(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Zalman Shoval - Israel has chosen to act unilaterally for several reasons. First, there is no reliable partner on the Palestinian side. Second, under current circumstances, no formula appears capable of producing an eventual final agreement that would be acceptable to both sides. Therefore, Israel is trying to improve the situation by making tangible progress. The revised plan will allow Israel to improve its security and to decide for itself the scope of withdrawal, with U.S. backing. The U.S. will be part of the process, and Egypt and Jordan are projected to play certain roles as well (e.g., as indirect leverage on the Palestinians). Any potential coordination with the Egyptians should be viewed as a positive sign (though not all Israelis agree with this sentiment). Israelis also have their doubts about the Palestinians' true intentions. Although these suspicions are partly rooted in the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit, the subsequent peace talks at Taba, and the Oslo Accords in general, they are also informed by the cool reaction that many Palestinians exhibited toward the Geneva Accord (polls showed that only 25% of Palestinians believed the Geneva initiative could bring an end to the conflict). Israel's unilateral withdrawal plans should also be viewed in light of President Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Prime Minister Sharon which emphasized that Israel must have secure and recognized borders. The letter also mentioned that every agreement must be mutually accepted while reflecting the realities on the ground. Indeed, given the new realties on the ground, it is unrealistic to expect a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Bush's letter also emphasized that the solution to the refugee problem should involve Palestinians returning to their own state rather than to Israel.
2005-06-25 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive