By Ted Belman
August 23, 2004
Originally published by Israpundit.
Prime Minister Sharon, in continuing to push for disengagement, is flying in the face of the facts. What are they?
1. Likud voted, by a margin of 60 to 40, against bringing Labor into the governing coalition to enable it.
2. There is no money allocated in the budget to pay for uprooting the settlers and the U.S. has refused to pay for it.
3. No financial model has been presented to the Knesset or to Israelis showing how disengagement saves money. But we are told the high cost of building the trench and the high cost of redeploying the IDF.
4. There is no security arrangement for Gaza that would prevent Gaza from becoming an armed camp or from attacking Israel after it withdrew. There is no doubt about it, Israel would be less secure. The rocket attacks will only increase.
5. It is far from certain that Israel will retain control of access to Gaza by land, sea or air.
6. Except for the letters from Bush, which suggested but failed to ensure that Israel could keep the settlements, the Bush Administration has continually taken the position that Israel must not enlarge the settlements and must dismantle certain settlements. The administration is against a "land grab" and in favor of Israel trading something in exchange for the large blocs.
7. Both America and Israel pay lip service to the Roadmap notwithstanding that there is absolutely no evidence, in word or in deed, that the Arab countries or the Palestinians are willing to live up to what is required of them.
8. The construction of the fence has been discontinued because the Israeli government is caving into world pressure. The ICJ said it was illegal, the High Court of Israel said it had to be less inconvenient to the Arabs and must not be a "land grab," the State Department is micro-managing where it will be built, the Vatican has also registered its objection to the proposed route and the IDF said that the proposed new route renders Israel defenseless.
9. The rational for the construction of the fence was that would save lives, which it has, but also that it would become a de-facto border, despite protestations to the contrary. This rational can no longer be sustained. Also, the fence cannot be routed through the minefields of Jerusalem. It is just too problematic.
10. There is nothing unilateral about disengagement as Israel has given the U.S. a veto over everything Israel wants to do.
11. The insurgency in Iraq supported by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Al Qaida, Hamas and Arafat, among others, serves to underline that these same groups will not allow Israel a moment's peace or a permanent stay in the Middle East.
12. The U.S. is preventing Israel from building the fence where it would serve to protect Ben Gurion Airport or to include many major settlement blocs.
Disengagement, of which the fence is a part, is an attempt to create a more manageable situation for Israel for the long haul. Whether it will achieve this is far from certain. In fact the contrary seems more probable. Disengagement doesn't save money because the trench, the fence, the IDF redeployment and the resettlement will cost billions. It doesn't make Israel more secure in the same way abandoning Area A under Oslo didn't make Israel more secure. It doesn't ensure that Israel can keep parts of Yesha. It doesn't solve any of the problems associated with Jerusalem. In fact it doesn't solve anything.
The Roadmap, Oslo and Resolution 242 were all attempts to find a solution that the Arabs would accept. Sharon's Disengagement Plan is an attempt to find a solution the U.S. will accept. They all involved a retreat by Israel from any idea of Israel retaining control of or sovereignty over Yesha. They were and are premised on the idea that the Arab world will live in peace with Israel. No sign of that. It is clear that the U.S. has always tried to get Israel to disgorge almost all of Yesha. They certainly oppose a "land grab" as Powell puts it.
Just as the status quo was better before we entered the Oslo Accords then after, so the status quo now is better than what disengagement will bring. Israel should not give up the control it now exercises, not should it incur the costs that disengagement will entail, nor should it retreat from Gaza and parts of Yesha until there is a "New Middle East."
If Sharon wants Israel to retreat, the onus of proving that Israel will be better off is on him. He has failed miserably in satisfying this onus. If the U.S. wants Israel to retreat, let it offer something worthwhile in return.
Instead Israel should develop a different paradigm. Benny Elon's plan is one such paradigm. It envisions the two state solution as involving Jordan and Israel rather than Palestine and Israel. To this end, Israel should abandon the Roadmap, destroy the remnants of Oslo and embrace the Jordanian solution.
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.
|
|
| |
|
