Gus > "We should look on it as rearranging the occupation in a way that is more comfortable to the occupier," said one Palestinian cabinet minister, Ghassan Khatib. "It's clear that Sharon is linking the withdrawal from Gaza to consolidation of occupation in the West Bank. It's not going to be realised."
Clearly, that's the idea and, despite what Khatib says, it may be realized. Meanwhile, there's more resistance to the plan from the Israeli settlers than from the Palestinians.
Sharon states his intention in a letter to W:
mfa.gov.il
>>Having reached the conclusion that, for the time being, there exists no Palestinian partner with whom to advance peacefully toward a settlement and since the current impasse is unhelpful to the achievement of our shared goals, I have decided to initiate a process of gradual disengagement with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians. The Disengagement Plan is designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize our political and economic situation. It will enable us to deploy our forces more effectively until such time that conditions in the Palestinian Authority allow for the full implementation of the Roadmap to resume.
I attach, for your review, the main principles of the Disengagement Plan. This initiative, which we are not undertaking under the roadmap, represents an independent Israeli plan, yet is not inconsistent with the roadmap. According to this plan, the State of Israel intends to relocate military installations and all Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip, as well as other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria.<<
It is also tacitly consistent with the opinion expressed by Brezezinski so therefore is likely to gain approval from a Democrat administration in the US (if one comes), although anything Sharon does will gain US approval.
informationclearinghouse.info
>>A grand American-European strategy would have three major prongs. The first would be a joint statement by the United States and the European Union outlining the basic principles of a formula for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, with the details left to negotiations between the parties. Its key elements should include no right of return; no automatic acceptance of the 1967 lines but equivalent territorial compensation for any changes; suburban settlements on the edges of the 1967 lines incorporated into Israel, but those more than a few miles inside the West Bank vacated to make room for the resettlement of some of the Palestinian refugees; a united Jerusalem serving as the capitals of the two states; and a demilitarized Palestinian state with some international peacekeeping presence.<<
>"The Palestinian people will be happy when they see them withdraw from all of Palestine," he said.
Unless in someone's wildest fantasy, that's not going to happen. Israel is there to stay -- the problem is where, exactly?
As far as I am concerned, even though the removal of Israeli settlers and the IDF is an imposed rather than a negotiated solution, at least, as Sharon says, it breaks the impasse of permanent conflict and gets things moving. Of course, it may yet make the situation worse, especially if there is a right-wing rebellion. Clearly, that's the gamble.
|
