Your questions answered
Ynet political correspondent Attila Somfalvi offers his perspective on whether Bibi will return to head Likud, whether the disengagement will work, and whether one state is the answer
Ynet political correspondent and analyst Attila Somfalvi rousted himself from his sick bed this week to answer questions from Ynetnews readers around the world.
Questions included queries about the upcoming summit between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and the apparent contradiction between pulling settlements out of Gaza and establishing them in the West Bank.
How do you see the moment when Mr. Sharon is going to meet with Mr. Abbas on 21st of this month? And do you think this summit will yield some results, and if so, will this result affect the peace-making process between the two sides?
Wanghao, Xinhua correspondent, Jerusalem, Israel
Attila Answers: The meeting between the two leaders is supposed to pave the way to cooperation toward the disengagement. I wouldn't be too optimistic about the outcome of this summit, though it is in the good interest of both sides to try and cooperate in order to avoid violent withdrawal from Gaza.
Therefore, we should expect a kind of a technical meeting, in which the Israelis and the Palestinians will be able to put all the issues on the table at the highest level.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will surely remind Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas what the Israeli demands from the Palestinians are, and Mr. Abbas at his turn will try to present the past few relatively quiet months as a success of his leadership. He will ask for more time to establish his authority on the ground, and for the Israeli military not to respond to rocket attacks, even at times of breaks in the cease-fire.
I believe that there is no better way than talking, and more than anything else, this meeting can represent a new stage in the cooperation between the two parties, after a long time of mistrust.
Regarding the future, I wouldn’t count on a breakthrough at this summit. We all know what Israel is expecting from the Palestinians, and Prime Minister Sharon is not in the political position to further withdraw from any land, nor to talk about any withdrawal from the West Bank. First things first, and before entering the Road Map, Mr. Sharon wants the Palestinians to fulfill all their obligations mentioned in U.S President George Bush's plan.
How true do you think is the Israeli’s government intention to come back to the peace track through a plan that pulls out some thousands of settlers in Gaza, while alongside hundreds of settlements are being established on the Palestinian territories in the West Bank? Don’t you think that we are tricking ourselves into an endless circle?
E.L. Hamm, Czech Republic
Attila Answers: There is no doubt the Israeli government is plying a double standard. At the same time it is preparing to withdraw from Gaza, it's also letting outposts and illegal settlements grow. But there can be an explanation to this policy: Israeli officials declare almost on a daily basis that there will be no peace negotiations with the Palestinians until they start fighting terrorism and implement what is written in the Road Map.
Therefore, those who know Ariel Sharon can understand his ways, meaning: let us continue constructing and developing our settlements, and when the time is here, we'll see what happens. If your question is: isn't that policy harmful to the peace process, from my point of view the answer is positive. We have seen in the past 30 years that expanding the occupation has gotten Israel no place.
If pulling out of Gaza is part of a land for peace deal, did Israel obtain a guarantee or agreement from the PA that peace in the region is expected after disengagement from Gaza?
Attila Answers: No agreement has been reached at this stage. The disengagement plan, at its basis, is a unilateral one, which was put on the table when Yasser Arafat was still alive, when there was no partner for negotiations. The logic was: Israel pulls out its people without depending on the Palestinians, and it's the only one who calls the shots, along with the Americans. The Palestinians were not part of the deal. For that, the pullout is not a part of a peace for land deal. It's just a plan that is supposed to minimize the friction between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel has got, though, an agreement with the U.S., that is slowing the whole peace process and putting it into a frame that includes many tasks and duties that the Palestinians have to fulfill before sitting next to the negotiations table.
Will this plan bring peace in the future? Hard to tell. But it is surely a better plan than that of no plan.
What are the chances for Bibi Netanyahu returning to prime minister? Who are his main contenders in the Likud and in the Labor who are the main challengers?
Shane Gayle, Kingston, Jamaica
Netanyahu's chances to be reelected as the head of the Likud party are high. Netanyahu is the only one in this party that has behind him a large group of followers, that were and are ready to forgive him for his past mistakes, and to judge him just for his recent work.
In the past two to three years, Netanyahu has worked very hard to rehabilitate his image in the public, but he tends to fall every few months, when he loses his patience. There is no doubt that there will be a harsh competition for the Likud's leadership. In the public at large, he has some problems, due to the fact that he is not liked by the center-left voters, who put their trust in Ariel Sharon twice. It is hard for me to believe that they will do the same with Netanyahu.
His contenders in the Likud, as I see it, are, except Ariel Sharon, only Shaul Mofaz, the now serving defense minister and perhaps Ehud Olmert, who is very weak now.
In the Labor Party things are much more complicated, since only on the 28th will the members of this party choose their leader. The candidates are: Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Amir Peretz (the Israeli Union Organization leader), Matan Vilnai and Binyamin Ben Eliezer. From these five will the members of the Labor choose a new, perhaps old, leader. Days will tell who he will be, though polls are showing that Peres is holding on strong.
First of all: "GRATULLOK A SZP IZRAELI KARRIERHEZ!” I write you from Budapest, but I think it’s better if I try to ask you in English, as I guess many readers wouldn’t understand our Hungarian correspondence.
In May 2005 I went to Israel the first time in my life. As a tourist, but extremely interested in politics, I tried to understand the society and things I’ve noticed around me. In Jerusalem on Yom Haatzmaut everything appeared quiet and relaxed, not so on the following days, when settlers were protesting at main roads and places. I noticed signs of bitterness and disappointment on their faces. Looking at Israel in this difficult situation, I must admit, for me there is a kind of historic analogy appearing. Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory after World War I, and now people must accept that nothing might be "eternal," neither their proper life nor territorial integrity of their country. Understanding that we can’t own regions and towns where Hungarians do not live in the majority, I ask myself whether Jewish people are condemned to face the same historic perception.
Well, you live in Israel…Can I ask you how do you see the fututre of the disengagement process? How far can get Israeli society in giving up parts of the so-called ”promised land?” What will happen after Gaza? Do you think there will be more peace with Palesinians? How can the Israeli government guarantee that Hamas or Islamic Jihad do not make a "terrorist camp” from Gaza?
Do you think the line of the security fence at the end might be the future state border between Israel and "Palestine?" If the so-called "viable Palestinian state” means that Shomron and Judea must be given up entirely, with a corridor that includes east Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim, what kind of borders can Israel assure to the Palestinians at the east? They surely want to get the Jordan Valley (not only Jericho) in order to mantain contacts with Jordan (and the terrorist cells in the neighboring countries). Do you think Prime Minister Sharon or his followers will ever consider giving up these territories (especially east Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim)? And if not, the Palestinians, and their EU supporters would ever accept a new "Palestine in enclosure” (by Israel)?
I think Israel should learn from Hungary’s bitter histroic experiences regarding the concept of "territory for peace." Our friends around us got everything, but did we get guarantees for peace and minority rights they promised in Trianon (Treaty of Peace with Hungary in 1920)?
Thanks in advance for your answer and personal judgements you are going to write down!
Gabor Karme, Budapest, Hungary
Attila Answers: First of all, thank you for your kind words. I am glad to see that we have readers even in Hungary.
Regarding your question about the future of the disengagement, I would say that it's too early and too hard to predict what will happen afterwards. We don't really have an exact idea of how this entire procedure will end up. The pessimists among us are promising more bloodshed, arguing that the Palestinian radical groups will translate the unilateral withdrawal as an Israeli capitulation to armed, violent and sometimes inhuman resistance, and will harden their fight. The optimists, on the other side, believe in a new era of quiet and prosperity which will begin after the pullout. Even among the security services there are divergences.
Therefore, I wouldn't want to predict, due to the fact that I myself end the days very confused sometimes. My natural tendency is, though, to believe in an optimistic future.
Regarding your other questions:
After Gaza there should be a new start of some kind of peace process with the Palestinians, and more pullouts from many different places in the West Bank. Israel is responsible for the illegal building of many outposts, and it's responsible to dismantle them.
The Israeli government cannot guarantee that Gaza won't become a terror land. The responsibility to avoid such a reality lies upon the shoulders of the Palestinian Authority.
Many different peace plans are on the table. The border problem is an essential one, and I believe it will end up, sometimes in the future in the following way: Israel will maintain the major settlement blocs like Maaleh Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion, and a land exchange will be made with the Palestinians in order to allow them a continuity on the land. I don't think that Ariel Sharon will be the one to negotiate a final peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Regarding your personal statement about the peace with the countries that border Hungary, I think that there is only one test to a peace agreement: Do less people loose their lives than before? This must be, in my opinion, the critical question to judge the success of a peace deal.
Do you think that both Jews and palestinians can live with a one-state solution? Or is this option not even on the agenda?
Ahmad M
Attila Answers: The one-state solution that you have mentioned in your question is the worst solution most Israelis can think of. There is nothing more frightening for an Israeli Jew living in this country than the idea of losing the Jewish majority in Israel. The whole concept of the State of Israel is of a motherland for the adepts of Judaism, who were persecuted for hundreds of years in the Diaspora, and were chased just for what they are and what they believe in.
Israel has become after the Holocaust a shelter for Jews from all over the world, one that if it had existed before World War Two, could have changed the tragic fate of millions of innocent people who were murdered in the Holocaust. Eliminating this option could be tragic for Jews.
Nowadays there are many Arab thinkers who believe that, by freezing the current situation of "no diplomatic solution," we will end up, because of the natural growth of the Arab population, in a solution of a two-nation state. Israelis, of course, from left to right, understand the danger, and are looking for ways to avoid this situation. One of those ways is, by the way, the disengagement plan.
Try to see your question from this point of view, and I believe you will be able to erase that solution from the list by yourself, as long as you ask an Israeli.
There is a controversy in Israel about the number of Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza. However, it is acknowledged by UNRWA that that organization supports approximately 1.6 million Palestinian Arabs living in those areas, who are designated as "refugees."
Since the definition of a "refugee" is one who lives outside of his established home, why is it ultimately necessary to settle these people west of the Jordan River instead of in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or even Iraq, where they would be culturally much more similar to the majority population?
More important, why is nobody discussing this important issue?
Merrill Weber
Attila Answers: The refugee problem is one of the most delicate issues that Israel is dealing with. From the Palestinian point of view, the refugees who left their homes in 1948 have all the rights to return to their homeland. Israel denies this right totally, and I can't see any Israeli government allowing a mass return of Palestinians to Israeli cities.
In spite of that, there is an understanding that refugees will be able to settle in the Palestinian state. Further more: some Israeli leftists (the Geneva Agreement for example) have agreed to let a small amount of refugees to return to Israel at times of peace. It is not correct to say that the issue is not dealt with, because it is, and it's a frightening one for the Israelis.
Do you have more questions for Attila? Click here
