ISRAEL’S ‘CATCH-22’ Wall Street Journal, December 22, 2003
The broad international disapproval that has greeted Ariel Sharon’s “disengagement plan” is a good illustration of the Catch-22 in which both the Prime Minister and Israel are trapped. The EU reacted by declaring that only a multilateral, negotiated settlement could lead to peace. The Bush White House said, in effect: The road map is the road map. There is no Plan B as far as it is concerned. Contrary to earlier reports, at least White House Spokesman Scott McClellan refused to condemn Mr. Sharon’s plan. Instead, he seemed to say, the U.S. hopes it doesn’t come to that.
But simply hoping that the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat will stop the terror and start negotiating in good faith is an impossible dream that Israel cannot afford to indulge forever. The man with whom the White House expects Mr. Sharon to negotiate, Ahmed Qureia, was installed as Palestinian Prime Minister precisely because his predecessor was too independent-minded for Arafat’s taste. And Mr. Qureia has shown even less inclination to go after the terrorists of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the latter group being closely linked with Arafat’s own Fatah faction.
Which is precisely why Mr. Sharon has offered his “disengagement plan”--to focus the minds of the Palestinian leadership. By design, it fails to meet all of the Palestinians’ territorial demands, while nonetheless offering to unilaterally dismantle certain (unnamed) settlements. If the Palestinians don’t like the sound of “disengagement”--and it would appear they do not--then they can prevent it. But to do so, they would need to dismantle the terror networks and disarm the terrorists.
Up until now, Mr. Sharon has pursued a policy of deterrence and retribution while waiting for the Palestinians to solve the terror problem comprehensively themselves. And while Israeli forces have made some progress in stopping suicide attacks, the Palestinians have offered no evidence that they want to cooperate in this effort. Unilateral disengagement offers the Palestinians a clear choice--accept peace, end the terror, and we’ll talk.
Or don’t, and be cut off.
The plan has its risks, especially because it would cut off the West Bank from the east, where Israel would likely continue to maintain control of the Jordan Valley. A West Bank thus cut nearly in half and surrounded on all sides could become a kind of intolerable humanitarian maelstrom, a la Gaza. And even if that happened, it is doubtful that a Palestinian Authority under Arafat’s gun would decide to end its policy of terror on its own.
But this is in part a consequence of the fact that the U.S. and Europe have for too long paid lip service to the idea of Arafat as peacemaker, turning a blind eye to Arafat the terrorist and dictator… If the U.S. and EU are unhappy with Mr. Sharon’s plan, it is time they move beyond “hoping” that Arafat wants a negotiated solution and pressure Palestinians to end his rule and his terror campaign…
Mr. Sharon has offered a plan.
It is within the power of the Palestinians to prevent that plan from being carried out, and within the power of the U.S. and Europe to pressure the Palestinians to stop terrorism.
If neither will act, then Mr. Sharon’s “disengagement” is what they will get.
