So much for Kadima’s withdrawal
By Ted Belman
On Mar 27th I wrote US will veto Olmert’s unilateral withdrawal.
Aluff Benn, Olmert’s troubles ahead, agrees
The problem is that there is no chance of the White House and Yesha Council agreeing on the same withdrawal line.
[..] the Americans will clarify that the price of their support is that Israel moves toward the Green Line. That’s what happened in the last round, when the Americans demanded that Sharon give something in the West Bank in exchange for presidential statements that were comfortable for Israel regarding permanent borders and refugees; they weren’t satisfied with the evacuation of the Gaza Strip.
Bush, like his father, made the collapse of Israeli settlements in the territories into one of his central policy goals in the region. The conclusion is that if Olmert wants American recognition, withdrawal to the separation fence will only be the opening position. That means that even the sacred settlement blocs, the stronghold of Israeli consensus, will have to shrink.
In my article I concluded,
Will the US play ball? Not at all.
Such an agreement on its part would reverse its policy on the settlements which has remained constant from the beginning as reported by Jimmy Carter. It would also reverse The clarification by Bush that final borders must be agreed to by the PA. And finally it would reverse his vision of a two state solution.
The US will make no decision on such a change of policy without viewing it in the context of regional developments. This is the key.
Both the US and Israel are confronted by the alliance of Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Martyrs together with Syria. They can’t afford to give ground on any front. As a result the US will stay in Iraq and Israel will stay in the West Bank.
Stratfor, Geostrategy-Direct, Weaker Israel: Election marks shift in counterterror alliance with U.S., it seems, agrees somewhat.
The United States has harbored mixed feelings for Olmert and his predecessor, Sharon. President Bush has been pleased with Israel’s willingness to cooperate with the Uniited States on virtually every major issue, including Iraq, the Palestinians and arms exports.
At the same time, Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel’s hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also see Israel’s failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran’s belligerency.
“Israel screwed us up with its unilateral withdrawal plan because this is what is expected of us in Iraq,” a senior Bush aide said in a recent private conversation with a Republican House member. “But we can’t be seen as intervening.”
As a result, urged by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Bush supported Sharon’s plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank in September 2005. Bush saw U.S. endorsement of Sharon’s plan as a way to win support in the Arab world that has long sought Israeli withdrawal.
Bush’s attitude toward Israel has changed as well. Until 2002, Bush saw Israel has a powerful ally of the United States and able to deter its enemies. Today, the president sees Israel as weak and Bush has publicly pledged to protect the Jewish state from an Iranian attack. Quietly, Israeli defense officials dismiss Bush’s pledge was little more than symbolic given
the start of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.“The feeling in both the administration and among belatedly among many conservatives in Congress is that Israel has to accept the fate of a small nation reliant on a superpower patron,” a leading U.S. analyst who is close to the administration said.
Olmert’s win was expected to accelerate government preparations for additional withdrawals from the West Bank. The military has begun drafting plans for the expulsion of tens of thousands of Israelis from dozens of Jewish communities in the area. The State Department has already encouraged the Israeli plans.
But for Israel, the result could be years of bloodshed and even insurrection. In February, more than 200 people, several of them seriously, were injured in a clash between Israeli anti-riot and Jewish youngsters, who sought to prevent the demolition of nine unlicensed buildings in the West Bank. Days later, more than 90,000 people rallied in Jerusalem and pledged to physically stop future withdrawals.
“Not everybody is the same,” Amnon Danker, editor of the Israeli daily Maariv, said. “There are differences of black and white, heaven and earth.”
I have trouble with this analysis. On the one hand it argues that the US wanted a strong ally that would fight terror and not retreat as it was doing while at the same time, it was planning its own retreat in Iraq and not taking on Iran or Syria in a meaningful way. Furthermore the US made the terms of retreat more onerous by the Rafah Agreement and by requiring further withdrawal from the Westbank. The US has always restrained Israel’s response to terror and always insisted on ‘67 borders.
The US can’t have it both ways i.e. it can’t always break Israel’s balls and then complain that it is weak in the face of terror. Perhaps Sharon saw the US retreating in Iraq and wanted to get out first.
Stratfor makes it sound like the US has no choice but to go along. This is nonsense. The US wanted Kadima to win the elections and helped them do so. If Israel is weak it is because of US pressure. If Israel didn’t fight terror more aggressively it is because of US demands for restraint. If Israel now wants to withdraw, it is because of US refusal to acknowledge the settlements as legitimate.
Let me go out on a limb here! Why elect a scumbag like Olmert??????? Can anyone tell me or even justify it? Please maybe i was born yesterday or am an idiot, I need to know so I can correct such deviant behaviour!
Comment by t
— April 2, 2006 @ 12:41 am
Ted,
While I agree with the points you have made, overall I disagree with your conclusions in terms of the certainty with which you state them for in my view, the situation is more nuanced and conflicted and therefor confused from the standpoint of both the U.S. and Israel.
Two things that have contributed to a new reality that the Bush administration, Israel’s new Kadima led government, Israelis, the EU and analysists of all stripes have yet to come to grips with are:
1. Israel simply cannot afford Olmert’s “convergence plan” and
2. The election of Hamas.
1. As to the first point, Israel has still been unsuccessful in finacially restoring the 7,000 or so settlers removed from Gaza, fully integrating them and enabling them to become independent and self reliant to make a living.
Without U.S. aid, the problems with relocating and restoring just the approximate 7,000 former Gazan Jews have put strains on Israel economically, politically and sociologically.
Even if the U.S. were to provide some aid for Olmert’s convergence plan to be realized, which is conceivable, it is inconceivable that such aid would amount to a full indemnification for the cost Israel would be putting itself to, in order to implement such convergence plan.
Apart from Israel being even further strained to make up the difference between American aid and what it would have to shelve out to relocate, restore and integrate so many settlers, such aid would not come without a price.
At this point, some of the uncertainties are what would the convergence plan really cost in money and intangibles, the amount American aid, if any, and what price would America extract for it.
These uncertainties alone are enough to paralyze Olmert and Kadima taking any unilateral steps towards realizing his “convergence plan”.
2. It was one thing for the West and Israel to carry on with the tattered charade that Abbas and the PA wanted for the Palestinians what the West and Israel wanted - two viable and independent states, Israel and Palestinian living happily forever after in peace and harmony.
With the election of Hamas, all pretence has been stripped away as Abbas and his PA have been metaphorically speaking been reduced to the status of an appendix in the body of the Palestinians. That appendix will either be ignored or if it inflames, Hamas will remove it.
Already we are seeing hostilities and aggression between Fatah against Hamas. It is not that Fatah has resisted and carried out some aggression against Hamas for some noble purpose.
Olmert and others in Israel and within the West are still in a state of denial of the new Hamas and Palestinian reality as they continue to try to engage Abbas and the PA in discussions.
With Hamas more into braggadocio over its success and spirited and boastful calls for the destruction of Israel than how to lead Palestinians to their own independent state unless it means a state comprising all of Israel, even it seems to be operating on some plane divorced from realities.
It seems more likely in light of all of this that Olmert and Kadima, while they may continue to spout the ideology of a “convergence plan”, will look for and find excuses for not implementing it.
It is simply not conceivable that Olmert will be able to successfully disengage and establish permanent borders that will be recognized by either the Palestinians or the rest of the world.
Israel is therefor neither in a position to negotiate permanent borders with the Palestinians or to draw the borders unilateraly in place of those negotiations.
None of this bodes well for Israel and for peace and stability in the region.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— April 2, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Bill
I don’t think we differ. I presented various arguments to show that there are differences of opinion. No question the US is looking for answers now but more so with respect to Iraq and Iran. Israel is a minor issue in comparison and the US doesn’t want to be undermined by what Israel wants to do.
Comment by Ted Belman
— April 2, 2006 @ 11:34 am
The only difference between the election of Hamas and Fatah is that Fatah covers itself with a fig leaf of negotiation and peace - they both want the destruction of Israel and neither has done anything that would obstruct that goal.
In WW-II, the way to defeat the Axis was the way that it was done: massed armies and firepower. The way to defeat the Islamic Jihadists is how? Well, no one seems to know. No one includes Israelis and Americans.
Concessions haven’t worked. Armed might hasn’t worked. How do you put fear into the minds of people who think that when they die, they not only aren’t dead, but because of the mayhem they create, Allah will look favorably on them and reward them with virgins and paradise?
If America left the Mideast and if Israel where to disappear, would it bring peace tot he rest of the world? of course not! The Jihadists claim Andalusia, Sicily and all other land that was once Muslim. But it doesn’t stop there. Are the Jihadists not claiming control of enclaves in Europe? Are they not working to setup Islamic enclaves in Arkansas and New Jersey?
I think that if we are going to stop the Jihadists we have to destroy the government of Iran and its emerging military threat.
Whether Israel does or does not withdraw from the West Bank will have zero affect on peace or survival.
Comment by Jan
— April 2, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Jan
You’re right on. Israel isn’t the main event.
Comment by Ted Belman
— April 2, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
I think the above is a complete reversal of the truth and agree with your assessment Ted.
Comment by Laura
— April 2, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Before this election, I was amazed at how inept Israel really is, and i have been a proponent forever.
This is to me a clear sign that maybe Israel assumes that it is time to leave Bavli.
This whole election was an emasculation of the Jewish People.
You can throw every name around, the one’s who have messed up are Israelis.
This country is a mess. I am taking down my flag of Israel, that has been beaming in my field for years, because Israel is a disappointment.
The Torah Jews will never be a disappointment, but Jews run amok is a disgrace.
Shame on you, Israel!!!
You have made a mockery of your supporters.
Baruch Hashem, Torah Jewry.
Comment by Mary Hogan
— April 2, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
This is so much an example, a living example of the death of the second Temple, and the mindless Jews who hung on to an empty building. Shechinah was gone. Shechinah cannot reside in a country of Non-Emunah Jewry.
Why was the nation split originally? Jeraboam ben Nevat…twisted truth. Today’s Israel is a country of twisted truth.
I never thought I would say this, but I am saying this.
Comment by Mary Hogan
— April 2, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Remember whar Robert Satloff said at the Herzliya Conference. If Israel could come up with a feasible plan, the US (especially Congress) will support it. But this is not what we can expect from Kadima.
Comment by salomon
— April 3, 2006 @ 2:49 am