Unilateral moves are a recipe for an explosion
Even if PA declares independence, Israel still controls basic infrastructure; negotiations are necessary.
By Shaul Arieli Tags: Mahmoud Abbas Israel news PalestiniansThe failure to conclude the peace process after 17 years and formulate a final-status agreement has driven the Palestinians, like Israel, to adopt a unilateral policy to achieve what negotiations haven't.
Could this policy, led by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and President Mahmoud Abbas, succeed, or will its fate be similar to that of the Israeli disengagement plan and the separation fence?
Evacuating the Gaza Strip settlements removed that land from the territorial demands package. But it strengthened the illusion that reducing direct Israeli control over 7 percent of the territories and 40 percent of Palestinians would help us "contain" the West Bank population within Israel. We were deluded into thinking that the country would remain both the "greater land of Israel" and "Jewish and democratic."
But even the separation fence, which stemmed from a security need but tried to give Israel 20 percent of the West Bank, has managed to keep "only" 4.5 percent of the territory on the "Israeli side." It leaves out Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim, which are adjacent to the Green Line, as well as Ariel and Kedumim, which are far from it.
Fayyad wants to establish pre-state institutions that would validate the 1988 Palestinian declaration of independence and meet international legal standards. But even if the European nations approve an initiative to recognize a Palestinian state before negotiations are completed, Israeli control of 60 percent of the West Bank foils any Palestinian act of independence. Israel controls the international border crossings, central thoroughfares, air space, water and electricity, making it impossible for Palestinians to do basic things like building an airport or a road network, and developing their economy.
But the biggest danger in unilaterally imposing moves rejected in negotiations is the potential for an escalation. Even if Israel's unilateral moves were initially intended to reduce the friction between the sides, their results prove they have failed.
Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip strengthened Hamas' control there and dragged Israel into two military operations. Setting the fence route on the basis of political considerations - the settlers' interests - turned the anti-fence protests, like those at Bil'in and Na'alin, into a symbol of Palestinian resistance. This resistance is gaining increasing international support.
Fayyad's plan blatantly ignores Israel. The Palestinians are demanding more international pressure on Israel and are threatening to stop the security coordination, following the escalation in recent weeks. This may drive the Netanyahu government to stop even the little it has done to remove roadblocks and deploy the Palestinian security forces. The construction freeze, even if it was only feigned, will stop, and several terror attacks will be all the government needs to find the budget to complete the fence, annexing as much land as possible.
At this point, with the encouragement of Iran, Syria and others, the road to a collision between radical settlers versus the "armed struggle" and "one Palestine" enthusiasts will be short. The land will go up in flames, and the Palestinian Authority's little security and economic stability of recent years will disappear.
The Palestinians must work toward resuming negotiations, and the international community, led by the United States, must work more vigorously with the Netanyahu government. Cooperation is required not only to prevent violence and strike agreements, but to implement the agreements given that both nations ultimately drink from the same well.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
We won't stay and no neocon government will again be elected in the US in my lifetime, maybe not in two or three generations.
if you pull out, it will become a haven for al qaeda. gaza has become a haven for al qaeda. the only possible advantage is that iran might feel under a tiny bit more pressure. nukes do not work against terrorists.
Will the US exit Afghanistan? YES Will Afghanistan then be stable? MAYBE We don't care as long as they are not a haven for al Qaida. We didn't care under Reagan when the Russians pulled out. And our Congress won't care when we pull out. We start our exit next year come hell or high water. We should have just pulled out when the election was stolen by Karzai. But we decided to give stability one final try with a limited objective of no al Qaida. No conqueror has ever succeeded in Afghanistan. That's reality!
will you ever get out of afghanistan? will you leave afghanistan as a stable, well functioning country?
and import and export to "palestinian" areas would be stopped ! there is no link between gaza and the "west bank" the only other link is jordan and israel would control that border. this was the weakness of the oslo accord and it was never realised by arafat and co that if they did not fulfil the terms of it completely they would remain prisoners forever !
I am the Great and Powerful Oz! Ignore the man behind that curtain. Ideology must trump reality - at least for the right wing. Israel's unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon (I) and Gaza were designed to leave behind chaos and anarchy. They succeeded. If Israel really wants a negotiated Palestinian state rather than a unilateral declared one, offer some real incentive for the PA to come to the table. If it's really tangible, and substantive, they will. A non-state with no sovereignty or independence is not attractive enough, apparently.
unfortunately the u.s. is being run by very short sighted people. u.s. national security would require a total rejection of arab blackmail. to the contrary, the president is sympathetic to the arabs while many of his advisors, chosen by him, are of the realpolitic school which has bought into arab propaganda. hence, israe is presnted as the main cause of terror. the irony that enemy states, who have financed and trained terrorists against americans and their western allies, should then point fingers away from themselves, never seems to hit the likes of baker and brzezinski. u.s. middle east policy for the past decades has been a total disaster.
of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Something which Israel is ever more likely to face should the Palestinians declare it. And eyes are being fully opened by Netanyahu's government, almost daily, that will never be closed again. Meanwhile, international recognition of a Palestinian state would completely change the situation from what it is now, and would leave Israel with only two choices: Accept the Palestinian state and begin negotiating territorial exchanges to retain its larger settlements blocks along the 1967 line; or reject the Palestinian state and face severe ostracism, at the very least, by the whole of the international community.
Nice monologue on the virtues of Israel occupation and colonialism, and the dangers of unilateralism. But Israel has set the precedent with its unilateral violation of UNGAR181 borders, with continued occupation in violation of UNSCR242, and violation of the fourth Geneva Convention with its settlements in occupied territory. The Palestinians, to the contrary, are totally entitled to declare a sovereign state, and if endorsed by the UN, then there's nothing Israel can do about it except advise the illegal settlers to pack their bags and move into Israel proper.
Suddenly its a problem?
It will be in conjunction with the world