The ongoing Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is a hard-won victory for the Palestinians. The Gaza evacuation, as seen by the Palestinians and the Israeli left, is a precursor for further Israeli withdrawals from all such occupied lands. There now appears to be an Israeli will to move beyond the Gaza-Jericho First Accord of 1994. For the first time, Israeli-sanctioned settlements are being dismantled since the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1982. At long last, the Jewish state is seen to be taking the necessary steps toward achieving ultimate peace with the Palestinians. However, nothing can be further from the truth.
The battle has only just begun. As per his own assertion, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has merely “disengaged” his front-line forces in a tactical retreat. Judging not just by the maneuverings of a military general but by the strategy of a seasoned politician, the disengagement process has provided the Israelis with a position of strength. The Gaza withdrawal has been presented to the world as a painful compromise by the Israelis and the onus of reciprocation placed squarely on the Palestinians.
Israel has successfully managed to present the Palestinians as intransigent and obstructionist. Ever since the Declaration of Principles in 1993 and through its numerous subsidiaries leading to the hapless road map in 2003, the onus of compromise has been placed on the Palestinians. This has led to peace negotiations being primarily gauged by the willingness of the Palestinian side to capitulate on their demands.
If one is to look at the peace process in real time, then the Palestinians have until now accomplished nothing. The past decade and a half has seen the Palestinians divulge their claim to the whole of Palestine and scrounging for crumbs within roughly 23 percent of the original territory. The eviction of the Gaza settlers is not a real eviction but rather a strategic relocation to the rapidly expanding settlements of the West Bank.
The Jewish state’s “magnanimity” in arranging for the media circus of an estimated 6000 personnel to cover the event has been a brilliant exercise in public relations. In essence, the illegal occupier has been rendered the suffering protagonist and a demographic compulsion has been repackaged as a political sacrifice.
In one deft move Ariel Sharon has transferred whatever was remnant of the sympathy factor, from the Palestinians to the Israelis. By pulling out, Sharon has managed to have the cake and eat it as well.
Palestinians will now have to deal with this shift in the political landscape of the peace process. Calls will certainly emanate seeking Palestinian reciprocity and Ariel Sharon has already created the groundwork for such. Sharon is the architect of the settlement activity and it is incomprehensible that he would forgo his lifetime achievements for nothing. Last year, Israel’s Labour Party MP, Ephraim Sneh said, “the disengagement may be just a cover for the real intention of the prime minister to deepen and solidify the Israeli hold in the West Bank.” The rapidly expanding settlements of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion are indicative of this policy and serve as “facts on the ground”. The present route of the so-called “security wall” cuts deep into West Bank territory, engulfing East Jerusalem, and would likely become the de facto border for a future Palestinian state. And in preparation for the same, US President Bush has publicly acknowledged that Israel could not be expected to relinquish all of its settlements.
The writing on the wall is ominous. Unilateral actions by the Sharon administration like the construction of the “wall” and the disengagement plan bode ill for the Palestinians. If allowed to persist then this trend may well continue toward further Israeli annexations leaving the Palestinians foundering in an unviable state comprising of cantons with no territorial contiguity.
The Israeli leadership understands that time and resources are not on its side if it is to continue its privileged existence. The intifada is beginning to take its toll. The cost in human and economic terms is far too much for it to ignore any longer. It leaves Sharon then, with the only option of grabbing as much land as feasible and this time reversing the argument of demographic necessity upon the Palestinians.
Today, the Palestinian resistance movement can claim victory but it is a facile one. True, a milestone has been passed toward realizing the two-state solution, but this solution still serves the best interests of Israel. And yet, Israel should not be allowed to set the boundaries unilaterally. World attention is set to shift toward the Palestinians and it would be in their interests to have a clearly demarcated strategy to counter the diplomatic onslaught about to sweep them. And to a world preoccupied with security, Israel’s insistence on disarming the militants as a precondition for new talks is likely to be met with ever-increasing nods of approval. This is a nightmare scenario for the Palestinian leadership, for any attempt at forceful disarmament of Hamas or other factions could precipitate civil war.
The Palestinians will have to think on their toes how best to avoid being stuck in this political booby trap. Negotiations must be restarted and should begin with the question of political borders. The previous approach of leaving the most difficult issues to the end seems to be serving Israel’s interests more than anything else. For the Palestinians, the trend of reactive negotiations must be replaced with a more proactive form if there is any headway to be made. The Gaza and Jericho First approach should not be allowed to become the beginning and the end of the process. The ball is now firmly in the Palestinian camp and much depends on how they play it next.
