|
|
By Ted Belman
May 11, 2004
Amending the disengagement plan is not the answer. Amending the road map is.
I am dismayed that no one is attacking the road map as the problem or emphasizing Israel's fourteen conditions that accompanied its acceptance. To my mind, Bush did not deal with the conditions by agreeing to give "serious consideration" to them and is not entitled to consider that the road map was thus accepted as it is. At best it is a conditional acceptance. Now is the time, when Israel is being asked to reaffirm its commitment to the road map, to affirm its acceptance is conditional on the fourteen conditions being satisfied.
Better still the road map itself should be scrapped along with the rest of the Quartet. The UN, the EU and Russia have been there to give weight to the claims of the PA requiring Israel to accept the Saudi Plan rather than to serve as a force to pressure the PA to honor its commitments or to make concessions for peace. They also have done nothing to ensure that the money they give to the PA goes only for sustaining the people and not for terrorism. Such actions inhibit the process rather than enable it.
If Bush wants Israel to be more forthcoming in following the road map, he should declare his own road map that should contain the following:
1. The U.S. alone should replace the Quartet. Presently the UN, EU and to a lesser extent, Russia, give diplomatic and financial support to the "Palestinians" notwithstanding the latter's failure to live up to their commitments, their use of terror and their corruption. Their proper role is to assist and pressure the Palestinians to abide by their commitments. This they have failed to do
2. Land for land. All references to "land for peace," the Saudi Plan and the Madrid conference should be removed. What should remain are only Resolution 242 and Resolution 338. It should be clearly noted that the proper interpretation of these resolutions is that Israel is entitled to secure borders based on retaining parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Furthermore it should acknowledge that demographic realities on the ground must be taken into account and that population exchanges i.e. transfer of both Jews and Palestinians to their own side of the new border, should not be ruled out.
3. Negotiations to start only when the PA has met certain conditions laid out in his June '02 speech; namely, the end of incitement, new democratic government, total dismantling of terror infrastructure etc. It is not enough that the PA commences to do so.
4. No right of return. A just settlement of the refugee issue will require the offsetting of claims by both Jewish and Arab refugees. Justice to be served by compensation alone.
5. All issues to be freely negotiated meaning each side has the right to say "no" and to make no further concessions. At the moment, Israel is being forced to participate and to make concessions and that is not consistent with free negotiations. If this results in no agreement being achieved, so be it.
6. No settlement freeze. Israel should be entitled to build anywhere as laid down by the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate from the League of Nations and as permitted in Oslo. This is the best assurance that the Arabs will be flexible because time is no longer on their side. To restrict this right is to say that there is no penalty for recalcitrance. That is a prescription for avoidance. To restrict this right is to unilaterally prevent Israel from doing what it is legally entitled to do.
7. No unilateral moves such as annexation for a limited period, say 2 years. This would put additional pressure on the PA to make the best deal they can.
8. Jordan should become a party to Bush's Road map since it has a stake in what happens.
9. A Palestinian State should not be guaranteed. This should be an issue for final negotiations and not a foregone conclusion. It may be the best plan for all to attach those parts of the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan that are agreed not to become part of Israel. This would enable greater options in settling the refugees and achieving economic and administrative sustainability.
But after meeting with King Abdullah, Bush said:
"[...]I remain committed to the vision I laid out here in the Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security, and to the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.
"[...]As I have previously stated, all final status issues must be negotiated between the parties in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. And the United States will not prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. The road map is the -- is the best path to realizing the two-state vision. That is why the road map is the plan endorsed by the Palestinians, Israel, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, the United States and many other nations. That's why my administration is committed to making it a reality."
These words must be read carefully. His commitment is to the June '02 speech and not the road map. To my mind, this is very instructive. I have great difficulty with the description of the Palestinian State as being "viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent." Each one of these adjectives creates a host of insoluble problems. Once again he confirms that all final issues must be negotiated according to Resolution 242 and Resolution 338. He specifically leaves out the Saudi Plan and "peace for land' as in the Madrid Conference which are in the road map. This too is very important. The road map he says is only a "path." Finally, he informs he will not prejudice the negotiations. I take this to mean he will neither pre-determine the outcome nor interfere with negotiations.
If my interpretation of his remarks is correct, I suggest Bush has already endorsed some of these points.
The Quartet is not the solution but is part of the problem as explained above. The U.S. is also part of the problem because it is not willing to allow Israel to deal forcefully with Palestinian terror, it protects Arafat, it refused to remove reference to the Saudi Plan or the "right of return" in the road map, it is demanding that settlements be abandoned or frozen prior to a final agreement, it doesn't impose consequences on the Palestinians for their terror or breach of commitments or corruption and finally because it forces Israel to make concessions in order to achieve its goals elsewhere in the Middle East. All these actions must be reversed.
Little wonder than that Israel is unwilling to buy a pig in a poke or to use a biblical reference, to sell its inheritance for a mess of pottage.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
