WHAT?S WRONG WITH GAZA WITHDRAWAL?
[התמונה הבאה מגיעה מקישור שלא מתחיל ב https ולכן לא הוטמעה בדף כדי לשמור על https תקין: http://65.36.132.128/images/05GAZA.jpg]

What is the "Gaza Withdrawal Plan"?

The ?withdrawal plan? is Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s ?peace plan.? Put simply, Sharon plans to withdraw Israeli troops, military outposts and equipment, settlements and settlers from all of the Gaza Strip. The plan also involves evacuating four small settlements on the West Bank.

So isn't this ending at least part of the Occupation?

Not really. Although it is certainly good that Israel will dismantle some settlements and move its forces out of Palestinian territory, Gaza will not be set free. The Gaza Strip is surrounded by a barrier and by Israeli forces, so Gaza residents will not have any control over their borders. Over 60% of the population of Gaza lives below the poverty line. They will be unable to engage in commerce with Israel, the West Bank or Egypt, so they will have a difficult time resuscitating their economy. Finally, according to the terms of the plan Sharon has laid out, Israel will retain the right to conduct operations inside Gaza to search for terrorists. The guidelines for these incursions are very vague and there are no specific limitations on these operations or what the Israeli military can do during these operations. It is not an end to the occupation of Gaza; rather it is Israeli domination of the Palestinians taking a different form.

How has the United States responded to the plan?

In an exchange of letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon in April of 2004, the US welcomed the plan. In response to its presentation, President Bush stated two points regarding the American stance on a final status agreement. This included guarantees that Israel would never have to return to the borders as they existed before the 1967 war, and that any resolution of the Palestinian refugee question would not include the return of any refugees to Israel proper. While it has been generally understood that this has been the American position for years (and such positions were certainly reflected in the Camp David and subsequent talks of 2000 and 2001), an American statement of such positions effectively removes them from the negotiating table. For Palestinians, this means, in essence, that the US has made these concessions for them, while they get nothing in return.

Is this part of the "unilateral disengagement" that has been talked about for the past few years?

Yes, and this is one of the biggest problems with the plan. Thus far, Israel has refused to coordinate the withdrawal in any way with the Palestinians. This may change with the death of Yasir Arafat, but this is not at all certain. When and if Israel does withdraw, it will be seen by many around the world, and especially in the US, as a sort of ?test? for the Palestinians of their ability to self-govern. But given the instability that already exists in Gaza, and the limits that will still be imposed on Gaza explained above, it will be a very difficult challenge for the Palestinian Authority. As the withdrawal is moving forward with no coordination or conversation with the PA, it will be even more difficult. Indeed, in many ways, the unilateral nature of this plan is simply another reflection of the massive gap in power between Israel and the Palestinians, between the occupier and the occupied.

Who is opposing the withdrawal plan?

By far, the plan?s most ardent opponents are the settlers. For them, giving up any land currently under Israeli control is anathema. That Sharon is the one behind the plan means that, to the settlers, he is a traitor. While both the Palestinians and the Israeli left have criticized the unilateral nature of the plan and are wary of this leading to Israel exercising even more control over the West Bank, they cannot seriously oppose the withdrawal of settlements, settlers and troops from Palestinian territory.

Why is Ariel Sharon, of all people, doing this?

A key aide to Sharon, Dov Weisglass, was kind enough to spell this out for us. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper, Ha?aretz, Weisglass explained that the withdrawal plan allows Israel to ??to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation. The decision is proving itself. It is making it possible for the Americans to go to the seething and simmering international community and say to them, `What do you want.' It also transfers the initiative to our hands. It compels the world to deal with our idea, with the scenario we wrote. It places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. It forces them into a corner that they hate to be in. It thrusts them into a situation in which they have to prove their seriousness. There are no more excuses. There are no more Israeli soldiers spoiling their day. And for the first time they have a slice of land with total continuity on which they can race from one end to the other in their Ferrari. And the whole world is watching them - them, not us. The whole world is asking what they intend to do with this slice of land.?
Weisglass tells us that, although Sharon felt the United States had accepted his position of not negotiating with the Palestinian Authority under Yasir Arafat, he believed that pressure, both from outside and from within Israel, would de-stabilize this situation. Therefore, he decided on the Withdrawal Plan.

Are we sure that Sharon intends to carry out the withdrawal?

As of now (December, 2004), nothing is certain. Many people have never believed Sharon was sincere about the plan. Tanya Reinhart, the Israeli linguist and one of Israel?s most insightful political commentators, made the clearest statement of disbelief in her article ?Sharon?s Gaza Pullout: Not Gonna Happen.? Even if he is willing, he may not be able. Sharon?s coalition has splintered over this issue and, as of this writing, he is waiting for his Likud Coalition to vote to approve allowing the rival Labor Party to join the government. Sharon?s coalition was shaken by the defection of parties opposed to withdrawal. Commitments Sharon was forced to give to religious parties to keep them in the coalition sent Likud?s largest coalition partner, Shinui, out of the government. Perhaps Sharon was counting on such developments so he would not have to carry out the withdrawal. Perhaps he works feverishly against them. It surely seems that the Bush administration would be quite displeased if the withdrawal does not happen?at least if the Palestinians cannot be blamed for it. Only time will tell

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/...t=resources.dwt

Your signature did not follow Fresh's signatures policy, therefore it was automatically erased. Please see the E-Mail which has been sent to you, to learn how to fix this.

אבל בהחלט הוא על הכוונת שלי...