Channels
Photo: ECF
Shaul Arieli: Sharon and Peretz show hollow promises

What about Peace?

Neither Sharon nor Peretz is willing to pay the price for peace

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak demanded the Palestinians "end the conflict and (declare they had) no further claims" during negotiations in the summer of 2000.

 

When his approach failed, Barak concluded there was no Palestinian "partner" to talk peace with, left supporters of a permanent-status agreement stunned and furious, and paved the way for Ariel Sharon - a man whose actions suggested he never really wanted a Palestinian partner to bring the conflict to a conclusion.

 

Today, as we head to elections, we are witness once again to attempts by Sharon and Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz to undermine the little bit of renewed faith on both sides to agree to a historic compromise, by means of public initiatives such as the People's Voice and Geneva Accord.

 

Alongside this cynical abuse of theses gains, Sharon and Peretz throw around hollow promises to achieve a "permanent status agreement" that no Palestinian will accept.

 

Three months ago, Sharon admitted that "the changing situation in Israel, the region, and in the world has forced me to reevaluate and to change my positions."

 

Bulldozing for peace

 

But he continues to believe he can solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict by unilaterally dictating his terms. He does not approach the Palestinians as equal partners for an agreement, but rather says his party supports the establishment of "another nation-state (Which nation, exactly?), the establishment of which will constitute a solution to the refugee problem," and that is only because "we need a Jewish majority."

 

In return, he says Israel "must forego parts of the Land of Israel." But just what part of the Land of Israel does the Kadima party propose the Palestinians make do with? The answer seems to be the West Bank minus "large settlement blocs and united Jerusalem" (and of course it is all on condition that "their state is not a terrorist state").

 

In other words, Sharon agrees only to a Palestinian state in 80 percent of the West Bank, with no transfer of territory, while demanding in return that the Palestinians close the files on 1948 refugees and 1967 evictees, establish their capital somewhere outside Jerusalem, halt terror and perhaps even becoming dues-paying members of the Kadima Party.

 

How generous

 

But that's not all. Sharon's commitment to the road map, which was supposed to see the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of this year, exemplifies our prime minister's sudden "generosity," because neither side has been able to carry out its obligations under the first stage of the plan.

 

It seems, then, that in contrast to his declarations that he wants to sign an agreement, Sharon leans towards Dov Weisglas's assertion that Israel pulled out of Gaza in order to "freeze the peace process" and to lead to an "interim situation which distances us from diplomatic pressure."

 

In the meanwhile, Amir Peretz, who said at the memorial rally for Yitzhak Rabin that "the Oslo Process is not dead," but quickly told voters he was not in favor of the Geneva Accord and that Jerusalem would remain united in any final status agreement.

 

Just what does this "authentic leader" think is going to happen? That PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is going to suddenly take the offer the Palestinians rejected at Camp David under some "collective agreement"? That he's going to convince Abbas that a Palestinian capital in Abu Dis is the best "cost of living" allowance Israel can give in return for al-Quds?

 

Or perhaps he'll copy Sharon, and decide after another 4,000 people have died that "a changing reality" has forced him, too, to "reevaluate and change his positions"?

 

Power to the people

 

The public has great power, especially leading up to elections. Public pressure forced Ehud Barak to pull out of Lebanon and Sharon to do the same to Gaza and build the West Bank security fence, after declaring repeatedly he would not do so just months prior.

 

As they go to the polls, Israelis and Palestinians must demand those who speak of "painful concessions" to solidly grasp the sharp knife of clear- minded policy. Israel's political "explosion" has blurred the policy differences between right and left and requires we re-define support and opposition to a permanent status agreement.

 

The foggy slogans of "opposition" and "supporters" of a permanent status deal politicians who thirst for votes but insult voters' intelligence, take a dull blade to the tiny chance that still exists in the hearts of both peoples to come to a compromise.

 

Not everyone clamoring for a permanent status solution truly understands, or intends to pay, the painful price such an agreement will exact.

 

The conditions for a true solution are clear and well-known: A solution for the Palestinian refugees issue without exercising the right of return, 1:1 land transfers based on the Green Line, division of East Jerusalem into two capitals and an end to terror and violence.

 

Voters on both sides, who believe in bringing the conflict to an end by means of painful concessions, must give their votes to candidates who are unafraid to present a clear diplomatic path such as this loudly and clearly – even if it means sitting in opposition.

 

Brig. Gen. (res.) Shaul Arieli is a member of the Council for Peace and Security, one of the creators of the Geneva Initiative and a Mertez candidate in the upcoming general elections for the 17th Knesset

 


פרסום ראשון: 12.04.05, 13:52
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment