Question: Is the “Unilateral Disengagement” plan, which was so dramatically endorsed thisweek by President Bush, a bluff?
Answer: Yes and No.
If Ariel Sharon can avoid implementing it, he certainly will. He will implement it only if hehas no alternative. The written plan says that it will be implemented “by the end of 2005” – andby then the situation in this country and in the Middle East as a whole may be changed beyondrecognition.
Anyhow, up to now no preparations have begun. There is no answer to the dozens of questions thatmust be addressed before a meaningful plan for implementation can even begin to beformulated. For example:Where will the settlers go? How much compensation will they get?Who will control the Gaza strip after the withdrawal? To whom will the houses and publicbuildings be turned over? How will the army execute the evacuation? Where will the evacuatedarmy forces be relocated?
Question: If this is the case, why has Sharon put the plan on the agenda at this time?
Answer: There are several explanations, all of them valid.
After several years of being accused of “having no plan” and of being old and tired, Sharonhas taken a bold initiative. The country and the whole world is talking about the “SharonPlan”. The Geneva initiative, by comparison, has been pushed firmly to one side.
Also, Sharon wants to use the time left, as long as George Bush is in the White House, in orderto get an American endorsement for several of the ingredients of his real, long-term plan.Of course, Sharon also wants to put pressure on the new Attorney General, so that he would notdare to indict him, since this would mean sabotaging a historic step which will benefitIsrael.
As always, all of Sharon’s declarations and deeds are designed to meet the requirements of themoment. That was true when he was a general, and it remains so now, when he is a politician. Heis a “tactical”, rather than a “strategic” leader.
Question: Has Sharon really undergone a profound change? Has the “Ethiopian changed hisskin”, to use the expression of Jeremiah (13, 23)? Has he now turned his back on his lifetimeaccomplishments?
Answer: The Ethiopian has not changed his skin. An analysis of the plan, as endorsed by Bush andshown at long last to the Israeli ministers, reveals that it conforms exactly to the planthat Sharon has been propounding for decades. He just cut out a piece of it and is presentingit as an up-to-date plan.
Question: What is his overall plan?
Answer: The maximum plan is to turn all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and theJordan River into a Jewish State, with no non-Jewish population. Since such an ethniccleansing is not feasible for the time being, he is implementing his minimum plan:
to enlarge the borders of the Jewish State as much as possible, without incorporating afurther large Arab population.
Therefore he wants to get rid of the Gaza Strip with its 1.2 million Palestinianinhabitants. He is prepared to evacuate the 7,000 Jewish settlers who are living there, inreturn for the consolidation of the West Bank settlements, where 250,000 Jewish settlerslive.
Sharon wants to incorporate in Israel 55% of the West Bank – the area where most of thesettlers are located and the Arab population is relatively sparse. The plan spells it out:”It is clear that in the Judea and Samaria region there will remain areas that will be part ofthe State of Israel, including civilian localities, security areas and other places whereIsrael has additional interests” (Article 1c)*. This definition could includepractically anything.
- Since the plan has been leaked only in Hebrew, I have made the translation.
Almost all the Palestinian population in the West Bank, some 2.5 million people, will becrowded into the remaining 45% of the area, which, together with the Gaza Strip, willconstitute about 10% of the country called Palestine under the British mandate, before1948. This area will be a kind of archipelago in the big Israeli sea. Each “island” will becut off from the others and surrounded by Israeli areas. The islands will be artificiallyconnected by new roads, bridges and tunnels, so as to create the illusion of a “viable,contiguous state”, as the Americans demand. According to the written plan: “Israel willimprove the transportation infrastructure in the Judea and Samaria region, in order tomake possible uninterrupted Palestinian transportation” (4). In practice, theseconnections can be cut off within minutes at any time. Pretexts can always be found easily.
Sharon does not mind if this collection of enclaves is called a ”Palestinian state”according to Bush’s “vision”.
Question: What is the connection between this and the “Separation Fence”?
Answer: The path of the fence – both the part that has already been built and the parts thatwill be built in the future – reflects this map well. That is how it was planned from thebeginning. “Israel will continue building the Security Fence, according to the relevantgovernment decisions” (5c). In his letter to Sharon, Bush said: “a security rather than apolitical barrier…temporary rather than permanent.” Meaning, temporary until Sharon orhis successors decide otherwise. Meaning: forever.
Question: Why does the Israeli army support the plan?
Answer: The evacuation of the forces from the Gaza Strip and the relocation of those in theWest Bank will enable the army to save many resources, manpower as well as money. At present,a whole army division is guarding the Gaza Strip, and many battalions are guarding thedozens of isolated settlements in the heart of the West Bank. The plan allows the army todeploy its forces rationally and to put an end to the present dispersion of forces that iscontrary to all military logic.
Question: Why does Sharon agree to evacuate four settlements in the north of the West Bank?
Answer: The Americans demand a symbolic gesture, in order to show that the plan does notapply to the Gaza Strip alone.
Actually, the evacuation of the four small settlements has only symbolic value. This is anegligible area with a few small and unimportant settlements. Sharon’s settlement andannexation map in any case provides for the evacuation of dozens of small settlements inthe areas that will be left to the Palestinians.
Question: What will happen in the Gaza Strip if Sharon indeed evacuates it?
Answer: The disengagement will be deceptive. The direct occupation will be changed into anindirect one that will be much cheaper and more efficient.
According to the plan, the Gaza strip will become a giant prison camp, cut off on all sides. Itwill have no seaport or airport and be cut off from its only neighbor, Egypt. There will be noentering the Strip or leaving it except through Israel. Much as now, Israel will be able tocut off the supply of food, raw materials, water, fuel, gas and electricity, as well as theexit of workers and goods. Israel will also be able to invade the Strip at any time in order to”prevent terrorist actions”.
The plan spells it out: “Israel reserves to itself the basic right of self-defense,including the taking of preventive steps” (3). Not only did the President agree to this, butin his letter he extended this to the West Bank, too: “…control of airspace, territorialwaters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.” Meaning that accordingto the ”Bush vision”, the Palestinian State in the West Bank also will be a prison camp,completely cut off from the world. A hopeful vision, indeed.
The written text of the plan also argues that in the new situation to be created, no one will beable to hold Israel responsible for the welfare of the population. After all, theoccupation will be terminated. This means that Israel will be able to choke the Strip, butthe responsibility will fall on others.
Question: If this is so “good for Israel”, why does Sharon not implement the evacuation ofthe Gaza Strip at once?
Answer: No politician looks for trouble. The evacuation of the Strip will entail violentclashes with the settlers, not only with the local ones but also with the West Bank settlers.That’s why Sharon prefers to talk about the withdrawal rather than implement it.
Question: If Sharon thinks that the settlements in the Gaza Strip are a burden and astumbling block, why did he put them there in the first place? Why did he declare, not so longago, that Netzarim, a completely isolated settlement in the heart of the Gaza Strip, is asimportant as Tel-Aviv?
Answer: That declaration, like all his utterances, served only to satisfy a momentaryneed. The Gaza Strip settlements were put up without much thinking, as a result of thesettlement inertia and a complete contempt for the Arabs. The people responsible believedthat the Strip would never be given back, and, if the worst comes to the worst, they could keepat least the settlements.
All in all, the establishment of the Gaza Strip settlements was a crime that has cost much bloodand billions of dollars. The Labor Party is responsible for this crime as much as Likud. ButIsraelis are quick to forget, and nobody will blame Sharon and Peres for the death of thesoldiers and settlers who were killed there – and who are still being killed – for nothing.
Question: If the Ethiopian has not changed his skin, has the leopard changed his spots? Hasthe American position indeed changed dramatically this week?
Answer: The change lies mainly in the blatant and unequivocal support of Bush for Sharon,giving up all pretense of being an honest broker and mediator. Like Sharon, Bush is nowcompletely ignoring the Palestinian people and its leadership. This has evoked anoutburst of rage among the Palestinians and all over the Arab world. But as far as realcontent is concerned, the change is minimal.
Question: Is the negation of the ‘Right of Return” not a big change?
Answer: Not really. In his last speech in office, on January 8, 2001, President Bill Clintondeclared: “A solution…for the Palestinian refugees (will allow) them to return to aPalestinian state…Others who want to find new homes, whether in their current locations orin third countries, should be able to do so, consistent with those countries’ sovereigndecisions. And that includes Israel.” This means that only Israel alone will decidewhether refugees will be allowed to enter its territory – and that is what Bush said, too.Contrary to the official translation of his letter into Hebrew, Bush said that the refugeesmust be settled in the Palestinian state “rather than in Israel” (the Hebrew translationsaid “and not in Israel”. A subtle but not unimportant difference.)
On the eve of Sharon’s departure for his meeting with Bush, the ”Geneva Initiative” grouppublished a letter to Sharon, demanding that the US “recognize that Israel is sovereign todecide on the entrance of Palestinian refugees into its territory.” That, too, means thesame.
Question: But has not Bush endorsed now for the first time the incorporation of thesettlement blocks into Israel?
Answer: No. Clinton preceded him in this matter, too. In the same speech he endorsed the”incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks”. Bush, on his part, wrote in his letterthat “In the light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israelipopulation centers, it is not realistic to expect…a full and complete return” to thepre-1967 Green Line.
All American plans, going back to the Nixon years, spoke about ”insubstantial changes” inthe pre-1967 borders. The famous Security Council resolution 242 also did not demand thatthe former border be reconstituted without any change. Bush’s formula continues thisline. He did not spell out the extent of the border changes envisioned.
It is worthwhile remembering that the whole idea of “settlement blocks” was born years agoin the fertile brain of Yossi Beilin and was included in the “Beilin-Abu-Mazen” agreement.Beilin hoped that by this means he would disarm the opposition of the settlers, who wouldsacrifice the isolated settlements in order to save the major settlement blocks, where80% of the settlers live. This hope was proven false, and Beilin’s trick served only tolegitimize the idea of the annexation of the blocks. The settlers did not buy the trick,because they are afraid of the precedent that would be created by removing even onesettlement. They will try to prevent this by all the means available to them.
Incidentally, in the same statement published by the “Geneva Initiative” group beforeSharon’s departure, he was urged to demand from Bush “the annexation of central settlementblocks like Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Giv’at Ze’ev, into sovereign Israel.”
There is, of course, a difference: Beilin and Clinton proposed ”territorial swaps”,either on a 1:1 or a less equal ratio. But it is clear that the Palestinians were asked to giveup their most fertile lands in return for stretches of the Negev desert.
Question: If so, where is the “dramatic change”?
Answer: The drama is in the notes rather than in the melody. Clinton knew how to pour honey onhis proposals, which were clearly pro-Israeli. Bush repeats these positions in a much morestrident, rough and arrogant tone. He speaks about the Palestinians in the style of amilitary governor, just like Sharon.
Question: If so, what will be the outcome?
Answer: As far as the Americans are concerned, the Muslim-Arab rage against them willbecome even stronger, thereby increasing the motivation to hurt the Americans in Iraq andeverywhere.
Question: So why did he do it?
Answer: It will be remembered that Henry Kissinger said that Israel has no foreign, butonly domestic policy. That is true for the United States, too. In this matter, Bush is actingsolely for his re-election. He needs the votes of the Jews and the evangelical Christians,who support the Israeli right-wing. He also needs the Jewish donations.
It is said that Bush is the most pro-Israeli American president there ever was. I think thatthe opposite is true. I believe that he is the most anti-Israeli American president thereever was, because the Sharon-Bush plan is blocking the way to Israeli-Palestinian peace,our only hope for a normal life.