David Shearer's article last week, "Border decisions condemn countries to conflict", seems conflicted. He began by condemning the British-French (Sykes-Picot) "carve-up" of the post-Ottoman Middle East, yet a few lines later bemoaned the fact that the borders don't take into account the nuances and aspirations of minorities. He
Rob Harris: Shearer's Middle East border analysis falls along simplistic lines
Subscribe to listen
A Palestinian boy looks from his family's destroyed house at workers rebuild a house which was destroyed during the 2014 summer war between Israel and Hamas. Photo / AP
Yet the pursuit of more detailed subdivisions of Sykes-Picot as Shearer desires is being hotly resisted by other Arab commentators. The Egyptian daily Al-Ahram warns against reappearance of "the ghosts of Sykes-Picot", stating: "Western research institutes and the American press are openly talking of a new Sykes-Picot that will correct the mistakes of the previous partition. Nobody can fail to notice that five Arab countries - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan - are to be divided into 13 states. The ghosts of Sykes-Picot are tangibly present, to divide the Arab region into mini-states along sectarian lines."
The Gazans got the land, but Israel received no peace.
Shearer's facile "teachable moment" for his daughter about the robustness of national borders that are seas and oceans ignores the fact that one of the longest, most stable borders in the world is that between the US and Canada, based on an entirely non-topographical notion, the 49th Parallel. Nor do stretches of ocean mean security, as we can see from the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus.
It is no surprise that Shearer's final barb is aimed at Israel and takes issue with Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Firstly, remember that the West Bank, like Gaza, was never a Palestinian territory. Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan. The Israeli "occupation" is at a ceasefire line, just as it is on the Golan Heights, and awaits a durable peace.
Israel has shown decisiveness at considerable domestic political cost to implement negotiated land-for-peace deals. They did so in Sinai with Egypt and in Gaza. The Gazans got the land, but Israel received no peace. If Gaza can be seen as a downpayment on a two-state solution, what Israeli leadership in its right mind would allow another Hamas firing point in the West Bank? In total, over 90 per cent of the land within the 1967 ceasefire lines has been ceded back to Egypt, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank.
Gaza, the West Bank and Golan are not place names on some map of Israeli beastliness towards Palestinians. They are artefacts of the massive military attacks Israel has withstood since 1948 and will likely endure again.