As Kadima, the new Israeli political party conjured up by the stricken Ariel Sharon, begins the arduous process of forming a government, its anticipated popular mandate to define Israel’s territorial borders remains conspicuously absent.  Ehud Olmert, Kadima leader and new prime minister of Israel, pledged that by the time Israelis are next called on to vote the state’s borders will have been set for the first time in history.  Mr. Olmert contends he is willing to enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians, but is quick to add that Israel will go it alone if need be, unilaterally defining the borders by 2010.

For Kadima, Israel’s borders were to be the central issue of the elections.  Mr. Olmert went so far as to label the elections a “momentous referendum” that would determine the nation’s fate.  Unfortunately for Kadima, four elections in seven years – a period spanned by periods of peace and violence – took a toll on a skeptical electorate, and not only was voter turnout a disappointment, but no party was delivered a decisive mandate with which to move forward.  Kadima won and will form the government, but its 29 seats in Israel’s 120 seat Knesset are far below earlier projections.

What does this mean for the peace process?  Israel certainly will be more difficult to govern as parties jockey for influence, but more significantly, it may also inhibit the new government from enacting Mr. Olmert’s counterproductive territorial aims.  By unilaterally defining Israel’s borders, Israel would be making its conflict with the Palestinians even more insoluble, ignoring years of serious negotiations and further contributing to the perception that it does not care about Palestinian rights.

As Mr. Olmert has laid it out, Israel’s new borders will take in large swaths of the West Bank, occupied Arab east Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley.  Like Mr. Sharon, he has given up the impossible dream of a Greater Israel between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean because the number of Palestinians within that space will soon outnumber the Jews – leading to minority rule and putting Israel in a select group of historically undesirable states – but territorial expansion is still a centerpiece of Mr. Olmert’s plan.  An editorial in Britain’s Financial Times offers an insight into Mr. Olmert’s plans: “The pragmatic goal redefined by Mr. Sharon and Mr. Olmert, both champions of the illegal settlements, is to keep as much of the geography with as little of the demography as possible" (Financial Times, 2006).  This means Palestinian land without the Palestinians.

To accomplish this, Mr. Olmert’s plan requires the politically perilous uprooting of some 70,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank. However, those uprooted represent only about one seventh of the total settle population, whereas Mr. Olmert’s prospective land annexation would take nearly half of the 22 percent of colonial Palestine that the Palestinians want for their state (Financial Times, 2006).   Such a land grab is made possible by the construction of Israel’s so-called security barrier, which snakes its way precariously along the 1967 Green Line and into the West Bank, and the relentless construction of illegal settlements.

Critics have always charged Israel’s security barrier was nothing more than a poorly disguised land grab, and Mr. Olmert’s territorial designs appear to have validated such pessimism.  As put forth, Mr. Olmert’s plan would leave the Palestinians with three discontiguous cantons – a recipe for a failed state and further Palestinian deprivation.

Israel's barrier has become the most visible manifestation of the Israeli military’s occupation of the West Bank and the most pressing issue for Palestinians.  It is a daily cause of frustration and resentment for Palestinians as it leaves them on the wrong side isolated from their land, extended families, and way of life.

Israel has consistently denied the assertion that the security barrier is a land grab, citing security concerns.  Such concerns are clearly not unfounded, yet are insufficient to justify the ongoing annexation of Palestinian land.  If such a barrier were to strictly follow Israel’s 1967 borders, the borders internationally held as a necessary starting point for peace negotiations, Israel’s stated security concerns would be far more credible.

Furthermore, the idea of a “security” barrier rests on the notion that a nation can shut itself off from terrorists.  The continued existence of suicide bombings within Israel only proves the futility of such a strategy.  Those who would defend Israel’s barrier point to an overall drop in suicide bombings; yet, at the same time refrain from mentioning that this drop has coincided with a unilateral cease-fire from Hamas, which appears to be the variable most significant in this equation.

Over the long run, efforts aimed at dialogue and engagement with the "enemy" are more effective in combating terror than military solutions.  It has become a cliché in international relations, but terrorism is based on ideas, and you cannot kill an idea.

Israel certainly has the power to impose new borders in the short term as its barrier continues to make inroads into Palestinian land.  But its American and European allies should make it clear that this is no more in its interest to do so than it is in that of the Palestinians, since this territorial expansion will surely lead to another generation of bloodletting.

The Arab League has offered peace – and even Hamas an open-ended armistice – in exchange for Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders.  Negotiations on that basis are the only way of securing a peaceful future, and in this regard Mr. Olmert’s current plan is lacking.  In the long run, Israel’s security lies in a just peace with the Palestinians, and nothing short of this will suffice.

References

Editorial. (2006, March 30). A Small Earthquake in a Fractious Israel. Financial Times, p. 11.

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved

---

Related Items:

• Beyond the Veil of Liberty
• South Korea: Will a New President be Enough?