Soccer Dad

Inconvenience vs. security

One would think by now, that any reasonable observer of the Middle East would consider Palestinian violence the major stumbling block toward peace. One, however, would be wrong to believe that. Still, for many people, the main stumbling block is Israeli settlements. Yesterday's Washington Post editorial, "Words to be Measured" is a case in point:

Mr. Sharon's cabinet has approved the completion of Israel's border-like security fence, which by the end of this year will enclose about 7 percent of the West Bank and tens of thousands of Jewish settlers with Israel. Mr. Sharon's undisguised aim is to freeze that status quo indefinitely, leaving a permanent settlement to a future generation.

That's why it's significant that Mr. Bush underlined his commitment to a "lasting resolution" in the near term and effectively dismissed some of Mr. Sharon's ideas. Mr. Bush said that Israel "must freeze settlement activity," something it has never done; he said that a Palestinian state "of scattered territories," which Mr. Sharon has long envisaged, "will not work." If an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is to be achieved soon, Mr. Bush will have to press those principles on an Israeli leader he has never seriously challenged. By articulating them before European leaders, and at a moment when he could have limited himself to cheering on the recent progress, he ensured that he will be measured on whether he follows through.

The editorial paid brief lip service to the notion that Mahmoud Abbas brazenly states that he will co-opt terrrorists, not fight them. What's disturbing is that once again Israeli actions are considered to be possibly the sole impediment to peace.
Take a couple of other factors into account and this concern is even less understandable. In a decision that smacks of virtual surrender Israel responded to the International (Kangaroo) Court of Justice that its advisory opinion against the security fence is faulty because it's based on old data. What't that old data? The plan for the fence to exclude 16 percent of Yehuda and Shomron has now been adjusted, as per the legal opinions of Attorney General Mazuz and will now only exclude 3.3 percent. It's outrageous that Israel's government is acquiescing to the validity of the Palesitnian claim. The government should have persisted in its insistence that the fence was a defensive measure whose most effective path had been carefully considered and that the saving of lives outweighed the inconvenience to Palestinian farmers. It should have continued pointing out that the terror war the PA - of whom Mahmoud Abbas was a leading figure - launched a terror war against Israel in violation of international law and that the fence was a necessary countermeasure to protect Israeli citizens. Now that the government of Israel has accepted the premise of the Palestinian claims against it how can it defend keeping the Etzion Bloc or Maaleh Adumim? Or even Ramot and French Hill?
To give you an idea of how much (or little) 3.3% of Yehuda and Shomron is consider the maps of Israel's Camp David offers that were rejected by the Palestinians as reproduced by It's Almost Supernatural. The third map, the one that shows Clinton's ideas has Israeli ceding 95% of the territory in Yehuda and Shomron. It's clear from that map that if Israel redraws the fence there will be no "scattered territories." Palestine would be one contiguous territory. (The President was also wrong to emphasize this.) What is not clear is whether Mahmoud Abbas will fight terrorists or merely co-opt them. His own stated intention is the latter and it concerns no one.
Meanwhile Israel's unrecognized generosity remain unrecognized. Does the new route make a difference? No.

"I expect the Israeli members of the Geneva Initiative to honor what we agreed on - the Green Line," declared the man who was one of the Palestinian stars of the initiative's publicity campaign in Israel. "Any move eastward of the Green Line means that those who are talking about peace are not serious, they do not believe in two states."

First of all Yossi Beilin and the rest of his accomplices and cheerleaders in the "Geneva Initiative" should consider that their efforts were antidemocratic and undermined the government. That statement, by a member of Fatah, shows the danger of the initiative. When Israel doesn't withdraw to the Green Line it will be cited a causus belli to once again justify terror against Israel. Even Israel's surrender to 3.3% won't be good enough.
Once again this demonstrates that the main impediment to Middle East peace is Palestinian violence and threats of violence. The Washington Post and the President should have been very clear that Palestinian dissatisfaction is not a justification for violence but, alas, neither were. They were rather more concerned with Palestinian inconvenience.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at February 24, 2005 5:08 AM