|
|
July 19, 2002/Av 10 5762, Vol. 54, No. 44
Reach disengagement through agreement
EHUD BARAK
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Israel is at war for our very right to exist as a sovereign, freedom-loving country, surrounded by an ocean of backwardness and determined to find its way to stand firm against any kind of threat and to flourish and be patient and strong until the time comes for peace for the area.
The aim of Palestinian terror is not just to kill Israelis, but also to break the will of Israeli society in order to dictate a political solution.
The choice for all of us, all around the world, is not simple but very clear: to destroy terror or be destroyed by it. And we are determined to destroy it.
In this struggle against the Palestinians, we in Israel have to answer two basic questions: What is at stake? And what should be done about it?
Post-Sept. 11, it is essential that neither the Palestinian Authority nor Yasser Arafat be able to gain a single inch as a result of the deliberate turn to terror.
We should realize that the struggle we are in is carried out on three levels: the struggle against terror on the ground; the struggle for international legitimacy and the moral high ground; and the struggle for internal unity within Israel.
There is an urgent need to shape a coherent Israeli strategy, which is now absent. In shaping this policy, we should say yes to two states for two nations, where Israel is recognized as a Jewish, Zionist democratic state.
We should say "yes" to secure and recognized borders for Israel but "no" to the 1967 lines.
And we should say yes to the right of return of Palestinian peoples into the Palestinian state, but never into Israel.
Such a strategy should be based on three pillars: a tough campaign against terror, an open door for resumption of negotiations and physical disengagement from the Palestinians.
First, there must be a focused and determined campaign against terror from all sources: Hamas; Islamic Jihad; Hezbollah; and Tanzim, the security services of the Palestinian Authority.
Any terrorist, in any place, at any time, including those coming out of the Palestinian Authority infrastructure, will be stopped for as long as the Palestinian Authority continues to guide and execute terror.
Second, we should leave open the door for resumption of negotiations, at any moment, without any precondition beyond a complete halt to violence, based on the principles presented at Camp David.
If Palestinian terror continues in spite of this opened door, the whole world will know that terror is Arafat's choice, and he will have to bear the consequences. If the Palestinian leadership is ready to resume negotiations based on Camp David, that will signal a major achievement in the world struggle against terror because an entity supporting terrorism will have been brought back to negotiations without gaining anything by this evil endeavor.
Third, Israel must embark on unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians and establish a system of security fences. Israel's very future depends on this. Only such a border could secure a solid Jewish majority inside Israel for generations to come, and in so doing, secure Israel as a democracy and its identity as a Jewish state.
If Israel does not find the way to disengage from the Palestinians, its future might resemble the experience of Belfast or Bosnia - two communities bleeding each other to death for generations. Alternatively, if we do not disengage from the Palestinians, Israel might drift toward an apartheid state.
Obviously, it is better to reach disengagement by consent through an agreement. But Israel cannot impose a readiness to make peace upon Arafat. The absence of a partner should not paralyze Israel from taking defensive steps in order to protect its own vital interests, which will determine its identity and future.
The disengagement would be implemented gradually over several years. The fence should include the seven big settlement blocs that spread over 12 or 13 percent of the area and contain 80 percent of the settlers.
Israel will also need a security zone along the Jordan River and some early warning sites, which combined will cover another 12 percent, adding up to 25 percent of the West Bank.
We should not formally annex the settlement blocs and the security zone to Israel in order not to block the possibility of further negotiations on this issue.
We should also not immediately dismantle even a single settlement, since it will reward terror, it will deepen the schism within ourselves - and anyhow it takes time.
I would also make it clear that we are determined to put an end to our rule over the Palestinian people for our own purposes, not just for theirs. Israel can do this by making an unequivocal commitment to move the isolated settlements into the big settlement blocs or into Israel proper. The freedom of the Israeli Defense Force to act against terror must be maintained as long as there is no agreement.
In Jerusalem, there would have to be two physical fences. The first would delineate the political boundary and be placed around the greater city, including the settlement blocs adjacent to Jerusalem. The second would be a security-dictated barrier, with controlled gates and passes, to separate most of the Palestinian neighborhoods from the Jewish neighborhoods and the Holy Basin, including the Old City.
The immediate and long-term result of installing the security fence, with sensors and military forces along it, would be a dramatic reduction in suicide attacks inside Israel. Around the Gaza Strip there is a fence, and there are practically no suicide attacks originating from Gaza.
The challenge for the United States is to find a way to convince the Europeans, the United Nations and the Russians about the urgent need to tell Arafat loud and clear, "We respect and recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. We are ready to help you negotiate, together with the Israelis, a just and fair arrangement. But it's time for action. If you do not act immediately to put an end to terror and incitement, to go about the Tenet/Mitchell plan and to be ready to negotiate from a point free of terror activities, namely Camp David, you are not just end of story with the Israelis, you will not be just isolated by the Israelis, but you will be isolated by us and the rest of the world."
Without such an action, he will never even contemplate moving. If he refuses, it should be known that the rest of the world is waiting for another Palestinian leadership to emerge.
Ehud Barak is the former prime minister of Israel. This piece was adapted from a recent New York Times column and from his remarks at an AIPAC policy conference.
|
