Don’t junk the pre-conditions in the road map


A standard example of unfair negotiations is when one side “moves the goalposts” by increasing its demands just as the other side tries to fulfill them. The “peace process” with the Palestinians suffers from the opposite problem: whenever there seems to be an opportunity for the Palestinians to move in the right direction, the goalposts are quickly moved toward them, thereby eliminating any incentive for and bringing a halt to the much-desired progress.

Such is the case with Prime Minister Olmert’s meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas on Monday. At that meeting, Olmert reportedly discussed “fundamental issues” with the purpose of developing a “framework” for a Palestinian state. In other words, Olmert seems to be caving in to pressure from the US to fudge the sequencing of the road map, which clearly requires that terrorism be fought first and a Palestinian state negotiated later.

The timing of this is strange. If it is true that for the first time ever there is a leadership in part of the PA that is serious about ending terrorism, dismantling militias and starting to build a peaceful Palestinian state, why would this be the time to lift the demand – endorsed by Israel, the Quartet and even the PA itself – to do just those things?

The counterargument is that the PA is in fact incapable of meeting the road map conditions, and therefore those conditions should be removed or the present opportunity will be missed and Hamas will take over the entire PA. But this argument is self-contradictory: If the PA is incapable of fulfilling its side of the road map, where is the opportunity?

In essence, the US is taking the State Department’s approach, whereby the sequencing of the road map should not only be relaxed, but flipped; under this approach, only by creating or negotiating the contours of a Palestinian state will Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad be “strengthened” enough to fight terrorism.

In yesterday’s Yediot Aharonot, Dov Weissglas, who negotiated the road map for Ariel Sharon, explains the problem with this US flirtation with pre-road map thinking:

    “Everyone recognizes the great risk that lies in establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in the present format of Palestinian society – a society plagued with terrorism, crime, corruption and divisiveness. Such a state would become a ‘respected’ member of the international community, but terrorism against Israel would continue from within it, while the IDF’s ability to operate inside the Palestinian state would be significantly reduced due to political and legal constraints…

    “Today, for the purpose of preventing terrorism, the security forces lawfully control and surround [Palestinian areas]… When a Palestinian state is established, the security forces would be required – for the purpose of preventing terrorism – to invade the territory of a neighboring sovereign state… The difference between the two situations speaks for itself.”

Israelis have had it with policies based on “trust and withdrawal.” Many times during the Oslo process Israel negotiated partial handovers of security control. Each time, Israel lets its guard down on the promise that the Palestinians will fight terrorism, and each time the “experiment” falls apart, often at the expense of Israeli lives.

Israel also “experimented” with withdrawals without agreements, from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005. In both cases, Israel was supposed to make up for its lost security presence with increased deterrence, and we were assured that Israel would not be deterred from punishing any attacks that arose from the evacuated territory.

All such “trust and withdrawal” experiments, whether unilateral or by agreement, failed to enhance security and deterrence, and produced more attacks, weakened deterrence, a reduction in Israel’s ability to combat terrorism, and strengthened and more belligerent enemies.

This last effect is seen in the striking results of a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project poll, which found that support for suicide bombings had dropped sharply since 2002 in a number of Muslim countries, but remained extremely high among Palestinians. According to Pew: “Fully 70 percent of Palestinians believe that suicide bombings against civilians can be often or sometimes justified.”

Under such circumstances, it is not the Palestinians’ trust that must be earned, but Israel’s. The road map’s sequencing is more justified and important than ever. Olmert, who spent much effort attempting to shore up this sequencing, should not abandon it at this critical moment.

August 9, 2007 | 4 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. Charles seems we all agree! next topic: I will add that ever since CONRAD BLACK and Hollinger,INC.divested JP it has gone down hill in almost every area of good Journalism. I guess as a business it must be considerate to advertisers and non Jewish readers, I guess.

  2. The Road Map is extinct and this article, while logically and rhetorically correct, is anachronistic and naive. Any pretense of the Palestinian Arabs dismantling their terrorist infrastructure or demonstrating a commitment to live harmoniously with Israel in exchange for international support for a sovereign state has long since been jettisoned by the Europeans and Bush/Rice.

    The “peace process” is no longer about laying the groundwork for mutual recognition and security; it is now a race: a race for Israel’s left [sorry Felix] to abandon the territories so as to avoid international sanctions and ensure American guardianship in the coming war with Iran; a race for Europe’s elite to appease their Arab paymasters and Muslim constituencies; and a race for Bush to marginalize Russian influence in the ME while salvaging something of his legacy.

    In other words, all the interested parties want a peace deal now but it has almost nothing to do with peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

  3. The road laid out by Road Map for Israelis and Palestinians to reach the final destination of peace, must not ever get to there from here, when only one side, Israel is being held to Western norms of honesty, integrity, morality and honour, both in word and deed. None of these Western Western norms are present in Palestinian leadership, Palestinian society and culture at least not when it comes to Israel.

    For Americans to ignore this and still push Israel to make concessions invites and encourages Palestinian dishonesty and lack of integrity, morality and honour, by Western norms. Palestinians are taking full advantage of this situation, because it is working very well for them.

    This raises grave questions about the morality and values of the American government that should be put directly to Pres. Bush, his administration and all those in the halls of power that impose such a double standard on Israel and no standard at all on the Palestinians.

Comments are closed.