On Sunday, Iyar 23, 5763 (May 25, 2003), the Israeli government approved a plan that would create a Palestinian Arab state in a part of the historical land of Israel. The vote was twelve to seven, with four abstentions. This approval, which came after great pressure by the U.S. government, and in turn great pressure of the Prime Minister on his own government, has short-term, and may have long-term, implications of great meaning for the Jewish people and Israel, and for the Middle East and the world as a whole. First of all, it is a reaffirmation of the shameful admission made at Oslo that the Jewish people have, for the conceivable future, given up all hope of redeeming the whole of the land of Israel. If the Prime Minister said, in approving the plan, that it is ?not exactly a dream come true? for him, how much more so is it for the Jewish people, who have dreamed for two thousand years of returning to live in and rule in all the land of Israel. This is for the Jewish people, then, a heartbreaking moment, a moment of great pain and difficulty.
Yet, it is clear that the decision made by the Israeli government was made on the basis of a most experienced Zionist leader's realistic calculation of the current situation of Israel. It was made much the way the Yishuv made the decision to accept partition was made - as what is believed to be the best possible practical response to the situation the Jewish people finds itself in.
It seems to me that the calculation was in good part made because the Prime Minister sees that both in international terms and in domestic economic and social terms, control over Shechem and Ramallah does more harm to Israel than it can possibly do good. Moreover, it is apparent that for a much needed economic recovery in Israel, there must come if not a complete end, then a drastic reduction of terrorism. This is not about to come to an end just because of this declaration, though it no doubt will be a contributing factor. The Prime Minister probably sees, too, that despite their bluster, the Arabs now are ready to make an effort to reduce the terror. For, despite the wave of Arab terrorist attacks against Israel in the week previous to the Israeli government decision, the Arabs have gradually been losing their military option. The structures of the terror organizations have been broken up, most of the military leaders killed or captured. The terror now comes at lower levels, and with reduced frequency and destructive power. Also, the funding for the terror, because of the defeat of Saddam Hussein and because the Saudis under American pressure are now cutting off funding to terror conduits based in Europe, is greatly reduced. Moreover, the military option for the Arabs has, at this point, played itself out, and brought few positive results. Tactically and under great American pressure and incentive, it makes sense for them now to play along, and receive the far, far greater benefits from a time of quiet, than from a time of violence.
Thus, it seems to me that, not wholly willingly, and not out of any great determination, the Arabs are going to, for a time, go along with reducing terror. This means that they will be seen also in American eyes, and certainly in European eyes, as having fulfilled their commitment and so enabled the political process to go forward.
This reduction in violence, and the political bargaining process that attends it, must awaken the supporters of Eretz Yisrael to a bitter reality. It is wonderful for us to delude ourselves, but the truth is that the government of Israel is determined to abandon all claim to, at very minimum, forty percent of Judea ,Samaria and Gaza. And all signs are that, in the end, despite our government's wish and posture now ,the price will probably be much more than this.
The pressure is early on going to be put on the Sharon government to fulfill a commitment of the agreement and to remove those settlements that have gone up since March 2001, whose aim was to create a Jewish territorial continuity throughout Judea and Samaria. If this is done, and it appears that Prime Minister Sharon is prepared to do this, then the precedent and stage will be set for later removals of more established settlements.
It seems to me that the true task now for all those Israelis who care for the future well-being of the Jewish people in the land of Israel is to put the maximum pressure on the Sharon government to ensure that any future withdrawals be as minimal as possible. In other words, while the Sharon government's acceptance entails abandoning Shechem, Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkaram, and a great share of Hebron, it should not mean abandoning those areas of Judea and Samaria already inhabited by Jews. The aim must be to maximize the security of Israel in the future, which means maintaining control of as much land, certainly in critical spaces such as the Jordan Valley and the Samarian mountain ridge, as is conceived critical to our future security. And this, when it is clear that even a minuscule Palestinian state is going to constitute a security danger for Israel for the foreseeable future. The more powerful that state is, the larger it is in territory and population, the greater the threat.
It should also be very clear that the tactical compromise made by Prime Minister Sharon in accepting the 'road map' bears within it the seed of an opposite result. A Palestinian state that opens its borders will put further pressure on an already over-crowded land. If a few million Arabs, Palestinians or not, crowd into the Palestinian territory, there will no doubt be additional pressure for Palestinians to find their way into Israel. There will be no hermetically sealed border, whatever government propagandists state, no border cutting families off from one another. And the demographic balance in the land of Israel itself, which already is greatly problematic, will worsen further. It should be clear that no matter how Prime Minister Sharon protests about this, any 'state' which comes into being will have control over its own border. And it, therefore, will constitute both an increasing source of international pressure upon Israel (which will still be held responsible for the economic misery of the Palestinians) and within Israel.
Here, though, I think that another important concept in any future negotiations should be kept in mind. The principle of maximizing the territory the Jewish state has, and minimizing the size of the Arab minority within it must be cardinal in any negotiation. This might mean, for instance, that an area within Israel now, such as the Little Triangle, is treated, in terms of civil rule, as part of the Palestinian State. Israel will not rely, in any way, on Palestinians for their security, and so will militarily control certain areas still under Arab civilian control.
Israel is the aggrieved party, the one that has suffered from unrelenting Arab hostility for close to one hundred years. It is the party that has won the wars, including the present thirty-two month Palestinian campaign of terror. Israel has the right, and therefore must stand on that right, to demand that in any agreement with the Palestinians, the Israeli claim for security is given first priority.
It is to be hoped that Prime Minister Sharon use his great experience and understanding to act in the most responsible , and practically wise way in the future negotiations, maximizing the sovereignty, territory and strength of the Jewish state, albeit allowing the existence of an Arab one in our ancient homeland. In other words, it is hoped and prayed that the practical, realistic Sharon, who has made such a painful concession now, will not at some future point be replaced by either a starry-eyed romantic dreamer, or an old tired leader longing for his place in the history books. And that he will go forward in any negotiations determined to make the best possible 'deal' for Israel in the circumstances. This must be a deal in which a Palestinian Arab state, if it comes into existence, is as small in power and threat to us as possible.
-------------------------------------------------
Shalom Freedman is a freelance writer in Jerusalem, whose work has appeared in a wide variety of Jewish publications.
Yet, it is clear that the decision made by the Israeli government was made on the basis of a most experienced Zionist leader's realistic calculation of the current situation of Israel. It was made much the way the Yishuv made the decision to accept partition was made - as what is believed to be the best possible practical response to the situation the Jewish people finds itself in.
It seems to me that the calculation was in good part made because the Prime Minister sees that both in international terms and in domestic economic and social terms, control over Shechem and Ramallah does more harm to Israel than it can possibly do good. Moreover, it is apparent that for a much needed economic recovery in Israel, there must come if not a complete end, then a drastic reduction of terrorism. This is not about to come to an end just because of this declaration, though it no doubt will be a contributing factor. The Prime Minister probably sees, too, that despite their bluster, the Arabs now are ready to make an effort to reduce the terror. For, despite the wave of Arab terrorist attacks against Israel in the week previous to the Israeli government decision, the Arabs have gradually been losing their military option. The structures of the terror organizations have been broken up, most of the military leaders killed or captured. The terror now comes at lower levels, and with reduced frequency and destructive power. Also, the funding for the terror, because of the defeat of Saddam Hussein and because the Saudis under American pressure are now cutting off funding to terror conduits based in Europe, is greatly reduced. Moreover, the military option for the Arabs has, at this point, played itself out, and brought few positive results. Tactically and under great American pressure and incentive, it makes sense for them now to play along, and receive the far, far greater benefits from a time of quiet, than from a time of violence.
Thus, it seems to me that, not wholly willingly, and not out of any great determination, the Arabs are going to, for a time, go along with reducing terror. This means that they will be seen also in American eyes, and certainly in European eyes, as having fulfilled their commitment and so enabled the political process to go forward.
This reduction in violence, and the political bargaining process that attends it, must awaken the supporters of Eretz Yisrael to a bitter reality. It is wonderful for us to delude ourselves, but the truth is that the government of Israel is determined to abandon all claim to, at very minimum, forty percent of Judea ,Samaria and Gaza. And all signs are that, in the end, despite our government's wish and posture now ,the price will probably be much more than this.
The pressure is early on going to be put on the Sharon government to fulfill a commitment of the agreement and to remove those settlements that have gone up since March 2001, whose aim was to create a Jewish territorial continuity throughout Judea and Samaria. If this is done, and it appears that Prime Minister Sharon is prepared to do this, then the precedent and stage will be set for later removals of more established settlements.
It seems to me that the true task now for all those Israelis who care for the future well-being of the Jewish people in the land of Israel is to put the maximum pressure on the Sharon government to ensure that any future withdrawals be as minimal as possible. In other words, while the Sharon government's acceptance entails abandoning Shechem, Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkaram, and a great share of Hebron, it should not mean abandoning those areas of Judea and Samaria already inhabited by Jews. The aim must be to maximize the security of Israel in the future, which means maintaining control of as much land, certainly in critical spaces such as the Jordan Valley and the Samarian mountain ridge, as is conceived critical to our future security. And this, when it is clear that even a minuscule Palestinian state is going to constitute a security danger for Israel for the foreseeable future. The more powerful that state is, the larger it is in territory and population, the greater the threat.
It should also be very clear that the tactical compromise made by Prime Minister Sharon in accepting the 'road map' bears within it the seed of an opposite result. A Palestinian state that opens its borders will put further pressure on an already over-crowded land. If a few million Arabs, Palestinians or not, crowd into the Palestinian territory, there will no doubt be additional pressure for Palestinians to find their way into Israel. There will be no hermetically sealed border, whatever government propagandists state, no border cutting families off from one another. And the demographic balance in the land of Israel itself, which already is greatly problematic, will worsen further. It should be clear that no matter how Prime Minister Sharon protests about this, any 'state' which comes into being will have control over its own border. And it, therefore, will constitute both an increasing source of international pressure upon Israel (which will still be held responsible for the economic misery of the Palestinians) and within Israel.
Here, though, I think that another important concept in any future negotiations should be kept in mind. The principle of maximizing the territory the Jewish state has, and minimizing the size of the Arab minority within it must be cardinal in any negotiation. This might mean, for instance, that an area within Israel now, such as the Little Triangle, is treated, in terms of civil rule, as part of the Palestinian State. Israel will not rely, in any way, on Palestinians for their security, and so will militarily control certain areas still under Arab civilian control.
Israel is the aggrieved party, the one that has suffered from unrelenting Arab hostility for close to one hundred years. It is the party that has won the wars, including the present thirty-two month Palestinian campaign of terror. Israel has the right, and therefore must stand on that right, to demand that in any agreement with the Palestinians, the Israeli claim for security is given first priority.
It is to be hoped that Prime Minister Sharon use his great experience and understanding to act in the most responsible , and practically wise way in the future negotiations, maximizing the sovereignty, territory and strength of the Jewish state, albeit allowing the existence of an Arab one in our ancient homeland. In other words, it is hoped and prayed that the practical, realistic Sharon, who has made such a painful concession now, will not at some future point be replaced by either a starry-eyed romantic dreamer, or an old tired leader longing for his place in the history books. And that he will go forward in any negotiations determined to make the best possible 'deal' for Israel in the circumstances. This must be a deal in which a Palestinian Arab state, if it comes into existence, is as small in power and threat to us as possible.
-------------------------------------------------
Shalom Freedman is a freelance writer in Jerusalem, whose work has appeared in a wide variety of Jewish publications.