Prime Minister Ariel Sharon starts with the premise that Arab rejectionism is the problem and that an acceptable end-of-conflict agreement is not achievable for decades. Thus, he favours an interim solution by agreement if possible, unilaterally imposed, if necessary.
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. He is careful not to call the location of the fence ?the border?, because that would mean ceding sovereignty over the balance of these lands, which he is not yet, or perhaps ever, willing to do.
As I understand it, the fence is going to include all of Jerusalem, even though there are 350,000 Arabs living there. This enables Israel to consolidate its hold on Jerusalem without conceding citizenship to the Arabs. To date, citizenship is available to the Arabs living there, but only 6% have accepted it. I think that this policy should be reviewed and that citizenship should not be made available to them unless the world accepts Israel?s annexation of Jerusalem. Since the world is not ready to accept such annexation, they can?t complain that the Arabs are not granted citizenship. Sharon has made great progress in denying the Arabs a foothold in Jerusalem. Remember Orient House? Remember it was Sharon who walked on the Temple Mount to assert Jewish rights there? I am sure that, in the future, he will continue to establish Jerusalem as Israel?s undivided capital.
There is a second Roadmap obligation on Israel, namely, to ?cease settlement activity?. This was never defined. To my mind, this had meant that there could be no construction at all in the settlements. Now Sharon, with the agreement of US President George Bush, has redefined it. It allows for unlimited construction within present construction lines. What is not said, but surely follows, is that after borders are agreed upon, Israel can do what it wishes within its own territory. What is not clear, if no agreement is forthcoming and the Roadmap is abandoned in favour of the Disengagement Plan, is does this still apply?
Sharon was absolutely silent on whether a fence is also to be built to enable Israel to retain the Jordan rift. Nevertheless I think that such a fence is part of his strategy. While it is implied that the Palestinians will have autonomy in the lands enclosed by the fences much as they do now, Israel has no choice but to retain control of the access to the autonomous region. Although autonomous, they will not have the right to militarize or to enter into defence pacts with any other country or to have unlimited or exclusionary use of their airspace.
Even if an agreement is worked out, whether it be interim or final, Israel must keep control of the borders surrounding the autonomous region and the airspace to ensure these limitations are adhered to. Whether the Palestinians declare a state within these confines, which will have limited sovereignty, or whether they simply remain autonomous is of no concern of Israel; the limitations must remain. The US has only demanded that the future state be ?contiguous? and ?viable?.
Sharon stressed that he will proceed in tandem with the US. When White House Spokesperson Scott McClennan was interviewed on the Sharon speech, he declined to say what would happen if the Roadmap doesn't progress. He avoided any criticism of what Sharon said he would do in that eventuality. He would only talk about the Roadmap not being interfered with. But he went further regarding the fence. The US position is now that, providing the location of the fence is clearly for defensive purposes, which it obviously is, land can be taken. The US is against defence being a "pretext only" and against land being taken "unnecessarily". So, I believe US Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks about a "land grab" have been finessed away, so long as the lands taken are necessary.
The about face of Libya?s Col. Gadaffi is hugely important. With Iraq and Libya neutered, the coalition of rogue states is falling apart. Syria is probably negotiating a similar deal now. Better to cut a deal with the US than to cut your own throat by opposing them.
The next six months are crucial. There will be an increase in terror in both Iraq and Israel and it will be aggressively fought. The US will force Syria to cave in and stop supporting terrorism. The US and Israel will have to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. Israel, the US or Europe may be the victim of a devastating terrorist attack. Iraq, hopefully, will be stabilized and the House of Saud will be destabilized. All these things will greatly affect the calculus in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Finally, I detect a softening of the opposition of the EU and Russia to America and Israel. I think this will continue.
All these external happenings can?t help but have a salutary effect on the ambitions of the Palestinians, too. Dare we believe in Pax Americana?
In the meantime, Sharon will have conceded nothing other than the uprooting of a few settlements. As painful as that is, particularly to the settlers, the benefits to Israel of the trade off seem to me to be worth it. If the Palestinians change their stripes and embrace Israel in a meaningful way, they can have their state with limited sovereignty, but not without major compromises in their positions. If they resist, then their state, to use a Marxian phrase, will whither away.
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. He is careful not to call the location of the fence ?the border?, because that would mean ceding sovereignty over the balance of these lands, which he is not yet, or perhaps ever, willing to do.
As I understand it, the fence is going to include all of Jerusalem, even though there are 350,000 Arabs living there. This enables Israel to consolidate its hold on Jerusalem without conceding citizenship to the Arabs. To date, citizenship is available to the Arabs living there, but only 6% have accepted it. I think that this policy should be reviewed and that citizenship should not be made available to them unless the world accepts Israel?s annexation of Jerusalem. Since the world is not ready to accept such annexation, they can?t complain that the Arabs are not granted citizenship. Sharon has made great progress in denying the Arabs a foothold in Jerusalem. Remember Orient House? Remember it was Sharon who walked on the Temple Mount to assert Jewish rights there? I am sure that, in the future, he will continue to establish Jerusalem as Israel?s undivided capital.
There is a second Roadmap obligation on Israel, namely, to ?cease settlement activity?. This was never defined. To my mind, this had meant that there could be no construction at all in the settlements. Now Sharon, with the agreement of US President George Bush, has redefined it. It allows for unlimited construction within present construction lines. What is not said, but surely follows, is that after borders are agreed upon, Israel can do what it wishes within its own territory. What is not clear, if no agreement is forthcoming and the Roadmap is abandoned in favour of the Disengagement Plan, is does this still apply?
Sharon was absolutely silent on whether a fence is also to be built to enable Israel to retain the Jordan rift. Nevertheless I think that such a fence is part of his strategy. While it is implied that the Palestinians will have autonomy in the lands enclosed by the fences much as they do now, Israel has no choice but to retain control of the access to the autonomous region. Although autonomous, they will not have the right to militarize or to enter into defence pacts with any other country or to have unlimited or exclusionary use of their airspace.
Even if an agreement is worked out, whether it be interim or final, Israel must keep control of the borders surrounding the autonomous region and the airspace to ensure these limitations are adhered to. Whether the Palestinians declare a state within these confines, which will have limited sovereignty, or whether they simply remain autonomous is of no concern of Israel; the limitations must remain. The US has only demanded that the future state be ?contiguous? and ?viable?.
Sharon stressed that he will proceed in tandem with the US. When White House Spokesperson Scott McClennan was interviewed on the Sharon speech, he declined to say what would happen if the Roadmap doesn't progress. He avoided any criticism of what Sharon said he would do in that eventuality. He would only talk about the Roadmap not being interfered with. But he went further regarding the fence. The US position is now that, providing the location of the fence is clearly for defensive purposes, which it obviously is, land can be taken. The US is against defence being a "pretext only" and against land being taken "unnecessarily". So, I believe US Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks about a "land grab" have been finessed away, so long as the lands taken are necessary.
The about face of Libya?s Col. Gadaffi is hugely important. With Iraq and Libya neutered, the coalition of rogue states is falling apart. Syria is probably negotiating a similar deal now. Better to cut a deal with the US than to cut your own throat by opposing them.
The next six months are crucial. There will be an increase in terror in both Iraq and Israel and it will be aggressively fought. The US will force Syria to cave in and stop supporting terrorism. The US and Israel will have to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. Israel, the US or Europe may be the victim of a devastating terrorist attack. Iraq, hopefully, will be stabilized and the House of Saud will be destabilized. All these things will greatly affect the calculus in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Finally, I detect a softening of the opposition of the EU and Russia to America and Israel. I think this will continue.
All these external happenings can?t help but have a salutary effect on the ambitions of the Palestinians, too. Dare we believe in Pax Americana?
In the meantime, Sharon will have conceded nothing other than the uprooting of a few settlements. As painful as that is, particularly to the settlers, the benefits to Israel of the trade off seem to me to be worth it. If the Palestinians change their stripes and embrace Israel in a meaningful way, they can have their state with limited sovereignty, but not without major compromises in their positions. If they resist, then their state, to use a Marxian phrase, will whither away.