|
Back
to Studies page
Decision makers in the Hebraic state open handedly provided proofs
of their intention to exploit the "disengagement Plan", the
evacuation of Gaza Strip settlements and the evacuation of four
small secluded settlements in the West Bank for demarcating the West
Bank map in a way that serves Israel's strategic interests, the
realization of which would result in swallowing up this part of the
Palestinian homeland.
The plan context doubtlessly reveals the candid and apparent Israeli
stakes in this concern, whereas the plan literally says: "Israel
sees that it has to improve the current status quo, and apparently,
had reached the conclusion that there is no real Palestinian partner
at the time being, with whom progress on the bilateral peace-front
could be achieved, and hence, a gradating disengagement plan
–dependant on the following considerations- has been developed:
A.
The current stillness is harmful. To get things moving,
Israel has to embark upon steps, unconditioned by Palestinian
cooperation.
B.
No final status agreement is to include Jewish settlement in Gaza
Strip. In return to that, some areas in
Judea and Samaria are to be part of the State of Israel. Those areas
would include settlemental blocks, civil settlements, security zones
and areas for other Israeli purposes.(1)
It is true that the "plan" has included evacuation of futureless
settlements in Gaza, but to ensure a future for other big
settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. This is particularly why
Sharon did not bother much about an Arab or Palestinian approval.
All he needed was an American/Israeli agreement that saves Israel
any future international pressure relating to those settlements, or
to Jerusalem, or even to the Palestinian refugees' "Right of
Return". This is what Sharon had achieved through exchanging letters
with Bush. (2) Sharon had openly and clearly specified
his conception of the geopolitical situation in the West Bank on
fulfillment of the disengagement plan. He said he was seeking a
provisional long-term agreement that provides for establishment of a
Palestinian state –in accordance with the Wye agreement- on 42% of
the West Bank excluding Jerusalem, i.e. on 27% of the West Bank
total area. (3) Sharon adds: "This state would be
fettered, restrained and demilitarized…. It would only have police
forces, furnished with types of weapons necessary for keeping
security. Israel would be looking after this state's borders for
years and years. Such as state is not to join in alliance with any
of Israel's enemy states, and Israel would have the full right to
fly over the air space thereof".
Sharon made it clear that when he speaks about a Palestinian State
he certainly means an autonomous government. He sees that
Palestinians should manage their own internal security affairs as if
they were in a sovereign state, but actually it is not so.(4)
It is clear that Sharon wants the declaration of this state to be an
outcome of negotiations and of an agreement and not a unilateral
move. In other words, he needs the blessing and endorsement of an
official Arab or Palestinian party to the irrefragable facts,
dictated by the Hebraic state through the "disengagement plan" in
the West Bank.
Eighteen months ago, Sharon had delineated the strategic interests'
map which the Hebraic State has to ensure in any settlement with
representatives of the Palestinian people.
In an article published in the wake of the outburst of the First
Intifada (the first uprising), Sharon called for ensuring what is
known as "The Perimeter of Requirements" that are to be expounded to
the Americans by Israel, as being a prerequisite in any future
settlements. These requirements include:
"United Jerusalem is to Israel's everlasting and eternal capital,
with the "River of Jordan" forming Israel's eastern security
borders. There would be no army –other than the Israeli army- to the
west of Jordan. Israel would be the only party responsible for home
and foreign security in all parts of the West Bank. (5)
Sharon clearly explained that the primary purpose behind
implementation of the disengagement plan is the demographic
separation between Palestinian citizens and the occupying state, in
accordance with the security and historical conditions of this
state.
The only difference between Sharon and those standing at "his left"
–when matters are related to the Israeli plans, pertinent to the
West Bank after disengagement- is that Sharon seems to be moderated
in this political arena. Tomy Lapid, Chairman of Chinui Center Party
sees that the Palestinian state should be erected now and in Gaza
only. He says that after the Palestinian Authority strikes
resistance movements –and only then- would Israel approve
establishment of a Palestinian state on part of the West Bank. Lapid
adds: "For the first time in history, do Palestinians acquire a
state in Gaza. Would they want another Gaza in Judea and Sameria
(meaning the West Bank), then they have to prove their maturity and
ability to run and manage that state as has Israel always done in
the past. (6)
Mechanisms of the West Bank Seizure
It is promptly noted that the "disengagement plan" has provided a
cover for expediting seizure of the West Bank. It aims at annexation
of unpopulated areas in the West Bank and areas of low Palestinian
tenancy as well, to the Hebraic state, by the following means:
1.
Expanding Settlements:
The Israeli war minister –Shaul Mofaz- enumerated priorities of the
Hebraic state after realization of the disengagement plan, where he
said: "We shall now promote and consolidate settlemental blocks in
the West Bank.(7) On the other hand, Ori Dan –one of
Sharon's intimates- defined the compass of the Israeli initiatives
on completion of the disengagement plan. He said: "Israel has
obligations and duties to carry out after its withdrawal from Gaza
Strip. On top of these duties is enforcement of the Israeli law in
highly populated settlemental blocks, and demarcation of Israel's
final and non-transmutable borders. (8) Availability of
settlers who are ready to populate usurped Palestinian territories
is the only condition which Sharon deems necessary for transforming
the "disengagement plan" into a bundle of chances for originating an
upswing in the settlemental project in the West Bank. Sharon says:
"We would not have been in Al Khalil (Hebron), Gosh Asyoun, Kaber
Rahil or on the heights overtopping the seacoast, had it not been
for settlers".(9) Sharon adds: "There should be no
mistake. We shall forever remain in Maaleh Adomem". (The biggest of
all West Bank settlements, which stretches northeast of Jerusalem).
He continues: "the southern area, Judea (the Hebraic name for the
Southern part of the West Bank) is not to be separated from the
Northern area –Samaria" (the Hebraic name of the northern part of
the West Bank).
2.
Completion of the Racial Separating Wall:
Erection of the racial separating wall in the heart of the West
Bank, doubtlessly aims at consolidation of Jewish settlement, and
tightening of Israeli control over the West Bank, it is true that
the decision for erection of this racial separating wall in the
heart of the West bank had already been taken when Sharon propounded
the "disengagement plan". Of course, had the engagement plan not
been propounded, the circumstances would not have allowed completion
of the "wall"- erection round many of the West Bank areas. The
hubbub created by the disengagement plan made the world disregard
this "wall", noting that it –in fact- is the most efficacious mean,
adopted by the Hebraic state in driving away Palestinian citizens
from their land. According to Israeli anticipations, the wall would
allow displacement of 400,000 Palestinians.(10) The most
important role this racial separating wall plays, lies in expediting
Judaization of occupied Jerusalem, and separating it from the other
parts of the West Bank in the vicinity of the Holy City, the Wall
works on Expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the
city. Simultaneously, erection of the wall aims particularly at
separating the northern part of the West Bank from the Southern part
thereof, the thing which means that any future Palestinian state, to
be declared in the West Bank is to lack territorial interconnection
between regions thereof.
Furthermore, isolation of Jerusalem from the West Bank, in addition
to supplementation of settlemental and Jaudaization operations means
predetermination of the future of the city, in anticipation of any
future negotiations over final status matters.
3.
Transportational connection instead of territorial interlink
Sharon wants to throng the West Bank Palestinian citizens inside
scattered pockets. Nothing but roads connect these pockets (i.e.
they have no territorial geographic connection). A clear security
aims lies behind the existence of these pockets. These pockets do
not require continual physical presence of Israeli military forces
therein, because Israel will continue to have full control over
these pockets via remote controlled devices. If need be, Israeli
forces could enter these pockets at any time it chooses. Israel is
not ashamed to call upon the International Society to finance its
plans for isolating Palestinian cantons and to limit
intercommunications there in between to connecting roads only.
Israel asked the donating countries to finance a project for
establishing two separate road transportation networks –one for
Israeli and the other for Palestinians, noting that the Israeli plan
provides for Israeli control over communication between Palestinians
residing in the West Bank areas classified as Zones (A) and (B),
which from about 42% of the West Bank total area.(11) The
Netherlander geographer, Pan D. Young, a consultant for the
"Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit" exposed the Israeli plan for
establishment of two separate road-networks in the West Bank, where
one is designated for Palestinian citizens, and the other for
Israeli settlers. Young said that the changes, modifications and
diversions suggested by Israel, relating to the two proposed
networks that are to be erected after completion of "disengagement",
will ensure persistence of all Israeli settlements –including the
very small ones- in the West Bank. These settlements will in fact
affect persistence of any future Palestinian state that might be
erected in the West Bank. (12) According to Young's
analysis and to the analysis of the Palestinian ministry of
planning, the proposed diversions will move the Palestinian road
routes away from the existent main roads that are to be designated
for Israelis only. The road to be used by Palestinians would be
moved away from settlements, the thing that enables these
settlements to grow and flourish.(13) Primary
calculations carried out by Young, revealed that the trip between "Tolkarem"
and "Nablus" for example will take three times the normal time,
because the proposed route is shifted to secondary winded roads.
Instead of covering 27km on the existing road in about 42 minutes,
it will take 73 minutes on the narrow, mountainous and full of turns
road which extends to about 40km, noting that in normal situations,
a direct and straight road could be developed between the two said
cities. The trip would be take less than 22 minutes, as the length
of this new road will not exceed 28km. (14)
4.
Disengagement between resistance in the West Bank and that in
Gaza Strip
As the Israeli Chief of General Staff says, evacuation of the
occupation forces from Gaza Strip will call-off any justifications
for launching resistance operations from Gaza Strip. Hallutz
confirms that one of the most important strategic goals of the
Hebraic state –at this stage- is to prevent resistance movements in
Gaza Strip from replying to military operations carried out by the
occupation army against resistance in the West Bank.(15)
The Israeli equation in this aspect is quite clear: The Hebraic
state is trying to force situation, where resistance movements in
Gaza Strip are prevented from replying to liquidation operations,
assassinations or arrests, carried out by the Israeli forces against
resistance members in the West Bank.
How to face the Israeli plans in the West Bank?
It is very obvious that Israel's success in achieving its goals
through the disengagement plan actually means liquidation of the
Palestinian cause, once and for all. On the other hand, it is rather
impossible for the Palestinian people to prevent any unilateral
steps taken by the Hebraic state. Yet, there are plenty of means to
which we can resort, to stop the Hebraic state from achieving its
goals through the disengagement plan. The simplest and easiest
requirement for facing the Israeli wagers is to stop any cooperation
–from any Palestinian side- with this plan, not to mention the rush
to assist the Hebraic state to achieve its goals through the said
plan. It is regretful to say that the Palestinian authority treated
and still treats "the plan" as if it were binary, and as if Sharon
had consulted this Authority when he put forth the plan.
The Palestinian Authority –which is supposed to defend the
Palestinian people's interests- is harmonious with the Hebraic state
wagers, relating to the aforesaid plan. It is preoccupied with
negotiating detailed matters ordained by the post-disengagement
state, such as: operating and managing border crossing points, the
airport, the harbor and secure corridors, in addition to many other
marginal questions, occasioned by the disengagement plan.
Regrettably, all is happening amid the Palestinian Authority's
inattention to the fait accompli which Israel is enforcing in the
West Bank.
Another form of the "Authority's" willingness to effectuate Israel's
wagers, pertinent to the disengagement plan, is the unpreceeded
insistence of many of the Authority leaders on illegitimacy of the
resistance operations. Furthermore, some security bodies had carried
out detention campaigns against resistance activists in the West
Bank, accusing them of standing behind operations against the
occupation objectives, as had happened with "Al-Jihad Al-Islami"
activists and "Katayeb Shuhada' Al Aksa" (Al Aksa Martyrdom
Battalions) – the military wing of Fateh Movement, who were dragged
to "Areha" prison. That is to say that the Palestinian Authority
helps Israel in getting rid of the Palestinian dissent that stands
in the face of Israel's wagers and avidity. Confrontation of Israeli
wagers requires that following:
a.
All Palestinians must be aware of the seriousness of the Israeli
wagers, relating to the disengagement plan, particularly in the
West Bank. They have to agree on a "common agenda" to face the
Hebraic state and to undermine its abilities to achieve those
wagers.
b.
There should be no dispute over the fact that the most efficacious
mean –in facing Israel's wagers relating to disengagement- is
through resistance operations in the West Bank or proceeding there
from. The Israeli side would then realize that the Palestinian
people will not take achievement of these wagers for granted,
because this simply means termination of the Palestinian cause.
c.
An adverse and wide Palestinian advertising campaign must be
launched, to convince the world of the seriousness of the Israeli
wagers, relating to the disengagement plan. We must also confirm to
the world that this plan is but a recipe to keep the struggle ember
burning. Arab regimes must take up their responsibilities and
mobilize all necessary pressing means, so as to encourage the whole
Arab world to take part in this crucial and decisive battle, in
which the Palestinian people is now engaged and to prevent the
Hebraic state from achieving its criminal wagers. Arab regimes
should also allocate financial support to help Palestinians to stand
firm in their land.
References
1)Text
of amended plan as issued by the government – Ha'aretz –
May 28, 2004.
2)Yediot
Ahranot Newspaper – April14, 2004.
3)(Ma'arev
– interview)
April 13, 2001.
4)Op.
cit.
5)Yediot
Ahranot –
March 12, 1988.
6)Ma'arev
– Article – 23.09.
7)Ha'aretz
– 14.09.2005.
8)Ma'arev
– 04.08.2005.
9)Ha'aretz
– 03.08.2005.
10)Yediot
Ahranot – 13.10.2005.
11)Ha'aretz
– 30.11.2004.
12)Op.
cit.
13)Op.
cit.
14)Op.
cit.
15)Israeli
Television – Channel 2 – 15.10.2005.
Top |
