Posted on 12/19/2003 12:49:32 PM PST by anotherview
Dec. 19, 2003
The Herzliya Initiative
The gist of the insta-analysis of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's long-anticipated speech was: nothing new.
Don't believe it.
This was a landmark speech that changes the incentive structure of our virtual peace process and could define events for decades to come.
Many are dismissing the speech because Sharon did not announce the immediate dismantling of a single settlement. This was a ludicrous expectation to begin with. Israel, and even more so the United States, remain committed to the road map, which requires – first of all – an end to Palestinian terror, and that Israel dismantle unauthorized outposts.
What Sharon has done is attach consequences to continued Palestinian refusal in implementing the road map. The consequences are mixed. On the one hand, Sharon is offering to dismantle a significant number of settlements, effectively and unilaterally handing over more territory to Palestinian control. It can reasonably be asked, why would the Palestinians take the difficult steps required by the road map when, by simply waiting, they will be handed settlements and territory on a silver platter?
T
he answer lies in the second consequence outlined by Sharon: the tightening of Israel's hold over the territory between the security fence and the Green Line. As Sharon put it, "in the framework of the Disengagement Plan, Israel will strengthen its control over those same areas in the Land of Israel, which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement."
By the same token, the settlements slated for "relocation" will be "those which will not be included in the territory of the State of Israel inthe framework of any possible future permanent agreement."
Sharon is proposing that the map of settlements, which he perhaps more than any Israeli was responsible for creating, be redesigned to make way for, rather than block, a Palestinian state. Behind his rather sanitized description lies an extremely complicated and wrenching process.
Unlike the famous evacuation of Yamit in the Sinai, in which Sharon also had a hand, the context would not be a peace agreement. Yamit had a few thousand residents and had been in place for only a few years. Sharon is speaking of over a dozen, perhaps dozens, of settlements where thousands of Israelis have lived, some for a generation.
There has been no discussion of how the colossal cost of this will be paid, or how those being evacuated will be induced to "relocate" to where the government thinks they should.
"My life experience has taught me that for peace, as well as for war, we must have a broad consensus," Sharon said. "We must preserve our unity, even in the midst of a difficult internal debate." Such calls for unity are usually regarded as rhetorical padding. Now, even more than before, the need for unity should be taken seriously by someone other than the prime minister. As we may be embarking on an extremely divisive process, it is worth paying more attention to the way we talk.
We have, on the one hand, leaders on the Right speaking of Sharon's "betrayal" and of "stabbing them in the back." On the other, we have many, including our Justice Minister, of all people, charging that Israel is being "led by a small minority of leaders who represent a minority of settlers and who dream of brutally transferring Palestinians across the Jordan."
Sharon should not be demonized and neither should the settlers. Settler leaders should be praised for their verbal commitments to non-violent resistance, but they should be held to that standard. The communities of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are right to wrap themselves in the Israeli flag, both in terms of the sacrifices they have made for this country and because successive Israeli governments sent them there.
But this cuts both ways: settlers cannot argue that the government is legitimate when it sends them to the hilltops and illegitimate if it decides that altered circumstances demand they be relocated.
The Right asks, if the road map fails because of the Palestinian Authority, why are settlements being dismantled instead of the PA?
To the extent that the US balks at creating territorial consequences for the PA's refusal to make peace, this is exactly the alternative that should be presented to Sharon's disengagement plan.
Disengagement is a substitute born of the American and Israeli refusal to carry out President George W. Bush's own call for a new Palestinian leadership.
We should remember that neither the road map nor disengagement will bring peace absent real Palestinian regime change.
I have a strong objection to only one word in this otherwise reasoned sentence, namely the "if".
The road map is just the latest of dozens failed peace plans. Them the plans all failed because no one either in successive American administrations, nor in the so called international community had balls to call a spade spade.
The road map suffers absolutely the same deficiency.
Another dozen of plans, maps, initiatives and so on will fail until Israelis and Americans don't pronounce loudly and clearly - for the international community and the Arabs not be able to continue their denial - the simple, well known truth: Palestinians don't want peace or statehood, they want Israel disintegrated.
Consequently, American and Israeli peace enforcing activities should be where their mouth is.
Afghanistan and Iraq will do as a pattern to follow.
The Islamic world goes crazy over Jews controlling some territory (Israel) that was once part of Dar al Islam. 'Slamics will always dream of getting back this turf until the day Islam is chastened by the obliteration of Mecca Medina Qom. I hope it doesn't come down to that but it most likely will.
 |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.