|
|
By Ted Belman
April 21, 2004
Regardless of whether the letter from President Bush stakes new ground or is bankable, the withdrawal of settlements in Gaza is a good thing in and of itself. I don't care whether Hamas tries to make hay out of it. It will make Israel stronger to get rid of the liability of Gaza. But I do care that Israel remains in control of air, sea and land access to Gaza and of security generally.
As for the removal of 7,500 Jewish residents from their homes, I see no future for Jews living amongst the Arabs as citizens of their state. Sooner or later they would have to go. I would have preferred that some of these settlements could have been annexed to Israel to establish the principle that not all land will be given back and to avoid uprooting so many Jewish families.
On the other hand, why not induce the Arabs living in Kalkilya to move into these homes and then raise Kalkilya and annex it? If more homes are needed, build them.
I do not believe in negotiations. Nor do the Palestinians if they can only enter them after they have destroyed their terror apparatus. Negotiations only work if both parties have something to give of value. Then a trade is worked out. If the Palestinians can no longer trade a cessation of violence for Israeli concessions (peace for land) then they can only trade land for land. And this must be parts of Yesha for parts of Yesha. This they never wanted to do.
Bush is adamant that terror must end first whereas the Roadmap is far from clear. Bush thus gives Israel a huge negotiating advantage.
I regret the fact that Israel reiterated that it would honor the settlement freeze. This is too big a concession. Israel must retain the right to build there as it reinforces their right to the land. To accept that they cannot build there is to accept they have no right to build there. They should never have done this. Building facts on the ground is the best weapon Israel has. For that matter Israel should never have agreed to the Roadmap. But having done so, subject to 14 conditions, it should never lose an opportunity to stress these conditions. Unfortunately it never seizes such an opportunity.
As for Bush emphasizing that all issues remain to be negotiated between the parties, he doesn't mean it. Don't be taken in by this. If it were so, Israel could simply say "no" to any more concessions, as the Arabs say "no" to any concessions. The fact remains that Israel alone is not allowed to say "no". The only thing that the Arabs can offer Israel that is of value is the cessation of violence and incitement. Promises won't do it any more. Even that has less value now that Israel has greatly reduced it. And if there is truly to be no negotiations until the Arabs have transformed themselves as Bush clearly says, then they have nothing much to offer. In the meantime Israel should be able to do what it wants in the West Bank and the Arabs won't have a say. Too bad that Prime Minister Sharon has agreed not to build.
Finally, the positive comments coming from Bush were not subject to Israel withdrawing from Gaza. Having been articulated they stand regardless of the pullout, for what they are worth.
The way I see it, Israel could have just decided to pull out of Gaza while still maintaining security in the area without seeking the approval of the U.S. Had it done this, Israel would not have had to abandon the four settlements in the West Bank, given promises of more abandonment, agree to alterations in the route of the fence or agree to freeze construction.
I fear Israel didn't get enough in return. Israel gave firm commitments while Bush gave only statements reflecting thoughts.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
