Sharon not interested in permanent status agreement, Pundak says
צילום: איי פי
Where is the Israeli partner?
Majority willing to forfeit most settlements, Jordan Rift Valley for peace
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s new partner in the diplomatic process is Hamas. This sounds almost imaginary, but, de facto, it is the truth.
Sharon and Hamas have a joint interest - they are both against deliberations on a permanent status agreement that would bring about a final treaty between Israel and a Palestinian state; they are both interested in maintaining the status quo, or alternately, progressing talks only up to a long-term interim agreement.
Sharon is not willing to implement the only option that would make the Palestinians sign a peace treaty and, consequently, end their strife with Israel.
He does not want to be associated with an agreement that would bring about the establishment of a Palestinian state with Arab east Jerusalem as its capital.
Sharon is not willing to forgo Israel’s control over the Jordan Rift Valley, in Israel's east, for peace; he is not willing to give up the West Bank settlements of Qiryat Arba, Shilo or Beit El for peace either, and he is not willing to permit Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods for peace.
So, Sharon and Hamas are, in a sense, part of a coalition against PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whose recent call for immediate negotiations on a permanent status agreement during his recent visit to Washington was left up in the air.
Instead of perceiving Abbas’ move as an opportunity, Israel is interpreting it as a threat.
Nearly 10 years after Rabin’s death we have reached a point in which a Palestinian leader calls out for peace in accordance with the “two states for two nations” concept - but Israel is not responding.
Even worse, the only response is an ugly attempt to depict Abbas as “another Arafat.”
No deluxe occupation
Only one real alternative exists for those who do not want to see more bloodshed the day after the disengagement is complete.
From the Palestinian standpoint, the options are either peace or a continuous struggle. The peace they are offering today under Abbas’ leadership is the best Israel could hope for.
The historic opportunity to take advantage of the fact that the PA is being led by a peaceful coalition is slipping away. We will not have a better partner than Abbas, who, since 1988, has directed the Palestinians toward the political option rather than toward a military one.
Abbas believes the Palestinians’ legitimate rights may be attained through talks with Israel. If he fails, the Palestinians will reach the terrible conclusion that Israel does not want peace.
Furthermore, if Israel coerces the Palestinians into signing an interim agreement devoid of any significant political prospects, the Palestinian street would erupt under the motto that a deluxe occupation is impossible; meaning, there can be no economic stifling of the Palestinian economy on the one hand and Israeli prosperity on the other.
Settlement construction cannot go on without resistance from the Israeli public, which believes in peace. The majority of Israelis are wiling to give up most of the settlements, divide Jerusalem and give up the Jordan Rift Valley for peace.
In other words: The majority of Israelis would immediately sign the agreement Abbas is offering us. So where is the Israeli partner?
