Who Say's We Embrace the Fence?
Jerusalem - It was with great disappointment that we followed the Israeli cabinet debate and vote last week, just 12 days after the Sharm Summit, authorizing the "improved route" of the separation barrier.
Meron Rapoport in Ha'aretz (February 24) "And now the fence is embraced by the left?" suggested that the Geneva Initiative welcomed this development. He was wrong. Both the substance and the process of the decision were deeply flawed.
In substance, the barrier route serves neither Israeli nor Palestinian interests. It took three years and a Defense Ministry Special Committee to realize what we all knew regarding the home demolition policy - namely, that in addition to being immoral, it actually increases anger and hostility among the Palestinian population.
A barrier can promote security on both sides and can perhaps even prevent
terror attacks such as the condemned suicide bombing in Tel Aviv over the
weekend. A fence / wall built within the Palestinian territory, while
disregarding the Palestinian nation and leadership, has the same logic as
the home demolition policy mentioned above.
A physical barrier constructed without Palestinian consent, inside
Palestinian territory, leaves more than a quarter of a million Palestinians
involuntarily annexed to "barrier-delineated" Israel. Tens of thousands of
settlers remain on the "Palestinian side." The barrier will eventually be
dismantled or moved. But for Palestinians, the fabric of daily life is
further ruptured.
For Israelis, every revision and extra unnecessary kilometer of barrier
takes resources away from desperately needed social budgets, while gaping
holes remain in construction, as even the Sharon government hesitates to
defy the Israeli Supreme Court, the Hague ruling and the U.S. government.
We are not against a physical as well as a political border, and fences may
make for good neighbors. But not when the fence is in the neighbor's
garden. It is an agreed border regime that will look after both peoples,
the best security guarantee.
In the Geneva Initiative, we reached an agreed border - the detailed maps
can be viewed at www.geneva-accord.org - based on the 1967 lines with minor
mutual modifications, and a land swap that addresses both Israeli and
Palestinian needs.
But it is the guiding policy of this decision that is equally troubling.
The unilateralism that has characterized the last few years must now become
the language of the past. With one hand the Sharon government met the
outstretched Palestinian hand at Sharm, but with the other hand it
continues to sign unilateral edicts that shape our shared future.
The unilateral policy had two components: one side exclusively defines what
happens next and then implements these decisions alone. It seems that
regarding implementation, the Israeli government has understood the need
for coordination and cooperation. But this is not enough. The process
itself, the parameters, the substance, must again be the result of a
dialogue - and a dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, not Israelis
and Israelis. We must return to comprehensive negotiations.
The Gaza disengagement and unilateral West Bank barrier construction are
connected in more ways than the Israeli government vote. Our concern is
that this signifies the "morning after Gaza" intentions, namely a continued
avoidance of permanent status talks and the creation of more facts on the
ground that undermine the very viability of a two-state solution.
The temptation to go slowly, in measured steps, nothing too far-reaching,
is perhaps human and understandable. But it is mistaken, and learns nothing
from the past decade. The cruel terror attack in Tel Aviv is another
example of what extremists can do to sabotage and wreck. It is in the
interest of both our peoples to end this conflict - and soon. That is
probably why in a recent poll published in Ha'aretz, 64 percent of Israelis
and 54 percent of Palestinians supported the detailed content of the Geneva
Initiative.
Interim arrangements and the avoidance of defining the endgame solutions
are a recipe for encouraging extremists on both sides to torpedo every step
along the way. Gradualism places an unbearable burden on any attempt to
stabilize the security situation. Not defining the endgame feeds
unnecessary fears and unrealistic dreams in both constituencies. In many
respects, it may be easier to reach a permanent status agreement than an
interim arrangement.
Of course, we both support an end of the occupation in Gaza. But the
"morning after Gaza" is just around the corner, and those who wish this
conflict to continue, or believe that it is our fate, are already planning
their next moves. So it is not too early for the coalition of sanity on
both sides to declare that after Gaza, no more unilateralism, no more
interim solutions, end the uncertainty, end the conflict.
We find it instructive that in more than a year since the Geneva Initiative
launching, no detailed alternative plan has been proposed for resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even our critics appear to concede that if,
or when, a solution is reached, it will be along the Geneva Initiative lines.
The alternative is to postpone the decisions and to prolong the conflict,
thus guaranteeing more suffering and more victims. According to Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, the Geneva Initiative gave birth to the Gaza
Disengagement Plan. Our commitment is to drive the process from Gaza to the
Geneva Initiative.
-----------------------------------
* Yossi Beilin is the leader of the Israeli leftist part "Yahad". Yasser
Abed Rabbo is a member of the Executive Committee of the PLO. Both are the
initiators of the Geneva Initiative.
Source: Ha'aretz, March 2, 2005
Visit the Ha'aretz website at: www.haaretz.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
