Yesterday’s Israeli election made the new Qadima (or Kadima – news reports spell it both ways) Party the largest in the Knesset (28 seats out of 120). Well short of a majority, it probably will form a governing coalition with Labor (finishing second with 20 seats). Likud, long the dominant party, was reduced to 11 seats. Acting Prime Minister Olmert, of Qadima, almost certainly will become the new PM. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_elections_45;http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060328/ts_nm/israel_election_dc_20
So now what? What will a Qadima-Labor government do about the West Bank and the Israeli settlements there? Will it be better or worse suited than Likud was to negotiated with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority?
IMHO, any Israeli political force must recognise that it’s time to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They should take up the Arab offer for peace and normalisation in exchange for full withdrawal to 1967 lands.
That map shows the Israeli settlements in the West Bank in blue. The Kadima pledge is to finalise Israel’s borders by 2010, and start withdrawing from isolated “outpost” settlements soon.
Now, look at that map. You can see how much of a problem settlements cause to any future Palestinian state. They make it hopelessly discontinuous, such that a 3 mile trip between one town and another (eg. Qualqilya and its neighbours) might require a 50 mile diversion. Also, you’ll notice that the settlements all control valleys, where all the fertile land and water resources lie.
A viable palestinian state simply cannot exist alongside most of those settlements. Some near the western border can remain, yes (perhaps even Alfe Menashe, which effectively makes Qalqilya a prison town). But the large, deep settlements like Ariel, Quarne Shomeron and Ma’ale Adummim doom such a state to arid, infertile slavery. Unfortunately, since nearly a quarter of a million people live in those settlements, handing them over will be far more difficult than in Gaza.
So, Israeli dopers (paging Noone Special, Alessan, etc.), which substantial settlements will Kadima seek to give up soon? From that map, I’d say places like Homesh, Eli/Shilo, Elon Moreh and Itamar are ripe for starters, with the Eastern regions and Ariel, QS and MA being served some kind of notice of intent.
Pretty much what they did in the latest round of Camp David negotiations with Barak and Arafat under Clinton. Anyway the current Palestinian government will never agree to any kind of peace with Israel no matter what they do, and demands up front an unconditional return of all the refugees.
Depending on who you believe , Barak offered 70-95% of the West Bank, while leaving parts of East Jerusalem in Israeli hands. If Barak *did *give a dream offer, why would Arafat refuse?
Second, who would’ve believed the Likud government would’ve made peace with Egypt in 1978? It can be the same with Hamas.
I think Arafat would refuse because his hold on actual power (as opposed to power ‘recognized’ by the west) was a LOT more tenuous than generally believed.
Israel’s not going to give up East Jerusalem. Even if they pull out of the West Bank entirely, they’re not going to give up East Jerusalem. That’s not on the table.
Just to clarify, do you mean the tiny eastern portion of the Old City, the 32,000-strong settlement Ma’ale Adummim to the east of Jerusalem, or West Jerusalem (which is in Israel proper)?
I don’t understand, Jonathan Chance. Assuming what you say is true, what could consolidate his power more than ending occupation and creating a fully legitimate Palestinian state? I mean, he’d claim that he got the Palestinians 95% of the 1967, including East Jerusalem, if Barak’s offer was as good as **Rune **said it was.
And wasn’t East Jerusalem offered in 2000, or at least parts of it?
There was a proposal that some of the Arab parts of Jerusalem (Kafr Aqab, Shualat, Issawaya, Wadi Joz, A-Tur, Abu Tor, Sur Baher, and Beit Safala) would either get self rule or become part of the proposed Palestinian city of Al-Quds, in exchange for Jerusalem annexing Givat Ze’ev, Ma’aleh Adunim, Gush Etzion, Kokhav Yaakov, Geva Binyamen, Kedar, and Har Gilo. Plus the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City would be autonomous. But nothing came of it. .
I don’t mean any of those, actually. I mean the current municipality of Jerusalem. Here’s a fairly confusing map showing the Jerusalem municipal boundries (the dashed line):
Ah, so Ma’ale Adummim is permanent in Israeli eyes, despite the fact that it severs Jerusalem and Jericho pretty terminally for any future state?
That doesn’t look at all promising, then. I can see more of these being directed there over the next decades, and Israeli jets won’t have the option of keeping the region awake for days with sonic booms as a lesson without subjecting their own to the same.
No. Ma’ale Adummim isn’t part of Jerusalem. It’s outside the municipal boundary. It’s not likely that Ma’ale Adummim will be withdrawn from, but that’s a settlement issue, not a Jerusalem issue.
What I’m saying is that Arafat had the (shaky) support of the Palestinian people provided he kept up the facade of being in negotiations to win it all. With Hamas and other groups pushing for the ‘drive them into the sea’ point of view he was severely limited in what he could do.
Hell, look at all that craziness in the nineties about his being willing to state that he would renounce violence but not if he had to do it in any language other than English. Arafat didn’t truly have the political will or backing to settle for less than the entire ball-of-wax.
That said, Arafat’s dead. I think the turnover of power to Hamas is, in the long run, a good thing for the region for a few reasons:
Things were stalemated. At least this shakes them up and sets things moving again.
Hamas will, quickly I believe, discover that governing is a HELL of a lot harder than opposing and may have moderate elements that can come to the fore when their promise of destroying Israel is shown to be nothing but hot air.
So I, for whatever a non-practicing american Jew’s opinion is worth, am hopeful for Kadima’s victory (however weak it was) and want to see things move forward from here.
I can’t envision the West Bank settlements being evacuated the way the Gaza settlements were without resistance, to the point of Israelis shedding the blood of other Israelis. Seems to me the only workable solution is for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 border (except for the parts of East Jerusalem formally annexed in 1980), and wash its hands of the settlements: Don’t force the settlers to leave, just make it clear the Israeli Defense Force will no longer protect them or be responsible for their safety, whatever the Palestinians might do. They can take their chances as a minority within the Palestinian state, or they can go west.
It depends. For example, the settlement of Ma’ale Adummim is a city of 30,000 people. On the other hand, Ein Prat has one family. Obviously, it’ll be a lot easier to evacuate Ein Prat than it will be to evacuate Ma’ale Adummim.
That’s not an option. If Israel does that, and the settlers start getting killed, Israel will have to step back in to protect them. One of the reasons Israel was founded was to guarantee that at least one country in the world won’t sit back and do nothing when Jews get slaughtered. The public opinion would force Israel to respond.
