Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Main Page

Geneva Accord Full Text

Executive Summary

Negotiators

Political and Opinion Leaders

Congressional Resolution

Media Analysis

Map

Sharon for Hamas

Maariv
February 18, 2004

By Yossi Beilin

Sharon's declaration succeeded beyond his expectations. Long before we know if he really means it, after everything he said during his three years in power but did not do, some members of the Labor party are already willing to join his government, while others are quick to applaud him and take credit for Sharon's "dovishness".

There is no doubt that words matter. Sharon's support for a Palestinian state - even if he is thinking of a South African-style "Bantustan"enclave - is a step forward. His statement about the Israeli occupation of the territories - even if he took it back and presented it as a slip of tongue - matters, as well as his statement that Jews will not live in the Gaza Strip. The father of the settlement campaign created a precedent with his words that will pave the way for anyone who succeeds him. It is also clear that if his words become policy, and if the Sharon government decides to withdraw from Gaza, the left can not object. But Sharon's statements, and more so, their implementation, are very problematic and could harm our national interest.

The transfer option, or the transfer by choice, has been taken off the national agenda, mainly because its proponents are now in government, and have realized it is a pipe dream. The Greater Israel option has remained relevant to a diminishing rightist minority. Understanding the necessity for a border between Israel and the Palestinian state in order to maintain a Jewish-democratic state has led the Likud mainstream to the unilateral option. From now on it is a contest between two main options: an Israeli-Palestinian agreement or a unilateral withdrawal. True, withdrawal is better than staying in the territories. But an agreement (that already exists and only needs to be implemented) is better than a unilateral withdrawal. Since at issue is a historic move that will have implications for generations to come, I recommend not being carried away by Sharon's words and understanding their danger.

Withdrawal from the territories, neither as part of the withdrawals agreed in the interim agreement, the Wye agreement or the Sharm a-Sheikh agreement; nor as part of Phase II of the "road map" (a Palestinian state in provisional borders); nor as part of a permanent agreement like the Geneva agreement (in which the withdrawal process is supposed to last 30 months) is a withdrawal for the benefit of Hamas. Any withdrawal that is not agreed and coordinated with the PA actually gives the land to Hamas (because it is the most organized element today on the Palestinian side) and gives it the ideological advantage. After all Hamas will claim: "We told you not to make concessions in the negotiations and not to recognize Israel - and they are withdrawing anyway". It is the biggest possible slap in the face to Palestinian negotiators past and future, without which no agreement can be reached.

Is that what Sharon wants? Is the fact that he decided not to release Palestinian prisoners into Abu Mazen's hands but to do so for Nasrallah part of a worldview that wishes to strengthen the most intransigent elements on the other side? Sharon knows the answer.

Even those who think the Palestinian side will not live up to the agreement it signs should, I think, support an agreement anyway. Because if the sides manage to sign a document in the spirit of Geneva, and if the agreement is later violated by the Palestinians (even if we may hope such a permanent agreement would make pragmatic Palestinians make a supreme effort to keep it), Israel will receive many benefits: an internationally recognized eastern border; a large capital including the Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall - recognized by the world, with all embassies moving to it from Tel Aviv; the refugee problem will finally be taken off Israel's agenda and all the relevant U.N. resolutions will be replaced by the signed agreement. The Jewish majority will be secured for generations, and Israel will not rule, among others, over the 220,000 Palestinians living in east Jerusalem today. If under those circumstances the Palestinian state becomes, heaven forbid, an enemy state - we will have to treat it accordingly.

The worst-case scenario of a violated agreement is better than any scenario of unilateral withdrawal without any international recognition, no solution to the two biggest problems that plague us (Jerusalem and refugees), without even demanding the Palestinians demilitarize, fight terror and abstain from signing military agreements with our enemies. A unilateral withdrawal also means our continuing rule over the Palestinians who live in east Jerusalem. It can not come with international aid to implement the agreement and will not allow us to turn the settlements we evacuate into part of the compensation we give the refugees (as was agreed in Geneva), or upgrade our international status (vis a vis the EU and NATO).

It took Sharon a long time to understand what the Israeli left understood long ago. Our enthusiasm over his long learning process should not make us enthusiastic about the crooked path he is proposing towards the goal with which we whole-heartedly identify - ending the occupation.