3-31-05, 9:05 am
From Solidarity Net
Those who defend Sharon's disengagement plan justify their support saying that this is the maximum that Israel can offer at the current phase and that the Israeli political system cannot take any more than that.
Therefore, the Israeli government cannot meet the Palestinian demand of starting direct final status negotiations and not even talk about the establishment of a Palestinian state; on the contrary, Israel will continue to set up more obstacles in front of any serious negotiations as long as Palestinians do not meet the Israeli security conditions, namely the fighting of terrorism and the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Palestinian armed factions.
Within this context, Israel covers up, in a systemic and deliberate manner, its limited political positions which fail to meet the minimum ceiling of the legitimate and national rights of the Palestinian people through focusing on 'security', thus trying to impede any serious political move.
The Israeli government uses 'security and security considerations' to construct the apartheid fence and to impose its unilateral solution or the status quo solution through very reduced borders of the Palestinian state and through isolating its capital along with the Judaization policy through reinforcing its settlements scheme inside the Palestinian territories.
Since the Israeli official declaration about its disengagement plan in Gaza, we have been hearing and reading every day about a new settlement scheme in the West Bank, or land confiscation or new measures to consolidate the siege imposed on the city of Jerusalem and to push its citizens towards choosing between two options: complete isolation or mass eviction.
Along these lines, one should note the statements of Major General 'Dan Halloutz', the future Chief of Joint Staff in the Israeli army, who said that the separation fence around Jerusalem will be completed by next July, and the process of building 95% of the fence in the West Bank will be concluded by the end of this year. These statements were made by Halloutz before the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, at the time when Israel has only been capable of building one third of the fence so far after more than two years since the start of building the fence.
Moreover, the Israeli Housing Ministry revealed reports about a scheme to build around 6,400 new housing units in eight settlements mainly around the city of Jerusalem. In addition, there was the declared intention to enforce the Absentees Property Law on the Arab Jerusalemite citizens, and about intentions to ban Jerusalemite citizens from entry to the rest of the West Bank regions unless they get special permits, and other measures.
Upon comparing between the timetables of the above-mentioned schemes and the timetables for implementing the disengagement plan, one can note the strong interrelation between them and that both time ceilings have been set for the end of this year, which means that 2005 will witness the implementation of the disengagement plan in Gaza, unless it might be delayed for some time because of the Likud Party decision to conduct a referendum on the plan. The same year will also witness the conclusion of the fence in the West Bank and the completion of the siege around Jerusalem and the expansion of settlements and consolidating them through annexing the settlement blocs and the establishment of the so-called alternative roads network... etc.
The unilateral solution, according to Sharon, will take the form of disengagement from not more than 4% of the area of the Palestinian territories Gaza Strip area and the second form of the disengagement will be the consolidation of links or occupation in the West Bank. In return for dismantling 21 settlements and the evacuation of 8,000 settlers from Gaza Strip, he will try to seize more than half of the area of the West Bank and the settlement of more than additional 40,000 settlers in them as soon as possible.
All this is happening amid media campaigns and promises for financial support and visits and conferences and statements by several Arab and foreign leaders with the aim of spreading a climate of optimism on the possibility of solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and give the impression that the disengagement plan is the magic key to such a solution. But the most dangerous of all is the demands voiced for Arab countries to offer in advance encouraging rewards that can reinforce the internal, regional and international status of Sharon, including the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel related to this field, the Israeli Foreign Ministry predicts to start relations with ten Arab countries in the near future. The current reality creates serious dangers facing the Palestinian people and their leadership and such dangers must be confronted with wisdom and insight because the impact and ramifications will last for several years to come. The most serious challenge at this stage is how to confront the Israeli plan that aims to transform the disengagement plan into a long term interim solution!! Which can grant Sharon or his successor ample time and appropriate cover up to implement all his settlement and non-settlement schemes in the West Bank!!
This danger is not an illusion; it is a real danger; it is not enough to simply say that the disengagement plan shall constitute the first step towards complete Israeli withdrawal or a first step towards the implementation of all articles in the roadmap or other arguments, such as saying that the withdrawal from Gaza is a painful concession or this is the maximum that Israel can offer at the current stage and that there is no room to demand more! Sharon stated very clearly in his speech before the Likud Central Committee on March 3, the danger that we are referring to when he said: Thanks to the settlements we will maintain forever important and basic locations for our existence in Jerusalem, our eternal capital, and in the settlements compounds in the most sacred sites in our history and in the security regions that are basic to our defense' Within the text of the disengagement plan, we can find those goals which point to areas in the West Bank that will remain as part of the state of Israel, including the major settlements blocs and cities and towns and security zones and other areas. The same text also states that the state of Israel will continue building the separation fence.
This is the ultimate frankness in defining the Israeli stated official position and it equates between the disengagement plan and the long term interim solution and places them under one title which is the Israeli unilateralsolution.
In order to gain the time it needs to implement its goals, Israel needs long term interim negotiations with lots of stalling, division and fragmentation that might last for an unlimited period of time! It also needs an international, especially American, cover up to do this.
The recent negotiations on the withdrawal from the Palestinian cities and lifting the siege imposed on them, return of the deportees and the release of detainees and the halt of the incursions and raids and ending the policy of assassinations can present a new proof on the Israeli policies of stalling and evasion; this also represents a tragic repetition of a trend adopted by the consecutive governments of Israel since the signing of Oslo Accords in 1993. During those years, there were nine Palestinian governments and five Israeli prime ministers and the interim phase is still unchanged and the negotiations remain ranging between stalemate, evasion and more delays.
In front of such a reality, several questions arise, such as: Can the 'gradual accumulation plan' in the current negotiations constitute an appropriate response to the Israeli plan? Is it useful to divide the issues posed for negotiations into two or more phases, starting with the issues that Israel wants and delaying the issues that Israel does not want to discuss now? Can the negotiations move from the easier issues to the more difficult issues and how long does this take? In light of the current Israeli measures, how much area of the Palestinian land, especially Jerusalem, would remain subject for negotiations? Is it right to have the Palestinian side negotiate for a long period of time over issues that Israel will consider later as confidence building measures or good intention gestures? There are many more legitimate questions that require candid answers.
It is high time to formulate a Palestinian political and negotiations plan to be based on concurrency and interrelation between the phases and issues and not allow separation and division of the issues under discussion. Such a plan needs to stress as its first priority on halt of settlement activities, removal of the settlement outposts, halt of the apartheid fence construction and end of all Judaization measures in Jerusalem and all this should happen before starting to talk about the evacuation of cities, lifting the siege, release of prisoners, return of deportees and halt of all incursions, raids and assassinations because the latter issues although important but will be one of the outcomes in case an agreement is reached over the more important issues which could end the occupation policy of imposing the status quo and they touch the issues of land and sovereignty.
We are at a new phase and a dangerous turning point. There is no doubt that the Palestinian Presidential Elections and the election of Mr. Mahmoud Abbas as President of the PNA and the upcoming legislative elections in July, and the declaration of calm, which is a sound and wised decision agreed upon by all Palestinian factions and forces, will no doubt create the proper international climate for the sake of the Palestinian cause and offer room to move towards finding a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian cause.
Making use of this climate requires showing no fear from the Israeli rejection of the Palestinian legitimate demands and insistence to start immediately final status talks and to achieve a total halt of the policy of the settlement status quo and the apartheid fence construction. These are basic and just demands that we should cling to in the context of responding to the Israeli unilateral plan and in order not to allow the disengagement plan become a long term interim solution.
--Hannah Amireh is a member of the (PLO) Executive Committee and Politburo Member of the Palestinian People's Party.
