Actually, I have to agree with you. That does count as a "move back". Israel didn't dismantle a single settlement, but they did give Palestinians a measure of self-government they hadn't ever had (even before 1967). And, I also agree with you, that Arafat wasted (at Taba) his chance to get the best borders available. They won't get a better offer, and the longer they delay, the less land they will be offered. And I also agree with you, that the "road map" doesn't lead to peace. Quite surprising, how many things I am agreeing with.
I can even see how, after 1967, Israel needed to annex some of the Occupied Territories. Not Sinai or Golan, as they will be returned, demilitarized, for peace. And not all of the remaining occupied land, as that would create a demographic problem. Whatever parts Israel intended on settling with Jews, whatever parts they decided were vital for long-term security, they should have annexed in 1967. Made it formal, and made clear that the rest was available in a land-for-peace deal. And not put any settlements on land that hadn't been annexed. Any Arabs living within those (expanded) borders of Israel, could move (or be moved) to the other side of the border, if they didn't want to be a peaceful loyal Israeli citizen.
The problem is, Israel never clearly decided what land they wanted. They only formally annexed E. Jerusalem, but they put settlements everywhere. The populations are so mixed now, as to make it impossible to draw a frontier, without leaving a lot of people on the wrong side.
And if Israel truly insists on the right of Jews to settle anywhere in Judea and Samaria, then they should have expelled all the Palestinians into Jordan in 1967. There is no other way Israel can hold on to that land. |
