A UK-based strategic expert suggests that separation between the Palestinians and the Israelis is the only way to evade an all-out war in the region, in light of the escalation confrontations between the two sides.
Neill Lochery, the director of the Center for Israeli Studies at University College in London, writes in the National Post that “there are clear and compelling arguments for physical separation of Israelis and Palestinians as the best means of reducing the violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
He argues that any measure short of this is doomed to failure and may actually inflame a deteriorating situation.
The analyst reviews a potential plan for achieving separation, which has recently taken shape as a possible last resort before all-out war. Central to the plan is the role of the United States -- and in particular the CIA -- which would have to ensure its implementation, he says.
Below is a basic outline of the complex plan, as summarized by Lochery.
- Understandings. Agreement is reached over a series of unilateral withdrawals and annexations based on the basic principle that Palestinians -- wherever possible -- should live in areas under Palestinian Authority control and that Israelis should live under Israeli sovereignty.
- Borders. A slight redrawing of the Green Line -- the line between Israel proper and the West Bank -- would take place. Israel would seek to expand its coastal plain eastwards and to widen both sides of the Jerusalem corridor, the narrow area that connects Jerusalem with the coastal plain. Israel is at its most vulnerable in these areas and previous Israeli governments of all political persuasions have called for this modification. Some Palestinian villages that lie within Israel proper would be handed over to the Palestinian Authority. This handover of land that is not in the West Bank would help the process of separation and would be compensation for Israel's annexation of the lands.
- Settlements. Israel has some 144 settlements in the West Bank and 22 in Gaza. Of the 170,000 residents of these settlements, more than half live in the nine-largest settlements. As 90,000 settlers live in the area of greater Jerusalem and in settlements near the Green Line, it would require only relatively minor changes to the Green Line for the majority of setters to live within Israeli sovereign territory. The settlements in Gaza should be abandoned by Israel, as should other outlying and isolated settlements in the West Bank.
- Water. Over 60 percent of Israel's water originates directly from the West Bank or from aquifers that are connected to the West Bank. Israel does not trust the PA in this area and will have to supervise the sources or turn to the international community to act as monitors -- though many Israelis fear this would set a dangerous precedent.
- Physical barriers. Once there is agreement, the physical building of fences and walls -- complete with guard towers -- can take place along most of the border. Palestinian workers would be prevented from entering Israel. Israelis, in turn, would be barred from PA-controlled areas.
- Outstanding issues. This plan makes no attempt to reach agreement on issues related to the peace process such as the future of Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The plan resembles an armistice agreement more than a peace plan.
However, separation of peoples leaves some questions that obviously need to be addressed, according to the analyst.
“Critics argue that in Israel it would lead to an almost apartheid-style state in which the rights of the Arabs who remained under Israeli control would be in grave danger. With the United Nations once more set to debate the "does Zionism equal racism" question early next month, liberals in Israel argue this is not the time to give the Arabs and the UN "ammunition" by addressing such emotive subjects.
"Unfortunately, however, time is running out. The Israelis and Palestinians are at war in all but name and action needs to be taken now,” says the author.
Second, he continues that separation would, in all probability, lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.
“At present, however, this is not the major issue. There is a de facto state already in existence and separation may force Palestinian [Prsident] Yasser Arafat's hand. Today, he is telling his people they are involved in a war of liberation for a Palestinian state. Separation may just expose this myth.”
On the ground, it will be difficult to enforce separation. There will be terror attacks as groups try to destabilize the situation. The violence, however, will be more limited and localized than we are witnessing at present, the writer argues.
From the Palestinian point of view, a separation plan would be an act of war.
PA Minister of Information Yasser Abd Rabbo said early January that "the Palestinian National Authority warns of the catastrophic effects of a unilateral separation leading to an actual isolation of the Palestinian territories and is considered as an act of war."
He said "such a separation may lead to limiting only 18 percent of the total area of the West Bank and Gaza under full Palestinian control," adding that if implemented "a final and a permanent peace deal will never be reached."
The Palestinian Intifada brought the idea of a separation between Israel and the Palestinians back to the forefront, but the plan, favored by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, looked difficult on the economic front, according to a report by AFP at that time.
Barak had revived the idea, saying Israel could go ahead with a unilateral separation if no peace deal is possible with the Palestinian Authority.
It would mean Israel unilaterally drawing up the map of a Palestinian entity, which would involve a withdrawal from some isolated settlements, a matter the rightwing in Israel opposes – Albawaba.com
© 2001 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
