Soccer Dad: A reasonably fair look at Sharon's plan

April 19, 2005

A reasonably fair look at Sharon's plan

Steven Erlanger presents a reasonably fair look at PM Sharon's plan "Israel, on Its Own, Is Shaping the Borders of the West Bank":

Even including the three major Israeli settlement blocs of Maale Adumim, Ariel further north and Gush Etzion in the south, the land between the green line and the barrier is 8 percent of the West Bank - close to the 5 percent in the proposal that President Clinton was putting forward in 2000, at the end of his negotiations with the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And even that provisional, unilateral 8 percent, before final-status negotiations begin, means that 99.5 percent of Palestinians would live outside the barrier, in 92 percent of the West Bank, with 74 percent of Israeli settlers inside it.

"The real point is being lost in the spat over Maale Adumim," said David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The contours of the debate over the West Bank have shifted under our eyes.

"People associate Sharon with being Mr. Settlement and react with a certain churlishness, saying he's trying to trade Gaza for the West Bank. But the real story is how Mr. Settlement, who wanted to build on 100 percent of the West Bank, is down to 8 percent. If we're talking about Maale Adumim, it means that Sharon sees this as the main battleground, not Elon Moreh or the Jordan Valley."

This presents Sharon's plan, not in the hysterical terms of the Washington Post:

Construction of the 3,500 new homes between the existing West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim and East Jerusalem, on what is now barren land, would contravene previous Israeli commitments to the Bush administration and the U.S.-sponsored "road map" for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. By sealing off Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods from the West Bank as well as a key north-south corridor, it also would make a contiguous Palestinian state practically impossible.

but as a huge change for Israel's Prime Minister.
For visuals see "The New Route."
Though the Times won't say so, it also appears to be a victory for terror as the Palestinians, before final status talks, will get almost as much as they'd have gotten 4 1/2 years ago before they launched their popular war against Israel. Still even this is not enough:

Palestinians do not see that as a victory. They argue that all Israeli settlements beyond the green line are illegal. They reject the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and say that the 8 percent of the West Bank inside the barrier is among the best land for housing and agriculture. Unilateralism, they say, is no substitute for negotiations.

Saeb Erekat, the veteran Palestinian negotiator, said, "If this project is carried out, it will mean shutting the door for negotiations and peace and putting more Palestinians effectively into prison."

And of course missing from the article is the fact that the Palestinians had anything to do with this state of affairs. The closest the Times comes to this is:

Settlement construction is continuing on the West Bank, though more slowly than was the case two years ago, in apparent violation of Mr. Sharon's commitment in the first stage of the road map to freeze settlement growth. Mr. Sharon says the road map is not yet in force because the Palestinians have not met their own first-stage obligation to dismantle terrorist organizations. The population of West Bank settlements is increasing by about 5.6 percent a year.

But the problem with the article, of course, is that it continues "lowering the bar for Abbas" by emphasizing Israel's obligations and only mentioning the PA's while sourcing PM Sharon. By any standard the PA has not started on its obligations and that should be stated clearly. No need for any qualification.
In essence the article seems to be endorsing the view expressed by Charles Krauthammer in "Israel draws the Line":

The fence decision makes clear that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is only part of a larger strategy, the first serious strategic idea Israel has had since its period of utter confusion and demoralization at the beginning of the 2000 intifada. The idea is this: Israel must (unilaterally, if necessary) rationalize its defensive lines -- in order to (1) protect its citizens, (2) permanently defuse the Palestinian terrorist threat and thus (3) open the door to a final peace.

One other interesting note is: