Soccer Dad

Un-stated

Ehud Yaari writes in "The non-State":

though Israel is abandoning the Strip, it will still be considered an "occupying power" by the Palestinians, a kind of absentee landlord, responsible for what happens on his property although he isn't there. Thus, the Palestinians can demand that Sharon allow them to exercise sovereignty at the same time as they urge him to keep shouldering the burden of an occupier's obligations. A bizarre situation will arise, with Gaza no longer under occupation, but also not free, and certainly not independent. It's a non-state, finally liberated but still perceived as conquered.
...
Indeed, the disengagement in Gaza is the fulfillment of Arafat's dream of "runaway statehood" come true. As often pointed out in this column, he wanted a state not bound by agreements, a state won by blood and not ink.

This is what's pernicious about the peace process. No number of "confidence building measures" will ever be enough. The legal mechanics of this claim are laid out by Dore Gold in "Legal Acrobatics":

Remarkably, even as Israel completes its withdrawal from 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip, official Palestinian spokesmen are already making the argument that Gaza disengagement changes very little and, as far as they are concerned, Gaza remains "occupied" territory. According to the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas already stated on July 7, 2005, that "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."

Of course this is an occurence that we've seen before. In June 2000 the Security Council certified Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon as complete:

After consultations throughout the weekend, the Security Council this afternoon endorsed the work done by the United Nations as mandated by the Security Council, including the Secretary-General’s conclusion that, as of 16 June, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978).

There actually was more from the UN:

"6. Calls on the Government of Lebanon to ensure the return of its effective authority and presence in the south, and in particular to proceed with a significant deployment of the Lebanese armed forces as soon as possible;

"7. Welcomes the establishment of checkpoints by the Government of Lebanon in the vacated area, and encourages the Government of Lebanon to ensure a calm environment throughout the south, including through the control of all checkpoints;

So the Lebanese had some responsibilities here too.

Of course even then there were problems:

The Lebanese Government advised that the line used for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal did not conform in three locations to the internationally recognized border with Israel. Concerning the Shab'a farmlands, both Lebanon and Syria state that this land belongs to Lebanon.

Whoops, so even as the UN was certifying Israel's withdrawal Syria and its vassal state Lebanon were making sure that Hezbollah would retain its grievance against Israel.

And of course, because Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon, the UN no longer turned a blind eye to Hezbollah's terrorism. Actually, not. The UN served as an accomplice to the kidnapping by first denying that it had a videotape of the kidnappings and then by refusing to show it to Israel lest it take sides in a conflict between a member state and a terrorist organization.

This site counts at least 28 attacks agains Israeli positions in Har Dov. It does not include the numerous attacks on civilians. Overall about 20 Israelis have been killed in cross border attacks since the withdrawal and the Lebanese army has not taken control of southern Lebanon, nor has Hezbollah laid down its arms.

No doubt that any accomodation Israel reaches with the Palestinians will be met with similar non recognition that the Israeli step help resolve the conflict. Even without the legal maneuverings that Dr. Gold discusses we had a recent declaration by "moderate" Mohammad Dahlan that the areas north of Gaza also needed to be evacuated. The Jerusalem Post was correct when it argued:

The fact that the rocket attack on Netiv Ha'asara last week came a short time after PA minister Muhammad Dahlan took Israeli disengagement coordinators by surprise when he seemingly casually raised demands for that village's land cannot be written off as a mere unfortunate coincidence.

Some seemed to dismiss the attack, which killed 22-year-old Dana Galkovitch, and to take Dahlan's retractions at face value. But the fact that Netiv Ha'asara was subsequently targeted with such deadly precision leaves too little room for comfort.

We may be witnessing nothing less than the germination of the next set of demands to fuel further conflict following the projected completion of the disengagement from Gaza. Netiv Ha'asara's shelling speaks louder than Dahlan's wan backtracking. It and neighboring kibbutzim, all essentially Ashkelon suburbs situated inside the Green Line, have much to fear from the approaching border if that means mortar fire from closer range.

There's a joke that a man goes to a zoo and sees a lion lying down in the same cage with a lamb. He is amazed. The messianic vision of peace on earth has finally been achieved. He goes to the zookeeper and asks how he managed this feat. The zookeeper simply answers, "We put a new lamb in each morning."

The peace process is, alas, a lot like this. Israel takes some tangible step for peace and its value is quickly forgotten followed by new demands for withdrawals, prisoner releases, arms transfers or other confidence building measures are made on Israel without reciprocal or even minimal demands made on Israel's enemies.

We will not see peace unless Israel's enemies want it. For now they've made it clear, they'd rather fight Israel than build a future for themselves and their children. The world, it appears, will just stand back and let it continue.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.