Expired hopes
There is no chance Israel can set unilateral borders
There is an absurd, completely unfounded idea making the rounds in Israel's political establishment, one that has even made its way to Washington: The notion that the Israel government can avoid the Palestinian Authority and unilaterally set its borders.
Recently the Kadima Party has adopted this idea, and acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has talked about it in the media. An Olmert-led government, he says, will give the Palestinians a limited chance to bring their claims back to the negotiating table. If they linger too long, or if they choose a "talks today, terror tomorrow" approach, Israel will take the initiative.
Israel will act alone, Olmert said threateningly, and following a "domestic dialogue" and "international dialogue" – exactly where the new border will run and exactly what parts of Judea and Samaria will be annexed to Israel.
Of course none of this will happen, nor could it ever happen.
A little history
Let's look at the precedents: from 1977 to 2005 Israel set borders in the south, east and north. In each case, with no exceptions, and whether the moves were made by Labor or Likud governments, several things stick out:
• Israel always pulls back to the 1949 Armistice Line or to the internationally recognized border that preceded the Six Day War.
• Israel has never left IDF soldiers or settlements behind. Settlements have been evacuated to the green line; after all, there is no sense evacuating them twice.
• Israel never had the audacity to set borders or unilaterally annex territories captured in 1967. The borders sketched in agreement with Arab government s and the international community. We signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. The withdrawal from Lebanon was approved (to the last centimeter) by U.N. inspectors. Even the Gaza disengagement was certified by the Arab governments, over the objections of the Palestinian Authority.
• The world, including the United States, eventually accepted the West Bank separation fence route, (also very close to the green line) only when it became convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that the fence was an essential, defensive security measure to prevent terrorism, rather than a unilateral political move.
Sharp message
What can we learn from these examples? We can discern a clear, razor-sharp message. There is no such thing as a permanent border without a permanent status agreement. Therefore, there is no way Israel will be able to unilaterally establish borders with the Palestinian Authority.
In order for such a border to get even minimal international recognition, it will have to take into consideration Palestinian needs and national aspirations, and they will have to agree to the process – and it doesn’t matter who their elected officials are at the time.
It is also absurd to believe that talk about "setting permanent borders" threatens the Palestinian government in any way. Especially now: Any Israeli unilateral withdrawal program, even a partial one, serves Hamas' interests and strengthens both its rule and its hold on Palestinian society.
There is no positive political value to coordinating ideas with President Bush, so deeply unpopular and whose Middle East policy is so deeply stuck in the mud.
No more maps
For years, Ariel Sharon walked around with a set of maps folded under his arm. He would pull them out to show whoever he happened to be talking to which areas Israel needed to retain forever to maintain its security, ecological and geographic needs.
In 2004 Sharon stopped carrying around the maps. He understood, deep down, that Israel is not in a position that the Allies were in 1945 when they forced Nazi Germany to surrender.
Now, we are not a victorious empire that can create whatever borders it wants on the sands of the Middle East. We never got permission to do it in the past, and we won't in the future.
Map purveyors are like dream merchants: They try to sell us expired hopes.
