In his first media interview since taking on the job of acting premier, Olmert said Tuesday that Israel "will separate from most of the Palestinian population that lives in the West Bank, and that will obligate us to separate as well from territories where the State of Israel currently is."

"We will gather ourselves into the main settlement blocs and preserve united Jerusalem... Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel will be part of the state of Israel," Olmert told Channel 2 television.

Asked by interviewer Nissim Mishal what he intended to do with the Jordan Valley, Olmert responded: "It is impossible to give up control over Israel's eastern border."

"The direction is clear," he continued. "We are moving toward separation from the Palestinians, toward setting Israel's permanent border."

The opposition to unilateral withdrawal within Kadima due mainly to the dictates of security needs is welcomed.

A recent poll finds that "the Israeli public does not support additional significant unilateral withdrawals if after the elections it becomes clear that the PA doesn't fight terror and it is not possible to advance in accordance with the Road Map (no peace partner)." In other words the Israeli public only supports withdrawal in the context of the Roadmap but not unilateral withdrawal.

That is why "Olmert also reiterated that the road map peace plan would remain the basis for any diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians" according to Benn.

I am afraid that unilateral withdrawal is not consistent with the Roadmap which anticipated parallel steps being taken.
While I hated the Roadmap (and wrote Reject the Roadmap ) and still do, it offers Israel certain benefits for withdrawal namely;

-- Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

-- Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

-- Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.

This was to be done in the first Phase. It is obvious that the Arabs are doing the opposite of what is required of them. In addition the Roadmap provided that upon signing a final agreement,

-- Arab state acceptance of full normal relations with Israel and security for all the states of the region in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

Proponents of unilateral withdrawal are in effect abandoning all benefits accorded in the Roadmap and opting instead for the alleged benefits of "separation", one of which is "ending the occupation".

Olmert goes so far as to say he is moving "toward setting Israel's permanent border." Let's be clear about this, unilateral withdrawal does no such thing. Israel annexed all of Jerusalem in '67 and the international community ignored the annexation. Israel can do what it wants in setting "permanent borders" but without world recognition such borders are meaningless. Israel would have given all that is required of them by the Roadmap without any of the benefits above set out. On the other hand, if international community would recognize such borders in advance, it would be reason to withdraw. We are far from that recognition.

In fact DEBKAfile reports that a subsequent meeting between Livni and Rice,

In a couple of sharp sentences, Rice rejected in advance Livni’s disqualification of Hamas as a negotiating partner and negation of a Hamas terror state. She also briskly dismissed caretaker PM Ehud Olmert’s manifesto, as broadcast Tuesday, to work for permanent borders and the separation of the Jewish state from the majority of Palestinians, hand over large West Bank tracts while retaining the main settlement blocs and united Jerusalem and exercising control over Israel’s eastern border.

These are matters for final-status negotiations, she said dismissively for Olmert’s benefit, following the same line taken by the Bush administration when this policy was pursued by Ariel Sharon. "Under no circumstances should anyone try and do that in a preemptive or predetermined way, because these are issues for negotiation at final status.”

So much setting permanent borders.

Thus for Olmert, the occupation is the problem (preventing acceptance and legitimacy) and must be ended rather than the occupation is the solution (protecting Israel and its negotiating position) and must be maintained.

I commented on this in “Is Israel's greatest threat; demographics or indefensible borders?” and in “Ends and Means”.

Put another way, should Israel hold out for a negotiated settlement as required by the Roadmap or end the occupation by unilateral withdrawal.

Israel should abandon the Roadmap because none of the promised benefits are likely to be received and because a two state solution is not a viable solution. As long as Israel pays lip service to the Roadmap, not enough attention is being given to alternatives.

Rather then Israel hoping for acceptance by Hamas, Hamas should be praying for acceptance by Israel. Israel should destroy Hamas rather then accept it.