Post editorial
Wrong Court, Wrong Time
Wednesday, February 25, 2004; Page A24
PALESTINIANS have good reasons to object to the security barrier Israel is constructing in the West Bank. Though the border-like combination of fences and walls is a legitimate response to terrorist attacks, Israel has chosen a route that would allow it to unilaterally swallow pieces of the West Bank and isolate or surround tens of thousands of Palestinians. As so often in the past, however, the Palestinian leadership has chosen to press its cause not with potentially productive steps -- such as a crackdown on terrorists and the renewal of negotiations with Israel -- but with pointless and inflammatory grandstanding before irrelevant international bodies.
The Palestinian appeal this week to The Hague-based International Court of Justice, supported by such allies as Algeria and Cuba, is aimed at winning an advisory opinion declaring the security barrier illegal and, in the Palestinians' dreams, triggering an international sanctions campaign against Israel. In reality the case, shunned by the United States, the European Union and almost all the rest of the non-Muslim world, will prove no more successful than previous attempts to sanction or delegitimize the Jewish state. Instead it will probably reinforce the prevailing conviction in the Israeli and U.S. governments that the Palestinian administration is incapable of participating in a constructive peace process under its current leadership.
Rather than isolate Israel, the case is isolating the Palestinians from the real action in the Middle East -- and at a crucial moment. While Palestinian lawyers have been drawing up speeches for delivery in the Netherlands, the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and the Bush administration have been quietly negotiating the terms of a momentous initiative that would transform the situation on the ground. Mr. Sharon proposes to couple Israel's fence construction with the unilateral withdrawal of all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip, along with an unspecified number from the West Bank. At the same time, he would reinforce some large Israeli settlement blocs. The end result would be an Israeli-imposed "long-term interim settlement" -- the same result Mr. Sharon previously offered for the outcome of peace negotiations. Instead of working out the terms with the Palestinians, Mr. Sharon now bargains with the White House -- and seeks in exchange a formal U.S. endorsement of the Israeli initiative and a commitment to back it both diplomatically and, possibly, financially.
Wary at first, the Bush administration has steadily warmed to Mr. Sharon's idea and is giving it serious consideration. It's possible that unilateral Israeli steps, while failing to deliver a peace, could substantially improve the situation if they involved a major withdrawal of soldiers and settlers and improved defenses against terrorist attacks. They might even open the way to a Palestinian state. But much depends on what form the initiative takes and in particular where Israel's proto-border is constructed.
U.S. officials rightly believe that Palestinians must somehow be involved in the emerging process. Once they finish posturing before an international court with no power over Israel or its actions, Palestinian leaders would do well to think about how they can have an influence on the real decisions about to be made -- before it is too late. |
