Posted on 08/23/2005 1:33:09 PM PDT by Alouette
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - In a few long days, Israeli forces have buried any idea that giving up settlements on land Palestinians want for a state would be impossibly traumatic.
Some had predicted before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza pullout that it could be so drawn out, painful and even violent that it might put off for years any removal of more West Bank enclaves seen by Palestinians as a prime obstacle to peace.
There was certainly deep personal grief for the Jewish settlers forced from their homes of decades in Gaza and four of the 120 settlements in the occupied West Bank.
But warnings of mass disorder, military mutinies and even civil war proved wrong.
Polls showed a majority of Israelis supported the pullout from Gaza, an area many in the Jewish state never expected to hold forever, and the four West Bank settlements, two of which its residents abandoned long ago after Palestinian attacks.
The fact the operation was declared over by police two weeks ahead of schedule showed how smoothly it went. That was not lost on Palestinians or the Israeli leftists campaigning to give up all land occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.
"It has been proven that settlements can be dismantled and must be dismantled," said Uri Avnery, a veteran Israeli left-winger.
Top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said: "The lesson here is that it went so peacefully, so smoothly, peace can be doable in the West Bank."
In many ways, it was what settlers and the protesters who rallied to their cause feared -- a precedent for giving up settlements on land to which they stake a biblical claim and which Palestinians also want.
That went beyond even Israel's first removal of settlements -- from Sinai in 1982, under a peace deal with Egypt.
"Broadly speaking, what we've seen sends a message to the international community, to the Palestinians and to Israelis, that more is possible, whether by agreement (with the Palestinians) or not by agreement," said Israeli analyst Yossi Alpher. The World Court brands all the settlements illegal, though Israel disputes this. Even its ally the United States sees them as a sticking point for peacemaking.
FURTHER PULLBACK COULD STILL BE MUCH HARDER
Majority support, careful training of evacuation forces and the fact that most settlers shied away from violence were all factors in the operation's success.
More West Bank withdrawals, though, would be a very different prospect from the 9,000 settlers removed under a plan Sharon dubs "disengagement" from conflict with Palestinians -- and not assured of such support.
The West Bank, with 230,000 settlers, is the cradle of Jewish civilization and home to the most radical opponents of ceding land.
"In the future we will make sure that another disengagement will not happen," said Hillik Navon, spokesman for the Yesha settler council.
There is also no sign that Israel appears ready to give up more settlements soon. Palestinians fear the whole Gaza pullout was a ruse to hold on to much of the West Bank.
Sharon is facing a challenge from the far right of his Likud party, enraged at what it sees as betrayal of the settler movement he helped found, and he is unlikely to want to appear too soft.
He has emphasized that Israel aims to keep the biggest West Bank blocs and keep expanding them. He says that the Palestinians must disarm militants before any talks on statehood that could mean future withdrawals.
Any militant attacks, particularly from Gaza after troops withdraw, would serve the argument of rightists that giving up settlements is a security risk.
"The onus now is entirely on the Palestinians," said Ambassador Gideon Meir, a senior foreign ministry official.
At the same time, Sharon's aides have regularly hinted that there could be future withdrawals -- often mentioning a figure of 180,000 settlers seen by Israel as being able to remain in the West Bank permanently with U.S. approval.
That may mean 50,000 settlers could move. Given that most are concentrated in a few big blocs, such a figure could spell the end for up to 90 settlements.
That would not be likely to satisfy the Palestinian demand for a viable state -- especially if it did not include the removal of major settlements at the heart of the West Bank -- but certainly dwarfs the scale of the current withdrawal.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
...removal of more West Bank enclaves seen by Palestinians as a prime obstacle to peace.
Yes, it's true that Israeli cities in the West Bank are seen as an obstacle to peace by the Palestinians. Also, an Israeli presence in Jerusalem is seen as an obstacle to peace by the Palestinians. Furthermore, the Palestinians are gravely troubled by all the Jews in Tel Aviv. And Haifa. And Nasiriya. All of these things are obstacles to peace.
The Palestinians will not make peace with Israel until there is no Israel to make peace with.
"The Palestinians will not make peace with Israel until there is no Israel to make peace with."
*****
A correction if I may: ...the Palis will not make peace with Jews until there are no Jews to make peace with.
The only ones interested in a two state solution these days seem to be Israel and the Western countries. The palesites are only interested in a one state solution with Jerusalem as its capital. Then Jerusalem could look like Gaza & Jenin.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What would be much easier is for the Palestinians to actually condemn and take action against the terrorists within.
I agree with you, except for the part about the Western countries.
But then the Palestinian Authority would be revealed as having no authority whatsoever. I think the reason they don't take action is they fear being removed from power by the terrorist beast they created. The PA is a paper tiger in every sense.
They should be renamed the Palestinaian (lack of) Authority.
Where is the "Finland" Sharon promised? So far it looks like "Czecheslovakia"..
Good Lord.
Sharon has merely whetted the Jihdadists' appetite for more land.
When he doesn't hand it over, the attacks will resume in the West Bank.
What made it easiere was that many people who are of orange disposition still trust Sharon
If this were being carried out by Peres Beilin and the Haaretz kapos, it would have been much tougher.
If this were being carried out by Peres, et al, it would have never passed in the Knesset.
Great, Reuters, if it's not so hard, I'm sure you won't complain if Israel decides to start transfering 8,500 Arabs out of Israel and into Gaza. If a place has to be Judenrein, then I'm sure you won't have any problem if another place with an Arab minority becomes Arabrein either. Right?
Post 17 should be the Israeli response. FM, if the palesites can't take a joke!
Isn't Reuters Arab-owned now?
..........................................
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.