Features » June 23, 2005

No Negotiation

Sharon reveals his plans for the West Bank

By Neve Gordon

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the May 2 government cabinet meeting.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sha-ron is a man of deeds rather than words. So on those rare occasions when he does disclose his political goals it is important to pay close attention and carefully consider every word.

During his recent visit to the United States, Sharon revealed to a group of Jewish donors how he foresees the developments between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He divulged a plan he has not yet talked about in Israel, at least not in a public forum.

“There won’t be negotiations with the Palestinians about Jerusalem or the settlement blocks of Ariel, Ma’aleh, Edumim, and Gush Etzion,” Sharon said, adding, “They will remain eternally under Israeli sovereignty within a contiguous territory.” This straightforward sentence reveals both the method that Israel’s prime minister intends to embrace and a crucial element informing the substance of his plans.

Concerning the method, Sharon clearly stated that he intends to replicate the unilateralist approach he adopted vis-à-vis the Gaza withdrawal. Israel, in other words, does not plan to discuss two of the most central aspects of the occupation—East Jerusalem and the large Jewish settlement blocs—and will force its plan on the Palestinians. Peace, according to this Machiavellian logic, is achieved when the strong impose their will on the weak.

No less important is the substance, and particularly the two words with which Sharon concluded his sentence: “contiguous territory.” This seemingly benign phrase is well worth noting, since the attempt to create a contiguous territory from the three Jewish settlement blocs is tantamount to declaring war.

Allow me to explain. Ariel is a large settlement located in the heart of the West Bank’s northern part. The settlement Ma’aleh Edumim is located about 30 km southeast of Ariel, while Gush Etzion is located another 20 km southwest of Ma’aleh Edumim, and is situated in the West Bank’s southern part. Connecting these three settlement blocs means that the territory Sharon intends to offer the Palestinians will not be contiguous (except maybe by building tunnels!), and that Israel plans to annex a large portion of the Palestinian state-to-be, which is already a very small entity—22 percent of the British Mandate of Palestine.

No Palestinian leader can accept such a solution. But since negotiations, at least regarding these crucial issues, are not on Sharon’s agenda, the Palestinian position is, in a sense, besides the point.

The outcome of such a move will no doubt be devastating, since unlike Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, which has been endorsed by all of the Palestinian political factions, including Hamas, Sharon’s West Bank plan will be unanimously rejected. Resistance will most likely mount and the bloody cycle of violence will resume, this time with even greater vengeance.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Negotiating with palestinians is like negotiating with cancer.  It can’t be done.  The Palestinians have, from the beginning of its existence, vowed the distruction of Israel and they will never change their minds. 

  The Camp David negotiations in 2000 exposed the notion of negotiating with palestinians for the useless act that it is.  Each time Barak agreed to an Arafat demand, Arafat changed his position - BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT PEACE.  THEY WILL NEVER ACCEPT ANY PEACE ACCORD WITH ISRAEL OTHER THAN TO SELF DESTRUCT.

  The only solution is for Israel to build a Chinese wall around its sovereign “contiguous” land, with Israelis on one side and Palestinians on the other, and let the Palestinians rot.

  Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 3:00 AM

  Wow,
  Quite a surprise, Lefty, considering your pretty well reasoned responses on other issues. In Israel, thankfully, there is, and always has been, a pretty big debate about these issues, I have heard many Israelis argue forcefully that what was offered Arafat was not something he could have accepted and survived. There have been many Israelis working with Palestinians un-officially to promote peace, and many have put their lives and careers on the line, including the refusals of hundreds of IDF forces to serve in the occupied territories or take part in home demolition or firing live rounds into crowds of rock throwing demonstrators. There is a sizable peace movement. There is also, among the settlers in the west bank and Gaza, an element that calls for the assassination of Sharon if he carries out the evacuations. Menachem Begin was among those that carried out terror attacks on the British in the days before the creation of the state of Israel. Good thing the British didn’t take the view of him that you take of the Palestinians. If we accept your view of them as a cancer, what course does that leave? More killing on both sides. Even Sharon has finally rejected that option.

  Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jun 24, 2005 at 8:22 AM

  ’ The only solution is for Israel to build a Chinese wall around its sovereign “contiguous” land, with Israelis on one side and Palestinians on the other, and let the Palestinians rot. ‘

  Yeah… but that’s not what they’re doing, is it Lefty?

  They’ve built their ‘Chinese wall’ in Palestine grabbing more Palestinian land while doing so and fragmenting the bits still, temporarily, left to the Palestinians.

  The plans for the Gaza now call for the Israelis to build a wall in the sea, financed by us Americans of course, and to throttle entry and exit to the Gaza by sea, air or land. To make Gaza one large Concentration Camp.

  The idea that one’s foreign policy can be based upon a fundamental injustice with no consequences was the greatest contribution of neocons Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith et al. to the present regime’s lunatic foreign policy.

  Well, as the 3000 dead Americans at the WTC and the Pentagon and the 1728 dead and 12,896 maimed and wounded Americans in Iraq testify, you can’t, Lefty.

  Posted by John Francis Lee on Jun 24, 2005 at 11:07 AM

  Ken,

  I didn’t say that Palestinians were cancer, only - as they have proven time and again - that there is no negotiating with them.  The harsh metaphor was in response to what I thought were some pretty stupid comments by Neve Gordon. 

  Under the circumstances, Sheron’s refusal to negotiate further is predictable and not totally unreasonable.  I’m not Israeli and, based on their past behavior, I don’t trust the Palestinians’ motives either.

  The ball is in the Palestinians’ court to demonstrate good faith which, so far, they have never been willing to do.  It should have to be something more than a single gesture.

  As for the Israeli/Palestinian’s “working for peace,” they are an insignificant minority on both sides.  Until enough Palestinians WANT peace (which they demonstrably do not), that can take control of themselves and their suicide bombers, etc., Israel would be foolish to negotiate with the the Palestinians’ right hand while the left hand is murdering Israeli citizens.  The notion that the violence is equal on both sides is utter nonsense.  Israel is defending itself from violence arising out of an official policy that Israel doesn’t not have a right to exist.

  In the mean time, to answer your question, the Chinese Wall option is the best answer for peace.  JMHO.

  Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 11:29 AM

  JFL,

  I have no idea what you’re talking about. 

  There is no such thing as Palestinian land.

  The American Jewish Neo-Cons psychopaths don’t make Israeli defense policy. 

  The attack on the world trade center was an attack by Bin Ladin on Bush and Saud and had nothing to do with America or Israel.

  The dead and maimed US soldiers in Iraq were sacrificed in the service of the personal enrichment of the Bush family - so that Bush could engage in war profiteering - the long standing Bush family business - more particularly, handing out no-bid contracts in exchange for kickbacks.

  As for cutting off Gaza’s access to air and sea, your comment is the first I’ve heard of it.  But my first thought is, if it were true, do you think Israel would employ such an outrageous and drastic tactic unless there was some reasonable justification for it?  I don’t.

  As for lunatics, the first prize winners are those who think that Israel has a right to exist, but has no right to defend itself against terrorists and suicide bombers bent on Israel’s distruction.  THAT is lunacy.

  Posted by Lefty on Jun 24, 2005 at 11:49 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 119 posts.

Also featured Battling Big Cola
Hand Over the Keys
No More of the Same

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Neve Gordon

• Gaza in the Crosshairs
  Israel cites all the wrong reasons for its invasion of Gaza.Posted on January 14, 2009
• The Experiment in Gaza
  The experiment in famine began on January 18, 2008. Israel hermetically closed all… morePosted on February 4, 2008
• Israel and Hamas Just Say No To Peace
  Over the past 40 years, the Arab League's position on Israel has radically shifted. It's time for Israel to recognize the change.Posted on April 17, 2007
• Fighting the Larger War
  The War On Terror is unique because its political, temporal and geographic borders are unknown and its enemy is fluidly ill-defined.Posted on September 12, 2006
• Israel’s September 11 Effect
  Israel is uniting in its war with LebanonPosted on August 11, 2006