When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his Disengagement Plan, I jumped on his bandwagon.
In my article "Sharon's Strategy and Why I Support It", I reasoned:
"He plans to build the fence in a path that is most advantageous for Israel. This will enable Israel to better protect its citizens and its economy. It will also enable Israel to strengthen its hold on the included lands during a very extended interim period. He is prepared to abandon some settlements on the east side of the fence and in Gaza and repatriate/transfer the Jews from them. This is a small price to pay for the opportunity to consolidate Israel's hold on a large and significant swath of land. One step back and two steps forward."
Much has happened since then, which has riddled his strategy and my support of it. The US is totally against Israel strengthening its hold and won't let Israel build the fence where it is most advantageous for it to do so. Ha'aretz reports:
"Senior U.S. officials have made it clear in recent conversations with Israeli officials that the U.S. opposes the annexation of West Bank territory and the construction of an eastern fence between West Bank Palestinian cities and the Jordan Valley.
"It also opposes moving settlers from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. The Americans have requested information on the 1982 relocation of evacuees from Sinai and asked whether they were resettled in the West Bank and Gaza."
Even before this clear diktat, Israel had capitulated and changed the location of the fence to exclude Ariel and other close-by settlements, and to forego a buffer for Ben-Gurion Airport.
If yielding territory does not enable Israel to consolidate its hold on the remaining territory, then the rationale for yielding it is totally destroyed.
Sharon's latest plan for disengagement in Gaza gave up a great deal for little in return. The Camp David Accords, which conceded "every inch" to Egypt, set a very bad precedent. To give up every inch of Gaza is an even worse precedent, because Gaza is indistinguishable from Judea and Samaria. Far better to retain the largest settlement block in Gaza when withdrawing from most of it, and announcing Israel's intention to annex it. In any event, Israel will still be responsible to control the terrorists in Gaza, even after they uproot some settlements, so what is to be gained?
As Sharon has said many times, all his actions will first be approved by the US. While it is better to proceed with the agreement of the US, it is not a good policy to let the US call all the shots. Israel must have a made-in-Israel policy even if the US doesn't like it. If the US has its way with Israel, Israel will be forced back to the '67 borders, with minor exchanges, and will be responsible for assisting the Palestinians to be economically viable.
The US holds that "?a final settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians must be achieved through negotiations. And neither side should impose final conditions on the other."
This is utter nonsense. Negotiations are never conducted in a vacuum. They are always affected by the relative strength of the parties. And strength is not just measured in terms of military power, but also in terms of one's willingness to use it. Strength also reflects one's political support or lack thereof. Furthermore, all parties to a conflict attempt to impose "final conditions" on the other, either by militarily defeating them or by gaining advantages in other ways. In the case of the Israeli/Arab dispute, the world is attempting to impose final conditions on Israel and criticizes Israel for doing anything to thwart its ends.
Israel is constantly accused of taking unilateral steps that prejudge negotiations. This right is reserved to the world powers alone. This condemnation must be utterly rejected. Every country, without exception, does whatever it can to serve its interests without waiting for agreement. Such condemnation is merely a tool to impose on Israel a solution and to prevent Israel from bettering its position. It has no basis in law or in any agreement.
Sharon is clearly a lame duck prime minister. His health is failing and he may soon be indicted. The US is already distancing itself from him and Sharon is looking increasingly to the Left for support. He settled for holding the forces of terror at bay rather than defeating them massively. He has come out with many plans that involve concessions with little in return, and even those plans, he cannot execute. He has refused to initiate legislation that would require a super majority before any settlements are uprooted or land given back. He has accomplished nothing. He has given the US a veto over all Israeli policies and this is a total abdication of Israeli sovereignty. He must go.
Sharon managed to get approval for the horrendous prisoner exchange, for which I will not forgive him. This is more than a security issue. It goes to the heart of Sharon's willingness to fight and bodes ill for Israel.
The all-important question is, "Can Israel go it alone?" Does Israel have any choice but to comply with the demands of the US, as Sharon is doing? Is Israel fooling itself to think that it can act independently and get away with it? Israel's choice is to accept like sheep the demands of the world, or to get off the slippery slope of the "peace process" and stand and fight. Israel should not subject itself to the will of the Quartet, but should set its own terms for settlement. To my mind, it can't be any worse off.
In my article "Sharon's Strategy and Why I Support It", I reasoned:
"He plans to build the fence in a path that is most advantageous for Israel. This will enable Israel to better protect its citizens and its economy. It will also enable Israel to strengthen its hold on the included lands during a very extended interim period. He is prepared to abandon some settlements on the east side of the fence and in Gaza and repatriate/transfer the Jews from them. This is a small price to pay for the opportunity to consolidate Israel's hold on a large and significant swath of land. One step back and two steps forward."
Much has happened since then, which has riddled his strategy and my support of it. The US is totally against Israel strengthening its hold and won't let Israel build the fence where it is most advantageous for it to do so. Ha'aretz reports:
"Senior U.S. officials have made it clear in recent conversations with Israeli officials that the U.S. opposes the annexation of West Bank territory and the construction of an eastern fence between West Bank Palestinian cities and the Jordan Valley.
"It also opposes moving settlers from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. The Americans have requested information on the 1982 relocation of evacuees from Sinai and asked whether they were resettled in the West Bank and Gaza."
Even before this clear diktat, Israel had capitulated and changed the location of the fence to exclude Ariel and other close-by settlements, and to forego a buffer for Ben-Gurion Airport.
If yielding territory does not enable Israel to consolidate its hold on the remaining territory, then the rationale for yielding it is totally destroyed.
Sharon's latest plan for disengagement in Gaza gave up a great deal for little in return. The Camp David Accords, which conceded "every inch" to Egypt, set a very bad precedent. To give up every inch of Gaza is an even worse precedent, because Gaza is indistinguishable from Judea and Samaria. Far better to retain the largest settlement block in Gaza when withdrawing from most of it, and announcing Israel's intention to annex it. In any event, Israel will still be responsible to control the terrorists in Gaza, even after they uproot some settlements, so what is to be gained?
As Sharon has said many times, all his actions will first be approved by the US. While it is better to proceed with the agreement of the US, it is not a good policy to let the US call all the shots. Israel must have a made-in-Israel policy even if the US doesn't like it. If the US has its way with Israel, Israel will be forced back to the '67 borders, with minor exchanges, and will be responsible for assisting the Palestinians to be economically viable.
The US holds that "?a final settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians must be achieved through negotiations. And neither side should impose final conditions on the other."
This is utter nonsense. Negotiations are never conducted in a vacuum. They are always affected by the relative strength of the parties. And strength is not just measured in terms of military power, but also in terms of one's willingness to use it. Strength also reflects one's political support or lack thereof. Furthermore, all parties to a conflict attempt to impose "final conditions" on the other, either by militarily defeating them or by gaining advantages in other ways. In the case of the Israeli/Arab dispute, the world is attempting to impose final conditions on Israel and criticizes Israel for doing anything to thwart its ends.
Israel is constantly accused of taking unilateral steps that prejudge negotiations. This right is reserved to the world powers alone. This condemnation must be utterly rejected. Every country, without exception, does whatever it can to serve its interests without waiting for agreement. Such condemnation is merely a tool to impose on Israel a solution and to prevent Israel from bettering its position. It has no basis in law or in any agreement.
Sharon is clearly a lame duck prime minister. His health is failing and he may soon be indicted. The US is already distancing itself from him and Sharon is looking increasingly to the Left for support. He settled for holding the forces of terror at bay rather than defeating them massively. He has come out with many plans that involve concessions with little in return, and even those plans, he cannot execute. He has refused to initiate legislation that would require a super majority before any settlements are uprooted or land given back. He has accomplished nothing. He has given the US a veto over all Israeli policies and this is a total abdication of Israeli sovereignty. He must go.
Sharon managed to get approval for the horrendous prisoner exchange, for which I will not forgive him. This is more than a security issue. It goes to the heart of Sharon's willingness to fight and bodes ill for Israel.
The all-important question is, "Can Israel go it alone?" Does Israel have any choice but to comply with the demands of the US, as Sharon is doing? Is Israel fooling itself to think that it can act independently and get away with it? Israel's choice is to accept like sheep the demands of the world, or to get off the slippery slope of the "peace process" and stand and fight. Israel should not subject itself to the will of the Quartet, but should set its own terms for settlement. To my mind, it can't be any worse off.