wellofvow
12-15-2003, 12:58 PM
What do you-all think about Ehud Ohlmert's plan? At first, I thought it nuts, but the more I think about it, it sure has merits. The PA should be shown that the more they delay, thinking that they will get more, the less they will get.
I think that this plan reflects very well our well-deserved impatience with the Arab fantasies of getting it all. We should give them what we think is reasonable and the hell with them.
Dec. 11, 2003
Withdrawal symptoms
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
Ehud Olmert's proposal for unilateral separation has put almost everyone on the defensive: the settlers, the Palestinians, and the ruling party
Hardly a week has elapsed since a group of Israelis and Palestinians in Geneva heralded what many accepted as the only game in Mideast peace. Now no one remembers them any more. In a bombshell interview to Yediot Aharonot's Nahum Barnea, Olmert last week said what until recently was anathema within the Likud: That Israel's grip on the territories can no longer be sustained, that demographics make it imperative for Israel to disengage from the Palestinians; and that some settlements will have to be evacuated in the wake of the unilateral move he is advocating. Olmert's interview has overshadowed other proposed plans for the prosaic reason that he, unlike Beilin, is incumbent, and in fact not only incumbent but apparently the one minister closest to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
That is why so many, whether happily, wryly, or frantically, have been compelled to respond to it with dispatch. Clearly, the ones most alarmed by it, and with good reason, are the settlers.
Though they have been accustomed over the decades to being betrayed - as they see it - by people who once championed their cause, from Shimon Peres to Menachem Begin, this time around it is different. Ariel Sharon is not just another supporter - he is their godfather, the man who initiated, masterminded, and often also micro-managed the establishment of most of the more than 200 settlements between Gaza and Samaria. And what Olmert said is widely suspected as having actually come from the horse's mouth. Within Likud, too, Olmert's move makes schism an even more likely prospect in a party that is already torn between populists, led by former foreign minister David Levy, and Thatcherites, led by Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Now, Internal Security Minister Tzahi Hanegbi has made it plain he intends to fight Olmert's plan tooth and nail, and the showdown can be counted on to be not only an ideological disputation, but also a political boxing match.
Meanwhile, the Left has also been caught off guard, since it must on the one hand applaud the willingness to end the occupation, but at the same time take a stand on Olmert's working assumption that agreements with the Palestinians don't work. Then, of course, there are the Palestinians, who can be relieved for at least one reason: This plan does not involve their consent; That's the whole point about it.
Dec. 11, 2003
Ehud Olmert on his plan
By AMOTZ ASA-EL & RUTHIE BLUM
Q: Your recent statements about unilateral withdrawal are surprising.
A: The debate between those who continue to adhere to the idea of Greater Israel and those who keep talking about the '67 borders, but who are emotionally ready to withdraw beyond the '67 borders - is virtual. Israel cannot remain within its current borders without disintegrating from within. And on the other, there is no chance an Israeli majority will ever agree to a return to the '67 borders without solving the refugee problem or terrorism.
I propose an excellent border, but one that still involves withdrawing from much of the territories.
How many settlements are you talking about evacuating?
What's important is how many remain. What will remain, in my opinion, are the central blocs of settlements within Judea and Samaria, plus Jerusalem.
What about Kiryat Arba?
As Arik Sharon said, Hebron is a special case and we must find a way to discuss it. Hebron is so highly sensitive and historically loaded that we must find a smart way of solving it and I believe we will.
The issue isn't the international arena, or our relations with the West or with Europe. The question is whether the State of Israel can continue to include all the territories and remain a Jewish state.
But doesn't the timing of your proposal reward terrorism? Are there behind-the-scenes negotiations going on with Abu Ala that we don't know about?
Absolutely not. What I'm saying means precisely that there are no agreements with Abu Ala.
In other words, unilateralism is the name of the game.
Unilateralism is the inevitable necessity born out of the deep understanding of the forces that have prevented the achieving of an agreement. This does not come from any special desire for unilateral moves on my part. I'm willing to sit with any Palestinian and to try and arrive at an understanding. But we've seen that this isn't viable.
And unilateral withdrawal is viable where the Palestinians are concerned?
I'm not talking about reaching an agreement with them. Unilateralism depends only on us - on our degree of determination when it comes to facing opposition to it both from without and from within. Like from Uzi Landau and Tzahi Hanegbi and others who live inside a bubble, out of touch with reality, the world, the future - with anything other than what they imagine will be politically beneficial.
The whole world will be aghast because my plan entails sizable annexations to Israel. So how will we overcome its opposition? By having it witness the enormous internal crisis that evacuations will involve. When the world sees what it means to evacuate even a single settlement - even a single family - it will grasp the limits of the game. Even the US will understand that evacuating all the settlements is never going to happen - Emmanuel, Ariel - and all the concentrations of large settlements are staying put.
Will you prevent the entry of Palestinians into Israel?
Absolutely. I already am. I'm in favor of cooperating with them economically, and for assisting them, but not within Israel.
Aren't you paving the way for Bibi's comeback?
I represent a decisive majority of Likud members. The response within the Likud has been completely different from what you imagine.
So what happens after unilateral withdrawal? Will the war end? Will the violence cease?
Terrorism will exist in any case, even if there is an agreement. Terrorism is an essential element of the fanatical Muslim ethos that is still dominant in every non-democratic Arab society.
Even with Beilin's Geneva Accord there would be violence.
The difference is that under unilateral separation, terrorism will be far more limited in scope, and we will be able to fight it as a democratic country with a decisive majority of Jews - a country that will defend itself against external enemies, not one that controls a large population in conditions of inequality.
I think that this plan reflects very well our well-deserved impatience with the Arab fantasies of getting it all. We should give them what we think is reasonable and the hell with them.
Dec. 11, 2003
Withdrawal symptoms
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
Ehud Olmert's proposal for unilateral separation has put almost everyone on the defensive: the settlers, the Palestinians, and the ruling party
Hardly a week has elapsed since a group of Israelis and Palestinians in Geneva heralded what many accepted as the only game in Mideast peace. Now no one remembers them any more. In a bombshell interview to Yediot Aharonot's Nahum Barnea, Olmert last week said what until recently was anathema within the Likud: That Israel's grip on the territories can no longer be sustained, that demographics make it imperative for Israel to disengage from the Palestinians; and that some settlements will have to be evacuated in the wake of the unilateral move he is advocating. Olmert's interview has overshadowed other proposed plans for the prosaic reason that he, unlike Beilin, is incumbent, and in fact not only incumbent but apparently the one minister closest to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
That is why so many, whether happily, wryly, or frantically, have been compelled to respond to it with dispatch. Clearly, the ones most alarmed by it, and with good reason, are the settlers.
Though they have been accustomed over the decades to being betrayed - as they see it - by people who once championed their cause, from Shimon Peres to Menachem Begin, this time around it is different. Ariel Sharon is not just another supporter - he is their godfather, the man who initiated, masterminded, and often also micro-managed the establishment of most of the more than 200 settlements between Gaza and Samaria. And what Olmert said is widely suspected as having actually come from the horse's mouth. Within Likud, too, Olmert's move makes schism an even more likely prospect in a party that is already torn between populists, led by former foreign minister David Levy, and Thatcherites, led by Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Now, Internal Security Minister Tzahi Hanegbi has made it plain he intends to fight Olmert's plan tooth and nail, and the showdown can be counted on to be not only an ideological disputation, but also a political boxing match.
Meanwhile, the Left has also been caught off guard, since it must on the one hand applaud the willingness to end the occupation, but at the same time take a stand on Olmert's working assumption that agreements with the Palestinians don't work. Then, of course, there are the Palestinians, who can be relieved for at least one reason: This plan does not involve their consent; That's the whole point about it.
Dec. 11, 2003
Ehud Olmert on his plan
By AMOTZ ASA-EL & RUTHIE BLUM
Q: Your recent statements about unilateral withdrawal are surprising.
A: The debate between those who continue to adhere to the idea of Greater Israel and those who keep talking about the '67 borders, but who are emotionally ready to withdraw beyond the '67 borders - is virtual. Israel cannot remain within its current borders without disintegrating from within. And on the other, there is no chance an Israeli majority will ever agree to a return to the '67 borders without solving the refugee problem or terrorism.
I propose an excellent border, but one that still involves withdrawing from much of the territories.
How many settlements are you talking about evacuating?
What's important is how many remain. What will remain, in my opinion, are the central blocs of settlements within Judea and Samaria, plus Jerusalem.
What about Kiryat Arba?
As Arik Sharon said, Hebron is a special case and we must find a way to discuss it. Hebron is so highly sensitive and historically loaded that we must find a smart way of solving it and I believe we will.
The issue isn't the international arena, or our relations with the West or with Europe. The question is whether the State of Israel can continue to include all the territories and remain a Jewish state.
But doesn't the timing of your proposal reward terrorism? Are there behind-the-scenes negotiations going on with Abu Ala that we don't know about?
Absolutely not. What I'm saying means precisely that there are no agreements with Abu Ala.
In other words, unilateralism is the name of the game.
Unilateralism is the inevitable necessity born out of the deep understanding of the forces that have prevented the achieving of an agreement. This does not come from any special desire for unilateral moves on my part. I'm willing to sit with any Palestinian and to try and arrive at an understanding. But we've seen that this isn't viable.
And unilateral withdrawal is viable where the Palestinians are concerned?
I'm not talking about reaching an agreement with them. Unilateralism depends only on us - on our degree of determination when it comes to facing opposition to it both from without and from within. Like from Uzi Landau and Tzahi Hanegbi and others who live inside a bubble, out of touch with reality, the world, the future - with anything other than what they imagine will be politically beneficial.
The whole world will be aghast because my plan entails sizable annexations to Israel. So how will we overcome its opposition? By having it witness the enormous internal crisis that evacuations will involve. When the world sees what it means to evacuate even a single settlement - even a single family - it will grasp the limits of the game. Even the US will understand that evacuating all the settlements is never going to happen - Emmanuel, Ariel - and all the concentrations of large settlements are staying put.
Will you prevent the entry of Palestinians into Israel?
Absolutely. I already am. I'm in favor of cooperating with them economically, and for assisting them, but not within Israel.
Aren't you paving the way for Bibi's comeback?
I represent a decisive majority of Likud members. The response within the Likud has been completely different from what you imagine.
So what happens after unilateral withdrawal? Will the war end? Will the violence cease?
Terrorism will exist in any case, even if there is an agreement. Terrorism is an essential element of the fanatical Muslim ethos that is still dominant in every non-democratic Arab society.
Even with Beilin's Geneva Accord there would be violence.
The difference is that under unilateral separation, terrorism will be far more limited in scope, and we will be able to fight it as a democratic country with a decisive majority of Jews - a country that will defend itself against external enemies, not one that controls a large population in conditions of inequality.