Palestinians Beware: Unilateralism is Gaining Steam in Israel

Out a sense of frustration, perhaps from a sense of despair, there are more and more proposals for continued unilateralism coming out of what used to be the Israeli "peace camp." The proposals are coming from people who truly want peace on the basis of two states for two people. These are people who would have little problem accepting the Clinton parameters or the Geneva formula. But they are proposing continued unilateralism because they don't believe that any progress can be made at the present time through a negotiated process.

These Israeli observers and peace advocates view today's excruciatingly painful negotiations over technical matters and border passages and rightly ask: if we can't make progress on the small things, how can we make progress on the real issues - final borders, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.? Last month's planned Sharon-Abbas summit was postponed because the gaps were too wide between the sides on simple issues.

The Sharon government is continuously berating the Palestinian Authority for not fighting terror and not implementing their Roadmap obligation to dismantle the terror infrastructure; any steps they might be taking are merely tiny drops in the sea. Even vis-à-vis Abbas's own Fatah party, they say, the PA has no control. Armed militias do as they please and the Palestinian Authority seems helpless. With the Israelis out of Gaza and no one on the outside to blame, the total chaos and complete absence of any personal security only provides additional evidence that the PA is too weak to rule. Everyone knows that negotiations with such a weak partner cannot be fruitful.

Many Israeli analysts believe that the problem isn't the lack of capacity of the PA security forces, but the absence of the political will. Most Israelis, left and right, believe that the Palestinian Authority will have to face its day of reckoning - the day of a political decision to "do or die." Most Israelis believe that that day is already here. Maybe it will bring about a civil war and maybe it won't, but failure to confront the militias and terrorists with force is almost guaranteed to bring about the ascendance of Hamas to power. Most Israelis believe that there is no escaping the necessity of confrontation. They know this from their own experience of state-building; they are waiting for a Palestinian Ben Gurion to stand up and to take control.

When the PA doesn't take charge, foreign governments and donor countries don't see the fruits of their investments and become frustrated with the lack of results. When donor countries become frustrated with their investments, they "disengage" from the Palestinian issue - similar to the Israeli response. Foreign disengagement means an end to or a serious reduction in potential financial support to Palestine, at the very time that the international community is ready to pump huge sums of money to help, if there would be a responsible Palestinian government in charge.

Palestinians usually respond to these warnings by arguing that a disengagement of this type is the surest way to bring about a Hamas victory.

But today, the Israeli response to that is: so be it! If Hamas is the choice of the Palestinians, we will know how to respond. If our neighbors seek to destroy us and push us into the sea, some Israelis say, it is better to know this (and for the world to know this) than to act under the charade of a false peace process. We will remove our hands from the Palestinian question. When and if the Palestinians decide that they wish to live together in peace with Israel, they will demonstrate that desire by taking action within their own society against those who wish to destroy us. Until then, there is no reason to pursue negotiations or any kind of relations with them. We will withdraw to borders that we will determine, leaving space for future negotiations, but holding on to areas that are vital for our own security and we will wait. If it takes a year, great. If it takes ten years or twenty years, we are in no rush. If it never happens, they say, we can also live with that.

And many analysts and people close to decision making circles are convinced that Sharon is ready and able to take the next unilateral step. Sharon has proven his political strength and public opinion polls demonstrate support for more moves. They say that the next step will be an Israeli withdrawal behind the separation barrier. Israel will remain in the Jordan valley, there would be an Israeli presence in the "Ariel finger," and the greater Jerusalem area will include Maaleh Adumim and Givat Zeev. There would be another round of settlement dismantlement - this time in much larger numbers. Israel would withdraw from about 60% of the West Bank. Coordination with the Palestinian Authority would take place as deemed absolutely necessary, but would in no way be a vital aspect of the proposed policy.

Some Palestinians share the view that this kind of "cold turkey" policy is the only way to get Palestinians to take responsibility for themselves. Israeli withdrawals and settlement dismantlement within the West Bank would not end the conflict, but they would remove Israel from more Palestinian territories. Palestinians cannot object to this. It falls far short of what they would like to see, but a positive Palestinian response would be to take responsibility for the additional territories that would come under their control. And if the Palestinians fail to take responsibility, then there would be no progress towards resolving the conflict.

While it is clear that this is not a strategy for conflict resolution, and everyone knows that without resolving, in negotiations, the questions on final boundaries, Jerusalem, refugees, etc. there can be no peace. This would be an Israeli strategy of conflict management. If in this scenario the Palestinians devote most of their efforts to launching attacks against Israel, Palestinian society will continue to pay a very heavy price. Israel may also pay a high price, but it will seem to most Israelis that they did everything they could do to advance positive relations with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians chose Hamas instead. That is how it will be understood in Israel, and in most of the western world.

Israelis advocating this strategy view it as win-win. If it forces the PA to fight Hamas, then a real peace process can emerge. If, in the end of the day, the PA does not fight Hamas and Hamas comes into power, then Israel is secure, it did not take real strategic risks and the world will not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas. If in the end Hamas reforms itself, moderates its views, accepts Israel (albeit very unlikely), then perhaps Hamas could be a better partner than the corrupt Palestinian Authority.

In my assessment, this point of view is gaining steam in Israel. There is a real chance that the center of the political map, where the majority of Israelis are, will move steadily towards accepting this unilateral agenda. Palestinians should be aware of this trend in Israel and decide how to confront it.

There is, in my view, no better way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the outstanding issues than a negotiated process. In my assessment, with the current trends in Israeli politics, there will be no negotiated process unless the Palestinian Authority seriously confronts Hamas and other militarized elements in Palestinian society. Either there will be "one authority and one gun" or there will be no Road Map, no Geneva or any other negotiated process.

If the President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority do not move in this direction, do not be surprised by continued Israeli unilateralism and its results.

Written by Gershon Baskin.

Baskin is the Israeli Co-Director of IPCRI, the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information in Jerusalem. This article is adapted from Palestinians beware: Unilateralism is gaining steam in Israel, Gershon Baskin, October 16, 2005.