A Future without a future?
by Edward Graham

There were numerous calls in the Israeli media, those by Yisrael Baliyas Natan Sharansky among them, for Barak to abandon Camp David, return to Israel, and form a national unity government with Likud, Shas, NRP and Yisrael Baliya. The theory behind this is that a united coalition in the Knesset would provide Israel with an overwhelming force to renegotiate the final status agreements in Israels own image. While Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat remained at Camp David negotiating the future of the Palestinian state, Likud party leader Ariel Sharon provided the world with a glimpse of his idea of what that peace agreement would entail.

Writing an editorial in the Jerusalem Post, Sharon laid out a permanent and mutually obligating peace agreement that will terminate the conflict. In order for Israel to settle its own issues with the Palestinians, Sharon proposes six red lines that must be met. They are:

1. A greater Jerusalem, presumably encompassing all of east and west Jerusalem, would remain the eternal and undivided capital of Israel and no further negotiation would be considered on the subject.

2. Israel would establish and annex security zones in Gaza and the West Bank. In the West Bank, Israel would annex the entire Jordan Valley as far west as the Allon Road (making no mention of the status of Jericho) with Israel controlling all access to the Jordan River and all border crossings into Jordan. In the east Israel would simply shrink the borders of the West Bank inward with, again, no mention of the Palestinian cities of Tulkarm and Kalkilya. Sharon says this would protect Israels underground water resources. These positions are basically a restatement of the earlier Allon Plus plan.

3. Jewish towns, villages and communities (read settlements) will remain under Israeli control and will be expanded to create sufficient security margins and cover all access roads. This is a mild revision of Allon Plus, which left the settlements of Kiryat Arba, Ofra, Tekoa, Itamar and Migdallim in the Palestinian area. Presumably, under Sharon these towns would merely draw Israels borders further into Palestinian areas, thus further shrinking any Israeli concessions. If the areas around Jericho and Kalkilya are left to the Palestinians, access roads will connect them to the main body of Palestinian territory rather than having a contiguous region created.

4. As for Palestinian refugees forced out of Israel, they will remain outside of Israel. Sharon states Israel does not accept under any circumstances the Palestinian demand for the right of return. His solution is that Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will simply resettle all Palestinian refugees in their countries. Even more laughable is Sharons conclusion that Israel bears no moral or economic responsibility for the refugees predicament. Apparently, Likud is convinced that these four million plus Palestinians chose to move to other countries, and nothing in recent Israeli history bears any relation to this phenomenon.

5. Described as a vital existential need, Israel will control all sources of fresh water in the West Bank. While it is true that these aquifers provide Israel with a large portion of its water, this position would effectively allow Israel to deprive the Palestinian territory of needed water for agriculture. Sharon does point out that, while Israel will maintain authority over these aquifers, Palestinians will be obligated to prevent any contamination of these water sources.

6. Israel would enforce the idea that there be no foreign military power west of the Jordan River. The Palestinians would be allowed a police force, but the territories would be demilitarized. Israel would maintain all control of air space over Gaza and the West Bank. Along with Israels common practice of sealing the Occupied Territories to prevent Palestinian workers reaching their jobs in Israel, this restriction would effectively eliminate any benefit Palestinians might gain from the Gaza airport.

This is Sharons plan to arrive at a broad national consensus and to strengthen Israels position in the Occupied Territories. The legitimate rights of Palestinians, to say nothing of basic needs and desires of the people, would not come into consideration in Sharons national unity government. 

The predictable collapse of the Camp David negotiations has resulted in questionable positions for all the parties involved. Yasir Arafat is being hailed as something of a hero for not compromising on Palestinian rights or positions. The refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere, however, wonder why something cannot be compromised to allow them the right to return home. Press releases and interviews with members of both the American and Israeli negotiating teams, and President Clinton himself have blamed the failure of Camp David on Arafat and the fact that he would not compromise or surrender his positions and beliefs. No one seems to question why Arafat, negotiating from the weakest of positions, should have to compromise anything at all. The Oslo Accords specifically stated that any final status negotiations would implement UN Resolutions 242 and 338, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territory occupied by war. Israel has stated that Oslo meant to reinterpret 242 and 338, while the United States now says it was only meant to be based on the resolutions. The Palestinians are negotiating from zero, having only the merest trappings of statehood, they are now asked to compromise and surrender what little they have to gain only a little more.

 The United States has failed in its role as an honest broker of peace. To believe that fifty years of US policy towards Israel and countless vetoes in the United Nations could be set aside to evenly help the two sides reach an agreement was foolish from the start. Immediately after Camp David ended the American press began attacking Arafat and the Palestinians for their failure to bend to the whim of the Israeli and American negotiators. President Clinton referred merely to President Arafats commitment to the peace process, while hailing Prime Minister Baraks courage and vision in the process. Until America is ready to turn its back on continued violations of international law (house demolitions, land confiscation, the rapid expansion of settlements) and reprove Israel the same way it does the Palestinians, there can be no honest brokerage. It is ironic that the United States is already threatening to cut off all aid to the Palestinians if a unilateral declaration of statehood is made in September, while at the same time being the greatest source of political, economic and military support to a country that was born by doing exactly that fifty years ago.

 Now that Barak has returned to Israel without an agreement the push for a national unity, or emergency, government will begin in earnest. Yisrael Baliya, the National Religious Party (NRP) and the Center party have all declared their support for a potential government with One Israel and Likud at the helm, so long as the government policies toward the Palestinians changes. Shas has voiced its support for new elections and Meretz and several other left wing parties now favor a tight coalition amongst themselves with One Israel. Regardless of the outcome of these debates, the Palestinian negotiating track has been dealt a serious blow with regards to Israel. While Barak believes that the potential for peace still exists somewhere in the future, he is not likely to gamble on any agreement with Ariel Sharon, and a newly invigorated Benjamin Netanyahu, lurking in the wings.

 Meanwhile, the Palestinians remain where they were before Camp David, dominated by Israeli politics and facing a future with no future.

This piece was written by , President, Middle East Information Network.
The ideas or opinions written here do not necessarily reflect those of the Middle East Information Network, its officers, sponsors or contributors.
© 2000-2001, The Middle East Information Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Please feel free to to the author!

You are visitor number since 7/26/00