Israel and Palestine

So I saw a debate between Hillel Halkin and Christopher Hitchens on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Of course it really turned into a debate about Palestinian statehood. Here's a quick summary, if I remember correctly:

Hitchens: Of course there should be 2 states, it's the only fair way to satisfy the claims of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Too bad religions have messed everything up.

Halkin: 2 states? You can barely fit one state! It's the size of New Jersey. The Palestinians should just move to Jordan, which is basically the same anyway.

Hitchens: It's unfortunate that the Palestinians have been dominated by extremist Muslims who don't actually represent their best interests.

Halkin: I have ridiculous beliefs about the rights of Jews to take things that don't belong to them.

Hitchens: Man, I really really hate religion.

I should admit that I know less about the region than I should, so feel free to correct any errors. That said, here are my thoughts.

1. It seems to me that Halkin's New Jersey point is oversimplified. States can exist in small areas, so long as they have the resources to do so. Three things complicate this. First, the Palestinians don't have those resources. They would need urban infrastructure to deal with high population density, for instance. Some of these resources could be provided by the US, but others would require time and large cultural shifts. The second problem is that to prosper the Palestinians would need access to the world market. This will be difficult if, say, Israel insists on controlling airtports, seaports, etc. for security reasons. Finally, Israel's security needs are real, precisely because some Palestinians won't accept such a compromise and will remain committed to killing Israelis.

2. I don't know what it takes for a tolerant, pluralistic society to emerge. Whatever it is, though, Israel has it and most other countries in the region don't. As both speakers pointed out, we should be careful not to sacrifice the rights of Palestinian women, gays, religious dissenters, et al. in our pursuit of a just solution. This doesn't give Israel a superior claim to the land in question, but it should give us pause before we accept a solution that primarily benefits straight Muslim men at the expense of everyone else.

3. All discussions of this topic are prone to what I'll call the Halkin problem. A participant might seem reasonable, and his ideas might be accepted, before it becomes clear that he is nuts. This is just to say that the stated reasons for a course of action are rarely the real reasons, and a lot of tacit agendas are built into any discussion of the subject. Only when he was pushed did Halkin reveal that he thinks the settlements were a good experiment that sadly failed.

4. Americans like to think that they are agents for good in the world, so they are vulnerable to simplistic arguments by disingenuous people (see point 3). If Americans want to be agents for good in the world, they will have to educate themselves and cut through a lot of the rhetoric. People who dislike Kelo shouldn't be easily convinced that Israel shares their values, and so on. I'm not holding my breath, though.