All that said- this is kind of stupid.
Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, predicted to win the Israeli election on March 27th, said in an interview Thursday that any parties who wish to join a coalition government with him will have to agree to his unilateral plan to take 20% of the Palestinian West Bank and surround the rest with a Wall.Ok, first off, any politician's "declared goal" is never what the final settlement winds up being. That's the basic premise of any diplomatic process. And Olmert's also in the middle of election season, meaning there's all the more reason to take anything he says (whether pandering to the right or left) with several etrog-sized grains of salt.
The plan, which is already being put into effect in various parts of the West Bank with accelerated Wall construction and displacement of Palestinian populations, has been termed 'unilateral withdrawal' by Israeli leaders. But Palestinians argue that the term 'withdrawal' is misleading, as Olmert's plan calls simply for a shifting of illegal Israeli settlers from one part of the West Bank to another part, not a withdrawal.
Second, obviously any unilateral proposal is going to be less beneficial to the Palestinians than a negotiated one. That's just a plain fact. All the more reason to encourage them to negotiate with Israel (cough, cough, Hamas).
Third, it has long been a de facto reality that some Israeli settlements adjacent (or semi-adjacent) to the Green Line are going to become part of Israel. This was reflected as far back as the talks at Camp David & Taba, as well as the Abu-Mazen-Beillin plan & Clinton Proposal, all of which took place from 1999-2001. Even the Geneva Accord, touted by Palestinian intellectuals (and which included Abu Mazen, Jibril Rajoub & Mohammed Dahlan as supporters), has Israel getting some settlements, in exchange for Palestinians getting some land around Gaza and some area in south-central Israel west of the Green Line. How much land the Palestinians get in exchange, and how many settlements the Israelis take, will be determined by if and how negotiations occur.
Now, is this fair? Arguably, no. But this whole shitstorm is long past any issues of fairness, and it's particularly ridiculous to grumble about stuff like Olmert's campaign promises:
A- Before he's even gotten into office & formed his coalition.
B- While Hamas is still talking about not recognizing Israel and continuing attacks against it (given justification by Israeli attacks against them)
C- While the Palestinian government is imploding.
So, yeah, sorry, Israel's going to keep some of its settlements. No major news there. The Palestinians aren't going to be getting back all of the 67 land. Should they be pissed? Sure. But I'd think they'd be more interested in getting IDF soldiers and psycho-settlers out of their backyards than in protesting senseless minutia like Olmert's peace plans, which, incidentally, they will have zero impact in changing, unless they start pressuring their new leaders to TALK to Israel, instead of just lobbing Kassams at it. We're long past fair- let's just grit our teeth and try and come to some sort of agreement both sides can tolerate. Holding out for all of the 67 land is just plain stupid. I'd focus on more pragmatic things, like trying to limit Israeli inclusion of settlement blocs far inside the West Bank under their category of "priority" settlements to keep, and which will ultimately make a viable Palestinian state much harder to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment