As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.
The Palestinian economy must be allowed to develop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. Palestinian legislators and officials, humanitarian and international workers, must be allowed to go about the business of building a better future. And Israel should release frozen Palestinian revenues into honest, accountable hands. “
Sharon’s Herzliya ’02 speech showed his complete agreement.
“[..]From the first days of the establishment of the State of Israel, our bond with the United States has been a supreme strategic asset. My Government has further consolidated our relations with the United States and formed a special closeness with the U.S. Administration and Congress. These special relations, the understanding of Israel's needs, and the cooperation with President Bush and his administration are unprecedented.
Israel has in the United States true friends who genuinely and honestly care for our security.
Our political understandings with the United States and the Administration's understanding of our security needs have provided us with the required leeway in our ongoing war on terrorism.[..]”
I commented on this important speech in my article
In Defence of Ariel Sharon and after quoting some very important parts of it I wrote
“This doesn’t sound like the words of a man who is afraid of President Bush but of a man who is in full agreement with him and who had a large share in working out the best approach.”
No suggestion of pressure here.
Major events followed in 2003, which necessitated adjustments to these plans. Firstly the need for the US to form a coalition for the war against Iraq resulted in the launch of the Roadmap, which Israel accepted subject to the fourteen red lines.
As you recall Sharon didn’t resist the plan but was its advocate in getting the conditional approval from his Cabinet. Sharon also advised it was time to divide the land and accepted a Palestinian State as being inevitable. He also advised that certain settlements would have to be abandoned. Neither Israel nor the US wants Israel to expel all the Palestinians or to absorb them.
The Roadmap stipulated as its goal
“[..]A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah -- endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit -- calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks.”
The Roadmap is performance based and sets out Phase 1 as follows
“In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.”
Like it or not, this is the deal Sharon and Bush cut. It is a serious document.
On the positive side, the Palestinians must change their government and leaders, decommission their weapons and stop incitement before the question of permanent borders, Jerusalem and refugees comes up.
As for the fence it is being built along demographic lines. The US is micro-managing the location of the fence because they both accept that it will be, by and large, the final border. A few important issues have yet to be ironed out such as the fate of Ariel and Jerusalem. I believe that ultimately Jerusalem will be divided so that Israel will not have to give citizenship to the 300,000 Arabs that live there. This is why Sharon allowed them to vote in the Palestinian elections.
In this regard, Bush did his part by making demographics the centre piece of the new partition plan and ruling out the “right of return”.
Sharon’s Herzliya ’03 speech endorsed the Roadmap and described its essence.
“[..]The Roadmap is a clear and reasonable plan, and it is therefore possible and imperative to implement it. The concept behind this plan is that only security will lead to peace. And in that sequence. Without the achievement of full security within the framework of which terror organizations will be dismantled it will not be possible to achieve genuine peace, a peace for generations. This is the essence of the Roadmap. The opposite perception, according to which the very signing of a peace agreement will produce security out of thin air, has already been tried in the past and failed miserably.[..]”
‘[..]Israel will make every effort to assist the Palestinians and to advance the process.
Israel will fulfill the commitments taken upon itself. I have committed to the President of the United States that Israel will dismantle unauthorized outposts. It is my intention to implement this commitment. The State of Israel is governed by law, and the issue of the outposts is no exception. I understand the sensitivity; we will try to do this in the least painful way possible, but the unauthorized outposts will be dismantled. Period.
Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements. “
Like Horton, the elephant, Sharon meant what he said and said what he meant.
Unfortunately the Roadmap was a bad deal for Israel. It was a mistake to agree that the future state should be contiguous or viable or that the future borders should be the pre ’67 borders subject to exchanges. Did Sharon think it was a good deal or was he bribed or pressured to agree? Did he think that the fact, that all final issues of borders and refugees and Jerusalem were subject to negotiations, would protect Israel from notions of contiguity or viability. If so he was wrong. Did the US give him private assurances that were stronger and better then the public ones? I doubt it. Sharansky advised today that Israel could have resisted the Roadmap in its present form.
The Arabs and Palestinians, for their part, promised everything and did nothing.
As a result, Sharon came up with the Disengagement Plan. According to Sharansky this was Sharon's idea and Bush reluctantly went along. It flies in the face of basic requirement of the Roadmap namely, as Sharon put it, "The concept behind this plan is that only security will lead to peace." In other wordes, the Palestinians must transform themselves from terrorists to peaceful democrats before there can be peace.
As implementation nears, there are disagreements as to how complete the disengagement should be. The US is now demanding complete disengagement without sufficient regard to security considerations either for the Israelis or for itself. Sharon is going along. In doing so, it takes on itself the responsibility for the consequences. Thus the US must make sure it works. Israel on the other hand is the one at risk.
Chances of the Palestinians doing what the Roadmap requires were nil at best. To give them Gaza, which is likely to become a home base for terror, makes the chances even less then nil.
For Israel to accept “painful concessions” as part of a final settlement is one thing but to require Israel to do so for nothing in return is outrageous and very damaging to Israel.
What a tragedy.
What a tragedy
By Ted Belman
David Bedein informs us US Pressure Determines Israeli Policy. When Sharon recently said he had no choice due to US pressure he was in fact saying, “The devil made me do it.”
In actual fact this policy was agreed to by Bush and Sharon in 2002. When reviewing their speeches, we can't say they didn’t tell us what they had in mind.
The outlines of that agreement are to be found in Bush’s June 2002 speech in which he first endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state subject to transforming itself into a peaceful democracy. The speech is America’s blueprint for solving the Arab/Israel conflict.
I commented on this important speech in my article In Defence of Ariel Sharon and after quoting some very important parts of it I wrote
No suggestion of pressure here.
Major events followed in 2003, which necessitated adjustments to these plans. Firstly the need for the US to form a coalition for the war against Iraq resulted in the launch of the Roadmap, which Israel accepted subject to the fourteen red lines.
As you recall Sharon didn’t resist the plan but was its advocate in getting the conditional approval from his Cabinet. Sharon also advised it was time to divide the land and accepted a Palestinian State as being inevitable. He also advised that certain settlements would have to be abandoned. Neither Israel nor the US wants Israel to expel all the Palestinians or to absorb them.
The Roadmap stipulated as its goal
The Roadmap is performance based and sets out Phase 1 as followsLike it or not, this is the deal Sharon and Bush cut. It is a serious document.
On the positive side, the Palestinians must change their government and leaders, decommission their weapons and stop incitement before the question of permanent borders, Jerusalem and refugees comes up.
As for the fence it is being built along demographic lines. The US is micro-managing the location of the fence because they both accept that it will be, by and large, the final border. A few important issues have yet to be ironed out such as the fate of Ariel and Jerusalem. I believe that ultimately Jerusalem will be divided so that Israel will not have to give citizenship to the 300,000 Arabs that live there. This is why Sharon allowed them to vote in the Palestinian elections.
In this regard, Bush did his part by making demographics the centre piece of the new partition plan and ruling out the “right of return”.
Sharon’s Herzliya ’03 speech endorsed the Roadmap and described its essence.
Like Horton, the elephant, Sharon meant what he said and said what he meant.
Unfortunately the Roadmap was a bad deal for Israel. It was a mistake to agree that the future state should be contiguous or viable or that the future borders should be the pre ’67 borders subject to exchanges. Did Sharon think it was a good deal or was he bribed or pressured to agree? Did he think that the fact, that all final issues of borders and refugees and Jerusalem were subject to negotiations, would protect Israel from notions of contiguity or viability. If so he was wrong. Did the US give him private assurances that were stronger and better then the public ones? I doubt it. Sharansky advised today that Israel could have resisted the Roadmap in its present form.
The Arabs and Palestinians, for their part, promised everything and did nothing.
As a result, Sharon came up with the Disengagement Plan. According to Sharansky this was Sharon's idea and Bush reluctantly went along. It flies in the face of basic requirement of the Roadmap namely, as Sharon put it, "The concept behind this plan is that only security will lead to peace." In other wordes, the Palestinians must transform themselves from terrorists to peaceful democrats before there can be peace.
As implementation nears, there are disagreements as to how complete the disengagement should be. The US is now demanding complete disengagement without sufficient regard to security considerations either for the Israelis or for itself. Sharon is going along. In doing so, it takes on itself the responsibility for the consequences. Thus the US must make sure it works. Israel on the other hand is the one at risk.
Chances of the Palestinians doing what the Roadmap requires were nil at best. To give them Gaza, which is likely to become a home base for terror, makes the chances even less then nil.
For Israel to accept “painful concessions” as part of a final settlement is one thing but to require Israel to do so for nothing in return is outrageous and very damaging to Israel.
What a tragedy.
Posted by Ted Belman at August 11, 2005 11:09 AM