The Jericho jail, the Wall and the future of the occupation
Raid by Israeli troops in Jericho worsens only slightly an already difficult situation. Olmert proposes "separation" of the two populations as a way to security. But there is no guarantee of peace.
Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) - The fragility and endemic uncertainty of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which are about to be governed by the militant Islamist Hamas movement, was again shown yesterday March 14th, with the events in Jericho, when Israeli troops attacked a Palestinian Authority jail, taking charge of six persons accused by Israel of terrorism, apparently just before the six were to be freed by a Palestinian Authority.
The events themselves have by now been widely reported in great detail. International observers find it hard to fault Israel's decision. Five of the six are accused of responsibility for the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister, and the remaining one is accused of an attempt to smuggle a large quantity of weapons and explosives into the Territories at the height of the clashes and terror waves of the Second Intifadah. There was a precise agreement between Israel and Palestinian President Arafat providing for their incarceration in Jericho, with British and American monitors in place. Both Britain and the United States had warned the Palestinian Authority that details of the agreement were not being observed, and that the security of their monitors was not being assured, and that - if matters were not rectified - the monitors would be withdrawn. And Hamas officials, as well as President Abbas (Abu-Mazen) himself, had said publicly that the six were going to be freed. Under these circumstances, once the monitors had actually been withdrawn, Israel's Government had no choice - politically - but to act to take charge of the prisoners itself.
However, like so many other events, developments, military operations and diplomatic initiatives, the Jericho operation too leaves the underlying situation unchanged. Except that another periodic deterioration is now underway. And the future of the occupation, and of the Palestinian-Israeli relationship is at centre-stage in the Israeli election campaign leading up to the vote scheduled for 28 March.
Acting Prime Minister Olmert, in interviews last weekend, put before the voters a clear policy, clearer and more explicit that any ever articulated by an Israeli government. Essentially this is the plan: Israel will annex a significant portion of the West Bank, including "Greater Jerusalem" and a number of "settlement blocks" in different parts of the West Bank (together with the corridors connecting them to Israel). Israel will also keep control of the Jordan Valley. These annexed areas, and the rest of Israel, will be separated by a wall from the remainder of the West Bank. From that remainder, sandwiched between the wall and the Israel-controlled Jordan Valley, the "isolated" Israeli settlements (i.e. not part of the "blocks") will be withdrawn. By inference, Palestinians will have self-rule in those areas, although those areas may not always be connected with each other. Some may be separated from other Palestinian areas by the "settlement blocks". The inference again is that the degree of self-rule allowed to those Palestinians, whether as a "State" or otherwise, will be determined by their behaviour, i.e. the extent to which they will live peacefully and refrain from attacks on Israel. Most importantly, Israel will thereby achieve that "separation" from the Palestinians and their problems that so much of the Israeli public appears to crave. Experts on public opinion agree that publicly revealing his plan is a shrewd campaign move on the part of Ariel Sharon's successor. Sick and tired of years of conflict, violence, terrorism, and definitely unsympathetic to the extreme nationalists' aspirations to retain the entire West Bank regardless of the cost, most Israelis just want to be able to get on with their lives, and not to have to think about the Palestinians any more.
The "plan" itself is hardly new. It evokes the famous "Alon Plan", formulated shortly after the 1967 War. Both wish in essence to leave in Israel's hands a "maximum of territory" and a "minimum of Palestinians". But how realistic is this plan, which Mr. Olmert has promised to implement in four years? Left-wing critics warn that it is an illusion to think that the Palestinians will just passively acquiesce in it, or that the U.S. and the West generally will accept its legitimacy. They point out that, while President Bush has expressed his opinion that "Israeli population centres" (i.e. "settlement blocks") in the West Bank could become part of Israel, the U.S. Administration has been pointing out that the President meant that this could be agreed in peace negotiations, and by no means supported unilateral annexation moves. Israel's Labour Party too rejects unilateralism as a preferred option, and continues to favour a negotiated peace treaty - although not excluding unilateral action if and when peace proves impossible to achieve. However, Labour's own territorial claims on parts of the Occupied Territories make it difficult to imagine that a peace treaty might be achievable on its terms.
Peace indeed has rarely seemed a more remote aspiration. Forgetting that the partner in negotiations is not the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Israel rules out peace negotiations now that Hamas has won a parliamentary majority in the Palestinian Authority, and Israel is supported in this by much of the international community. But if PLO President Abbas (Abu-Mazen) is "irrelevant," as Israel's Foreign Minister has now characterised him, and the Palestinian Autority is a "terrorist authority", as the same Minister has called it, what is to be done? Not much, seems to be the answer, except remain vigilant, keep up security operations, and - above all - quickly "separate" from the Palestinians, taking as much of their land, with as few of their people, as possible, and leaving them on the other side of the wall. "This," many in Israel now seem to be saying, "is our destiny, as an outpost of Western civilisation in a violent neighbourhood." At least, as a Government adviser, Dov Weissglass, famously put it some months ago, "until the Palestinians become Finns". He made a mistake, of course, if he meant to express his idea of placid Scandinavians. The Finns are historically well known for being ferocious fighters for their independence...
.png)
09/10/2017 16:57
