From: "mart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jordan Times
August 23, 2001
Unilateral separation
By Michael Jansen
"UNILATERAL SEPARATION" is the buzz phrase fashionable
in Israel these days. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak
launched the curious notion that Israel could draw
lines between occupied land it holds and the pockets
under Palestinian control and reinforce these lines
with walls, electronic fences, military posts, the
usual paraphernalia of separation. The idea has now
been taken up by the current Industry Minister Dalia
Itzik, Haim Ramon of Labour and Dan Meridor of the
Centre Party which has just joined the right-led
coalition.
But what does separation mean? Where does Israel put
its fences without pulling out of West Bank and Gaza
settlements the government is determined to maintain?
There are at present 150 Israeli settlements housing
200,000 settlers in the occupied West Bank and Gaza,
plus a dozen settlements in the Greater Jerusalem area
with another 200-250,000 inhabitants.
The object of these colonies was to make it impossible
to separate Israeli from Palestinian, so that Israel
could not be called upon to withdraw from the land.
Israel has succeeded all too well. Separation is just
not possible without wholesale evacuation of Israeli
settlements. Or, massive ethnic cleansing of the
Palestinian population.
The settlements were sited strategically, established
on hilltops, allowing the Israeli army to dominate
Palestinian villages and towns, located in valleys.
Settlements flank most of the larger towns - Jenin,
Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Hebron, Rafah and Khan
Younis. A wedge of urban settlements east of Jerusalem
extends to the edge of Jericho, nearly bisecting the
West Bank. A wide belt of settlements in the Jordan
Valley forms a buffer between Palestinian-controlled
areas and Jordan, while settlements in the south of
the Gaza Strip cut the Palestinians off from Egypt.
Settlements also sit on top of West Bank and Gaza
aquifers allowing Israel to draw on the water
resources of these occupied areas, in violation of
international law. And, to further complicate matters,
Israel has crossed the landscape with settler-only
road networks and settler-only utility infrastructure.
The current configuration of Palestinian-controlled
enclaves has been determined by the settlements, most
of which are already fenced stockades. Are the
proponents of unilateral separation proposing fencing
Palestinians into "Area A," territory under full
Palestinian rule, or "Area A" plus convenient portions
of "Area B," land under Palestinian administration and
Israeli security control?
What happens to Palestinians living within areas
Israel retains? Will they be "transferred," to use the
word for "ethnic cleansing" coined by Tourism Minister
Revaham Zeevi?
Will settlers living in outposts and colonies Israel
decides not to defend, be brought back across the
Green Line, or relocated in large settlements planted
on the Line? Or, left to their own devices in vacated
territory?
"Unilateral separation" is seen by its proponents as
the equivalent of Israel's "unilateral withdrawal"
from southern Lebanon last year. And they point out
hat for the most part the border with Lebanon has
been quiet since the "clean break" made by the
"unilateral withdrawal." But they ignore the hard fact
that a "clean break" with the Palestinians is not
feasible as long as the settlements remain in situ.
In the past few days, thoughtful Israeli media
commentators have ridiculed the "unilateral
separation" camp. Shlomo Gazit, a former head of
military intelligence, makes the point in The
Jerusalem Post of Aug. 21, that Israel would be better
served if it negotiates the withdrawal of its
settlements with the Palestinians within the context
of an overall agreement than by unilaterally
evacuating some settlements. He says that the shift of
settlers requires careful preparation which cannot be
made if there is to be an early "unilateral
separation." In the view of Gazit, "separation is
nothing but an illusion. The sooner we separate
ourselves from it, the better."
Yoel Marcus, writing in Haaretz on the same day, calls
the concept "unilateral foolishness": "In our present
situation, there is no unilateral solution. We are
among them, they are among us. And nothing will be
solved without rapprochement, agreements and
understandings between two neighbours who are destined
to live side-by-side."
The "unilateral illusion" is, apparently, only on of
several so-called "peace plans" being floated by
various Israeli worthies. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
is speaking of an "armistice" ("hudna") during which
Israel would hold onto its "assets" in the territories
and enter mediated final settlement talks with the
Palestinians. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is
suggesting an Israeli pull-out from large tracts of
"Area C," the 70-odd per cent of the West Bank and the
40 per cent of Gaza under Israel's full control, and
the resumption of final status negotiations on all but
the Jerusalem and refugee issues, which would be
postponed.
Former leftwing Meretz minister, Ran Cohen, proposes
pulling out of all of "Gaza first" and recognising it
as the initial instalment in a Palestinian state.
Under the Cohen plan, Palestine President Yasser
Arafat would impose control on all armed elements in
order to bring an end to the war and Israel would
implement outstanding provisions of the Oslo accords.
These plans are also "illusions" because Arafat is not
in a position to accept less than a full Israeli
ithdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East
Jerusalem. Too much Palestinian blood has been spilled
- at least 560 killed and 15,000 wounded since last
September.
These illusory plans are being hyped at the present
moment because the Israeli government has no peace
proposal. Sharon is waging a war without a clear
political objective other than comprehensively
defeating the Palestinians. But driving the current
crop of activists from the West Bank and Gaza and
eradicating the Palestine National Authority will not
solve Israel's security problems or end the conflict.
Some Israelis should formulate a plan acceptable to
the Palestinians, pretty smartly. Time is not on
Israel's side. According to Professor Arnon Sofer of
Haifa University, by 2020 the Jewish population in
geographic Palestine will constitute 42 per cent of
the total, while the Palestinians will be 58 per cent.
Therefore, if Israel is to remain a "Jewish state", it
must "separate" from the Palestinians by making
precisely the sort of "clean break" Israel made from
southern Lebanon. By retreating to the lines of June
1967, Israel would achieve precisely this end, while,
at the same time, it would provide the Palestinians
with just about enough territory to form a viable
state of their own.
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
----------
