A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Painful Concessions

Bar Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg has an important column in today's Jerusalem Post.

Steinberg's political views lean slightly to the right - he opposed Oslo, opposes the road map and believes that Israel will have no viable peace partner "for many years, maybe decades." As a result, Steinberg argues that:

"Unless Israel acts we will be ensnared by a growing Palestinian population that will soon become the majority between the Mediterranean and Jordan River, ending the concept of a Jewish state. Even if the terrorist attacks can be stopped by purely military means, the status quo, without borders and with small settlements scattered all over the map, is a dangerous political trap.

"The catastrophic failures of the Oslo peace process followed by the hopeless road map show that the exit from this trap will not come via negotiations and agreements for many years, maybe decades. To escape this trap Israel must act unilaterally to dismantle some settlements, incorporate others, and create realistic borders." Steinberg calls for Israel to build the separation fence to include within its borders "the area around Jerusalem, Gush Etzion (south of Jerusalem), and Ariel." However, a number of settlements would be outside the fence, and marked for removal.

In some form, whether unilaterally or during an interim part of a fraudulent peace process, Israel will likely endeavor to separate from the Palestinians along these lines. However, in doing so, Israel's government will not only face strong opposition from residents of communities that would be dismantled and their supporters, but also from the international community, including the U.S., which would oppose the fence's deviation from the 1967 borders to incorporate the major settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley.

When that pressure comes, Israel will have to withstand it, and ignore demands to keep all of the "settlements" outside of the security fence. Communities located in areas in Judea and Samaria that do not have a Palestinian majority must remain under Israeli control.

Unfortunately, the Sharon government has almost always refrained from going against the wishes of the Bush Administration, even when Israel's vital interests are at stake. The only exception occurred in April 2002, when Israel ignored President Bush's demand to end Operation Defensive Wall and immediately withdraw from West Bank cities. Even then, Israel withdrew within a few weeks, before returning following another series of suicide bombings in June 2002.

In contrast to Sharon, the prior Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, often clashed with the Clinton Administration. Sometimes (perhaps most of the time) such clashes were unnecessary, with Israel foolishly squabbling with the U.S. before giving in, such as during the Wye negotiations, when Netanyahu refused to agree to demands to withdraw from 13 percent of Judea and Samaria, but ultimately did agree to withdraw from what he characterized as 9 percent plus 4 percent. However, on other occasions Netanyahu protected Israel's interests despite strong U.S. pressure, such as in 1997, when he insisted on building the Har Homa section of Jerusalem. As a result, Har Homa became the last major Jewish development outside of the 1967 borders, while the pressure from Clinton and Secretary of State Madeline Albright became a distant memory.

When it comes time to decide whether Ariel and other key towns are incorporated within Israel's security fence, it is important that Sharon act with Netanyahu's resolve, and insist on maintaining Israeli control of the major settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley.
posted on 9/05/2003