by David Clark
Israel's successful withdrawal from Gaza represents the fulfilment of a
longstanding international obligation and meets a key demand of those who
wish to see a viable Palestinian state. But it would be a mistake to see it
as the first step towards a settlement based on the principle of "land for
peace" agreed in the Oslo accords 21 years ago. The idea of two states,
Israel and Palestine, living side by side "in peaceful coexistence and
mutual dignity" was just about the furthest thing from Ariel Sharon's mind
when he announced his disengagement plan last year. In the psychology of
this professional soldier, politics can only ever be the continuation of war
by other means.
In this respect his unilateral approach is less of a departure than many
seem to suppose. . . . Sharon's predecessor, Ehud Barak, believed he could
bounce the Palestinians into accepting a rump entity that failed to meet the
basic requirements of viability or statehood.
Although nominally sovereign, the Palestinian state he had in mind was
intended to be economically, politically and militarily subordinate to
Israel. Large chunks of its most fertile territory were to be annexed to
Israel; it was to have no control over its own external borders and limited
control only over airspace and water supplies; and its territorial integrity
would have been compromised by Israeli settlements, roads and military
facilities. The idea that these proposals constituted a "generous offer"
makes sense only if we see them as terms of surrender rather than a
negotiated peace.
. . . The big difference now is that Israel's territorial acquisitiveness -
its desire to hold on to what it is not entitled to in either morality or
law - has now been officially sanctioned by the United States. In defiance
of UN resolutions, and even his own road map, George Bush has pre-empted a
final status agreement by accepting that Israel can hold on to its West Bank
settlements and refuse the right of return to Palestinian refugees. . . .
It must be understood that there can be no possibility of real peace without
justice.
. . . and if a just and workable settlement is to become possible, it will be
necessary for others to combine and act self- consciously as a strategic
counterbalance to American influence in the region. The most obvious vehicle
for this would be the European Union's common foreign policy, but there are
many other countries that could form part of a powerful international
coalition. . . .
FULL TEXT
[David Clark is a former Labour government adviser]
Enver Masud, "Abu Mazen: Israel's New
'Security Subcontractor'?," The Wisdom Fund, January 16, 2005
Jennifer Lowenstein, "Watching the
Gazan Fiasco," CounterPunch, August 17, 2005
[This was the day on which the settlement enterprise in this country went
into reverse for the first time.--Uri Avnery, "This
Was The Day," Gush Shalom, August 20, 2005]
Megan K. Stack, "Arab World Sees Gaza as a Frustratingly
Small Step," Los Angeles Times, August 22, 2005
[The startling assertion that Mr Sharon repudiates not only the Oslo accords
but the concept of "land for peace" that underpinned them will fuel
Palestinian fears that he is seeking to redraw the internationally agreed
road map to peace,--Donald Macintyre, "Fears
for peace plan as Sharon rejects territorial concessions,"
Independent, November 23, 2005]