|
|
May 23, 2001
Ariel Sharon's unilateral declaration of an Israeli cessation of initiated military actions represents a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough - yet. Still, Sharon's approach to the ceasefire, should it succeed in stopping the spiraling violence, represents a model that can be usefully applied to subsequent steps in the diplomatic process.
The fact that the declared ceasefire is unilateral enables Israel to be seen as making the first move - fulfilling a request from the US Administration. It does not mire the Israeli government in a protracted negotiation with the Palestinian Authority over the terms of a ceasefire. And Israel's cessation of initiated actions is conditional - the IDF will respond to Palestinian violence and soldiers can defend themselves if attacked.
It remains to be seen whether the declared ceasefire will hold longer than the previous half-dozen - all violated by the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has already rejected Sharon's declaration as insufficient. Palestinian representatives argue that, without a symbolic gain like freezing settlement activity, they will have no leverage to show "the street" that something has been gained from the eight months of violence.
The equation of stopping settlements with stopping violence, as some understand the Mitchell Commission's report to advance, strikes many Israelis as offensive. They see Palestinian violence as a cynical means to coerce by force what couldn't be achieved through negotiations. The concessions offered by former PM Ehud Barak, which effectively abandoned most settlements, were not enough for Arafat. So he launched the current Intifada to extract further surrenders of land and compromises on other issues.
In the Palestinian view, settlements are seen as acts of violence. More than "obstacles to peace," as various international bodies call them, they symbolize the loss of their homeland to Jewish control. Settlements - especially the large blocs like those around Ariel, Gush Etzion, the Jordan Valley, and around Jerusalem - have created facts on the ground that will be difficult if not impossible to uproot.
For many Israeli settlers, the settlement enterprise epitomizes the essence of the Zionism, redeeming the whole Land of Israel as a home for the Jewish People. Proponents of settlement also argue pragmatically that the existence of settlements has enabled Israel to improve its strategic position in protecting its vulnerable regions.
Annexing territorial blocs with thick Jewish settlement, as Barak proposed, has become an Israeli consensus position, even as the future of smaller, more isolated communities has become more tenuous. Even they represent a powerful bargaining chip that Israel could use to extract concessions for their handover or dismantling.
However, the dismantling of settlements is today not under discussion. What is being discussed is the freezing of settlement construction as a confidence-building measure for sustaining a ceasefire. The benefits of a successful ceasefire are immediate and urgent to both sides. Preventing additional loss of life, pausing the escalating spiral to war, improving the public image of both Israel and the Palestinians in the West, preventing further harm to economies badly damaged by the ongoing violence and its fallout.
The costs of a unilateral settlement freeze to Israel, by contrast, would appear to be minimal. There is no shortage of homes in most settlements. However, Israel cannot appear to reward Palestinian-initiated violence. The Palestinians should not be led to believe that they could extract additional concessions by more violence. Freezing settlements should not be the outcome of negotiations but a unilateral Israeli declaration.
Israel, however, can unilaterally address both points by tightly linking the ceasefire and settlements issues. The settlement freeze would not only be conditional on the absolute cessation of Palestinian violence. The government should announce that each significant act of post-ceasefire violence would trigger land confiscations and settlement expansions.
If the Palestinians know that there is an immediately and painful - yet non-violent - cost to more drive-by shootings, sniping, mortar attacks, and bombings, they will have a tangible incentive to stop them and rein in the attackers. They will not be able to play "good cop, bad cop" - since all Palestinian groups are united against settlement activity, all with have a strong incentive to desist from terror.
Israel will have an appropriate "Zionist response" to additional acts of Palestinian aggression and terrorism - a more palatable alternative to military reprisals. Constructing new homes is a morally and visually superior to massive displays of lethal firepower.
Getting dragged into cycles of retaliation is a losing game for Israel. The Sharon government needs a compelling value proposition to modify Palestinian behavior. Only when Arafat is convinced that the Palestinian Authority literally will lose ground with each attack will he and his colleagues have incentives to rein in the violence. If they kill, we will build. If they allow the land to be used for attack, they will forfeit that land.
Having made the first move, Israel should consider a second unilateral confidence-building step should the declared ceasefire initially hold. Sharon should dangle before Arafat the carrot of a settlement freeze - explicitly attached to the stick of additional settlement if terror continues. Only with a tangible, non-violent penalty for continued Palestinian violence will the ceasefire have a fighting chance - to stick.
|
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
