Shaul Arieli
'Olmert's government must try to reach an agreement and win international support'
Photo: AFP
Unilateral stupidity
Israel once again strengthening hands of anti-peace Palestinians
The realignment plan brings about a new pinnacle in the substantial change that has occurred since 2000 with respect to Israel's policy vis-à-vis its borders. Apart from the approach that the territories are an asset to be traded for an eventual peace deal, we have adopted an approach in which we unilaterally draw a line in the sand to define the borders of the Jewish state. This is complete folly.
The old approach found expression in peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. The failure of talks with Syria pushed Ehud Barak to withdraw unilaterally from South Lebanon in May, 2000, without any agreement whatsoever – but with the United Nations' recognition that Israel had indeed fulfilled that organizations call to withdraw to the international border.
Disengaging
Five years later, Sharon disengaged from Gaza under immense international and domestic pressure, in an attempt to strengthen Israel's hold on Judea and Samaria. It was a policy that stubbornly refused any hint of cooperation or agreement with the Palestinian Authority.
The move was praised in the international community, but failed to give Israel any recognition for moves in Judea and Samaria such as the separation fence, and it even contributed to Hamas' victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January.
The Olmert government's zeal to set an eastern border without trying too hard to explore the possibilities of renewing negotiations for a permanent status agreement is wrong on several points.
Military recognition
Israel's military might has played a major part in the Arab world's recognition of Israel. This includes the Palestinians.
The Yom Kippur War ignited a process focused on implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 242 – land for peace – and the PLO signed on to this process in 1988.
Israel's superiority served moderates in the Arab world, who claimed they must recognize and compromise with Israel. They told extreme and rejectionist elements that the time had come to obtain with words that which they had failed to obtain with guns.
Arafat had a profoundly negative reaction to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, claiming the move weakened him against supporters of the armed struggle. That, and Mahmoud Abbas' more recent plea for control of the Gaza Strip, are testimony to the weight that Israel's military superiority holds amongst the Palestinian negotiations team, especially when Israel presents the Palestinians with an alternative to armed struggle.
Igniting agreement
Still, Olmert is not, at this stage, planning a full IDF withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, but a significant removal of bases and settlements would be enough to ignite those forces opposed to an agreement with Israel.
Israel is the only country in the world to have won international recognition for territory added to its proposed area as a result of its war of independence since the second world war.
But the international community does not consider the Six Day War a comparable situation. The 1967 borders are the basis for any peace agreement between Israel and her neighbors.
Land-for-peace
The Palestinians' agreement to land swaps (such as the one carried out under terms of the peace treaty with Jordan) that would allow Israel to maintain sovereignty over most of the Israelis that live over the green line, but would require Israel to forego sovereignty over other areas inside the green line.
Therefore, any Israeli attempt to set borders without Palestinian agreement will be doomed to failure in the face of a strong international consensus that has lasted for 39 years.
In contrast with Israel's Lebanon pullout that fulfilled the conditions of Security Council Resolution 425, even if Israel withdrew to the '67 border, we would not be considered in full compliance with 242 because of that resolution's key requirement for a "just solution to the refugee problem."
Tiny numbers
Assuming that the Israeli government will one day annex just the "seam line" area, we are talking about 8.5 percent of the total territory of the West Bank.
The establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem is axiomatic regarding a final-status agreement, and would shrink the area mentioned above to 7 percent.
Even if Israel believes the Palestinians will eventually cede control of the Ariel and Kedumim settlements that jut 20 kilometers (12 miles) into the heart of the West Bank, we know the Palestinians will demand reciprocity in the form of green line territories
Thus, de facto, Israel's attempt to set borders without Palestinian agreement, with no chance they will be accepted by the international community and hurting pro-peace Palestinians and giving support to anti-peace groups, and similarly the surrender of the ability to remove the Palestinian "plug" from the "bathtub" of Iranian, Hizbullah and al-Qaeda claims – is an argument about no more than one percent of the total land of Israel.
Worthy goal, but…
The drive for permanent borders is a worthy goal and extremely necessary. The Olmert government must try to reach an agreement and win international support – the prices are well known to both sides.
Pulling down isolated settlements as part of a renewed program of negotiations will show the Palestinian side that Israel is serious.
A redeployment of Israeli settlements and military in the West Bank may have its advantages. But Israel must not portray such a move as the establishment of permanent borders. They will come only as the result of an agreement.
