Soccer Dad

PM Sharon has a negotiating partner

The tone of the LA Times editorial, "Brave Use of Land-for-Peace" is generally admiring of Israel. Nonetheless, I find it somewhat troubling.

The Israeli Cabinet's approval Sunday of the eviction of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip was a bold demonstration of what has long been considered the basic framework to settle the Israeli-Palestinian clash: trading land for peace. But the good news was blunted by the Cabinet's decision to redraw Israel's borders to include major West Bank settlements on land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, setting a worrisome precedent.

First of all, there's no reason Israel shouldn't hold onto some of the land it liberated in 1967. Or is the editorial arguing that Israel should withdraw from French Hill and Ramat Eshkol? Furthermore, it may be the cabinet decided to include some communities outside of the Green Line inside the fence, but it adjusted the path of the fence to stay closer to the Green Line, effectively ceding another 13 or so percent of Judea and Samaria to the PA.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's push to dismantle the 21 enclaves in the Gaza Strip acknowledges the toll imposed on Israel to defend several thousand settlers in the midst of more than 1 million Palestinians. Yet it is a courageous move in the face of opposition from many in Sharon's own Likud Party and a number of settlers who consider the territory to be God-given land; extremists have vowed to resist the planned removal this summer.

There are other reasons to be hesitant to withdraw from Gaza. As the PA has shown it is not a reliable fighter against terror. So the Israeli presence in Gaza isn't simply a matter of protecting Jews from terrorists; it'a matter of protecting Sderot and Ashkelon from Kassam missiles.

The Cabinet also approved removing four settlements in the West Bank, but Israel plans to retain bigger towns there. President Bush last year changed U.S. policy when he recognized "new realities on the ground" that justified Israeli retention of major population centers in the West Bank. But on Monday in Brussels, Bush pushed Israel to ensure that it does not retain land in a pattern that leaves Palestinians with a group of unconnected territories. Bush will have to keep prodding Sharon on that point; a Palestinian checkerboard state that prevents farmers from reaching their plots or workers their jobs would not be viable.

Of course as noted in a previous posting, if you look at the maps that Barak was offering Arafat, that included 8% of Yesha in Israel's hands, the PA's terrirtory was contiguous; certainly 3%, the amount of Yesha not included in the fence won't significantly affect the contiguity of the Palestinian territory.

Among the West Bank cities that Israel plans to keep is Maale Edumim, near Jerusalem, with its tens of thousands of settlers. The Cabinet included Maale Edumim when it approved routing of the barrier being built to protect Israel against suicide bombers. That defies the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which last year declared the wall's placement an illegal annexation of land. Israel rejected the ruling, which was only advisory. Still, the Cabinet shifted the barrier so as to seize less Palestinian territory. To compensate for Sunday's land grab, Israel should consider giving Palestinians some of its own vacant territory.

Land grab? Israel has now reduced its claim to Judea and Samaria to 3%. That's less than Barak was offering in 2001. So for 4 years of violence Israel gives the PA more land that it would have received without the violence and still should compensate the PA further? They've got to be kidding.

Israel freed 500 Palestinian prisoners Monday, another move that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, successor to Yasser Arafat, can claim as evidence that stopping assaults on Israelis brings reciprocal benefits. Sharon's meeting with Abbas two weeks ago, the planned withdrawal from Gaza and the ending of assassinations of Palestinians whom Israel considers terrorist leaders have laid the groundwork for an eventual lasting peace. Sharon still has to convince his opponents, and Abbas needs to keep radicals in check, but the progress since Arafat's death is most welcome.

Well yes, Arafat is dead. That helps. But what's remarkable about this article is that is long about what Israel must or should do to help Mr. Abbas but has little to say about Mr. Abbas's obligations.
Though President Bush's gratuitous comments about Israel allowing the PA's territory to be contiguous got the applause and hoseannas, it was preceded by:

Palestinian leaders must confront and dismantle terrorist groups, fight corruption, encourage free enterprise, and rest true authority with the people. Only a democracy can serve the hopes of Palestinians, and make Israel secure, and raise the flag of a free Palestine.

And how seriously does Abbas take that obligation? When he spoke to Steven Erlanger of the NY Times "Abbas sees end of war with Israel," he said:

Abbas said the war with the Israelis would be over "when the Israelis declare that they will comply with the agreement I made in Sharm el Sheik, and today our comrades in Hamas and Jihad said they are committed to the truce, the cooling down of the whole situation, and I believe we will start a new era."

Right he said that he was having his police disarm and jail all members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad until they stand trial. Not. But maybe that was a mistake. Maybe Abbas was misquoted. Maybe not. Here's an interview with Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: What can you offer Hamas and the other groups in return for demilitarization?

Abbas: We were successful in negotiating a stop to Israeli military operations against the militants of Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. We now want to integrate these fighters into our own security forces, which will change the entire atmosphere. Hamas also wants to participate in the parliamentary elections in July, and already achieved some successes in the municipal elections in the Gaza Strip a few weeks ago. We are aiming for political pluralism with a broad spectrum of parties -- ranging from the left to the religious parties, as is the case in Israel.

And that last part. Hamas is equivalent of religious parties in Israel? Come on.
Actually the interviewer from Der Spiegel seems a bit touger than Erlanger:

SPIEGEL: That sounds good. The reality, however, is that immediately following the summit in Sharm al-Sheik, Hamas fired mortars and missiles at Israeli settlements.

Abbas: That's behind us now. We took harsh measures against the officers within our security apparatus who failed to prevent the attacks. In addition, there have been serious talks with the armed factions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al Aqsa Brigades. During those talks, all parties renewed their pledge to adhere to the ceasefire.

The rockets, in any case, were in response to incidents during which the Israeli army shot two Palestinians. I would say that our side now has things under better control.

Right he fired the officers who failed to stop the fire and made nice to the terrorists who fired. And Israel claimed that the man who was killed was an infiltrator and the girl who was killed was almost certainly out of the range of Israeli guns.
I like Charles Krauthammer a lot and I hope he's right. But he didn't address the threat of the Kassam missiles or the failure of Abbas to dismantle terror groups.
As we saw during Oslo, there is an inclination to treat PA wishes as requirements while failing to hold the PA to its basic requirements toward Israel. There is also a tendency to treat Israli "occupation" as the same or worse than Palestinian terror. There are many imbalances here. And they disturb me. The LA Times editors failure to balance each side's obligations is one more reminder that in many eyes, no matter what Israel does it will never be enough.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong, maybe PM Sharon does indeed have a peace partner. ;-)
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at February 25, 2005 4:28 AM