By the time this editorial appears in print, the projected Israeli
disengagement from the Gaza Strip and a small area in the northern
part of the West Bank will ideally have been completed.
The great unknown, nevertheless, is whether the following lines
would have been correctly based on the assumption that the
disengagement will take place, or whether the disengagement will
have been postponed as some people expect or wish - two different
scenarios that come to mind. Other eventualities are also possible,
such as a partial withdrawal; or a massive Israeli military
operation in Gaza as a response to a Palestinian attack; or a
drastic, unexpected event in some other part in the region which
will impact on Israel's decision to disengage, leading to further
delays in implementation.
Irrespective of which scenario will eventually unfold, the issue
I'll be addressing is the principle of disengagement. The
contention here is that, like it or not, disengagement is at
present the only available course.
Palestinians have a great mistrust in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's
intentions. What they see on the ground is the daily growth and
expansion of Jewish settlements (colonies) in the West Bank; they
witness the intensive work carried out to change the image and
status of Arab East Jerusalem, its encirclement with Jewish
neighborhoods, and its total isolation from the rest of the West
Bank. And they watch the uninterrupted construction of the
separation wall, which is tantamount to a unilateral dictation of
the final borders between Israel and its neighbors, in
contravention of the resolution of the International Court of
Justice (ICJ).
In short, the Palestinians see very little to foster any hope in a
conceivable positive development any time soon. The predominant
feeling is that Sharon will never change his ideology. His
disengagement plan is viewed not as a political step in the right
direction, but as a trade-off between Gaza and the West Bank. The
disagreement between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the
different Palestinian resistance groups is over how to present this
matter to the Palestinian people. As a result of the Israeli
reluctance to coordinate the disengagement with the PA, other
Palestinian organizations are trying to take credit for the plan
and to claim it as a victory of their own. Recently, though, some
form of military coordination between the PA and Israel has been
taking place as a result of American diplomacy and, to a certain
degree, of the Quartet.
The big question marks for almost everyone are going to be what
will happen during the disengagement process and, more importantly,
what will happen the day after? What will be the fate of the
evacuated Jewish settlements? Whose banners will fly over the
properties and lands that will be left behind? Will they belong to
Hamas and its militia, or to the PA and its police force? Intensive
efforts are being made on the part of the PA to build up the
capabilities of its security forces, and to send a clear message to
all Palestinian factions that it will not countenance any attacks
against Israelis during the withdrawal, or any attempts to control
the land - private or public - that was confiscated by Israel for
various purposes, including for the building of Jewish settlements,
and that will be left behind.
Whatever reasons and logic lie behind Palestinian fears and
suspicions of Sharon's intentions, their leadership understands
that disengagement is the only game in town. President Mahmoud
Abbas outlined his policy very clearly and firmly in his July 16th
speech to the nation. There should be one Authority and one
legitimate weapon - the weapons of the Palestinian security forces;
there is no room for multiple authorities or unofficial armed
groups. The real challenge to Mr. Abbas and his government is to
translate this policy into action on the ground. U.S. officials
confirm that steps have been taken in this direction, though they
still ask for more. The withdrawal will be a stiff trial for the
capacity of the PA. It is important to emphasize that its success
does not rest in the hands of the PA alone, but in Israel's as
well, and in the simultaneous implementation of their respective
commitments.
The disengagement from Gaza will be a test case. In any event Gaza
must not become a prison for 1.5 million Palestinians. Israeli
security fears should not be used to justify a continued Israeli
siege on Gaza Strip. The PA committed itself to maintain the seize
fire and enforce the rule of law. Egypt helped to train the
Palestinian police and mediated between the PA and Islamic militant
factions (Hamas and Jihad) to guarantee that there will be no
military attacks by these factions against Israeli targets during
the Israeli withdrawal . In addition the Egyptian police will
deploy along the Egyptian borders with Gaza to prevent weapon
smuggling from Egyptian territory into the Gaza Strip to be used
later against Israel. This will give an answer to a major Israeli
security concern.
Opening the Egyptian border for the free movement of persons and
goods, on the other hand, and developing the Gaza port and airport
is an essential step towards the revitalization of a ruined and
impoverished society. The freedom of movement of persons and goods
between the Gaza Strip and the outside world should be guaranteed
to allow the people of Gaza to rebuild their shattered economy and
to create jobs. The incentive would be to achieve prosperity, not
to deal in violence.
The free movement of persons and goods between Gaza and Egypt
should not, and will not, be an alternative to free movement to and
from the West Bank. The territorial and political connection
between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank cannot be stressed enough.
There is a genuine fear on the Palestinian side that Sharon wants
to end with Gaza. It is important that the disengagement from Gaza
and the northern part of the West Bank be followed by similar
constructive steps in the rest of the West Bank, such as an
immediate cessation of all expansion of Jewish settlements and of
the building of the so-called separation wall. Palestinians should
be allowed to move freely in their own land. This is an Israeli
obligation as stipulated in the first phase of the Road Map and, of
course, in accordance with the resolution of the ICJ. Rebuilding
the destroyed infrastructure and severely damaged economy of the
Palestinian people will be the right move in the right
direction.
The withdrawal from Gaza should not be the first and last step;
instead, it should be a move towards re-energizing the Road Map and
the point of departure for a comprehensive settlement to the
conflict. Keeping the momentum towards ending the Israeli
occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East
Jerusalem, should be the major task of American and international
diplomacy in order to achieve a just and lasting political
settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Only such a
settlement will lead to growth and prosperity for the two peoples:
Israel and Palestine.