. It would be vastly different if a Palestinians state were to be made. 3) I'd like to argue a little that it might be possible to develop the land with time. It would just be expensive and take a lot of time. Maybe a decade? 4) I still don't see border security as too much of an issue. I didn't mean the the War on Terror is specifically the root cause of Egyptian Sinai Canel disputes.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/CatRelatedUsername. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/CatRelatedUsername)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[klobster2]

looks like two deltas to me, bot

[cp5184]

Did you know that the jewish land buys in israel took advantage of the dubious ottoman land registry? The ottoman empire needed soldiers and money. The ottoman empire didn't have a strong central government. This is part of the reason they needed the money and the soldiers, they had little to no control over, for instance, the levant region. Land owners had been there for thousands of years and felt little to no allegiance to the ottomans and didn't feel that the ottoman empire had any legitimate claim on the land they'd owned for thousands of years. The ottoman empire felt differently. The ottoman empire instituted the land registry. People registered in the land registry would have to perform military service and have to pay taxes. The ottoman government still was weak, and the vast majority of people in the levant region ignored it, but many people took advantage of the registry by arbitrarily registering land they had no claim on, and, then, quickly reselling it at junk prices. So suddenly, a lot of people were buying huge amounts of land in the levant for almost nothing. One of the many issues that played a part in the friction in the levant years leading up to the UN partition. For some reason israelis aren't quick to mention this little detail.

[CatRelatedUsername]

[STA-CITE]>Are you sure it's completely impossible? Supposedly half of Gazans already want to leave area.[1] Support for the two-state solution has been going down by both Palestinians and Israelis.[2] [END-CITE]Gaza is not the West Bank. [STA-CITE]>I'd like to argue a little that it might be possible to develop the land with time. It would just be expensive and take a lot of time. [END-CITE]You can't just pour water on desert sands and expect it to grow crops; they'd need to bring in nutrient-rich soils from outside the area, because the soil that is already there is effectively dead. [STA-CITE]>Maybe a decade? [END-CITE]You're way short; I'd be surprised to see it done in a half century. Where do you expect to get enough fresh water? Remember that California is sinking billions into desalinization projects that will only provide *drinking water* for 300,000 people. How much money do you want to spend to water 1.7+ million people *and* the crops they need to ensure they have economic viability? Not to mention the power and utility requirements for such a state; you can't just move people out into a no-mans land with no infrastructure and expect to just conjure it from nothing. [STA-CITE]>I still don't see border security as too much of an issue. [END-CITE][Do you just not realize how contentious the 12 km Egypt-Gaza border is?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Egypt_border) [STA-CITE]>I didn't mean the the War on Terror is specifically the root cause of Egyptian Sinai Canel disputes. [END-CITE]Then why bring it up?

[illegalmorality]

∆ I did not realize the security issues until just now. War on Terror is just a phrase I coin towards anything involving violence in general. War on terror in Mexico, war on terror in Afghanistan, war on terror in Africa, ect. I used it inappropriately in this case, sorry.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/CatRelatedUsername. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/CatRelatedUsername)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[cdb03b]

Well that is not what the phrase "war on terror" means. You are purposefully miscommunicating if you are making up new definitions to common phrases.

[illegalmorality]

Meh, I don't really care. When the cartel dismember a bunch of kids and send them to their families, that's pretty terrifying to me. When Buddhist extremist burn down houses with Muslim families in them, that's scary too. War on crime, war on cartel, war on fear, war on terror, it feels the same to me. The only differences are the enemies and the names politicians use to label them.