Convergence Plan?

PM Ehud Olmert is visiting the US now to get to know Pres. Bush and his
Administration. His chief policy, that the US does not want to deal with,
is his Convergence (or Consolidation) Plan. In effect this would replace
Bush's Road Map Plan, by recognizing that there is no Palestinian partner to
negotiate with (in reality there never was).
Olmert outlined this policy in his inaugural speech on presenting his new
Government to the Knesset on 4/5/6:
"I, like many others, also dreamed and yearned that we would be able to keep
the entire land of Israel, and that the day would never come when we would
have to relinquish parts of our land. Only those who have the land of Israel
burning in their souls know the pain of relinquishing and parting with the
land of our forefathers. I personally continue to advocate the idea of the
entire land of Israel as a heart's desire. I believe with all my heart in the
people of Israel's eternal historic right to the entire land of Israel.
However, dreams and recognition of this right do not constitute a political
program. Even if the Jewish eye cries, and even if our hearts are broken, we
must preserve the essence. We must preserve a stable and solid Jewish
majority in our State."
"Therefore, we must focus on the area in which a Jewish majority is secured
and ensured. The disengagement from the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria
was an essential first step in this direction, but the main part is still
ahead. The continued dispersed settlement throughout Judea and Samaria
creates an inseparable mixture of populations which will endanger the
existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. It is those who believe,
as I do, in Jabotinsky’s teachings and in full civil equality between Jews and
Arabs, who must understand that partition of the land for the purpose of
guaranteeing a Jewish majority is the lifeline of Zionism. I know how hard it
is, especially for the settlers and those faithful to Eretz Yisrael, but I am
convinced, with all my heart, that it is necessary and that we must do it with
dialogue, internal reconciliation and broad consensus."
At first sight this was a good speech and a persuasive argument. However, it
lacks two essential elements. First, if you indeed have the entire Land of
Israel "burned in your soul," why would you be in such a hurry to unilaterally
give some of it up, and leave the rest of the land not only to a future
Palestinian State, but now to the Hamas.
Secondly, no Government outside Israel supports this move, not the US, not the
EU, nor the UN, and very few diaspora Jews either. They may have the wrong
reason for not supporting unilateral action, namely that they favor a two
state solution that they believe can only be brought about by negotiations
with the Palestinians. But, the fact that there is no partner now does not
require that Israel should act unilaterally to withdraw. One could equally
argue that Israel should act unilaterally to occupy all the land of the West
Bank, not just the densely populated Jewish areas, and thereby keep a
valuable chip with which to negotiate in future. Because the fact is that
without international recognition of this withdrawal and without international
recognition of the incorporation of the densely populated Jewish areas of the
West Bank into Israel, the Palestinians would be in a perfect position to
refuse to accept this division, and would start negotiating from that
position. Its always best to have more than your minimum as a bargaining chip!
However, noone expects a Hamas-controlled PA to start negotiating with Israel
any time soon, so it is more appropriate to maintain IDF control over the West
Bank, and in the meantime strengthen Israeli hold over the maximum part of it.
What country ever in history has voluntarily prepared the ground for its own
withdrawal to give territory to a deadly enemy? Can you name one? And Israel
is much stronger and more unified than the Palestinians. For all we know
there could be a civil war in the PA between Fatah and Hamas, the PA could
collapse financially, anything could happen, so it is a mystery why we would
withdraw in face of this and draw our "final" boundaries. And why would we
deliberately split our country by trying to oust ca. 70,000 people from their
homes around the West Bank, where some of them have lived for 50 years.
I favor the Likud/Netanyahu approach, keep the West Bank until and if ever
there is a Palestinian leadership that actually wants to make peace with us.
There might even be another Palestinian-Israeli war before that happens, or
a war with Iran!
I supported the withdrawal from Gaza, not that it worked out successfully,
mainly as a tactical move to show the world that we are prepared to withdraw,
to remove the settlers and the IDF soldiers from a losing situation, and
because Gaza is strategically unimportant. The West Bank is another matter.
It is in the heart of our country and is much more defensible.
The demographic argument is overdone. There are far fewer Palestinians
than were previously estimated, less by 2.4 million according to latest
estimates, that puts the total Palestinian population as ca. 1.2 million in
Gaza and 1 million in the West Bank, with an additional million Israeli Arabs.
They cannot "overwhelm" us when we have 5.4 million Jews, almost twice as
many as the total Arab population. Then, of course, we can draw our lines
and negotiate the final borders if ever any partner is available, why rush to
do it now. Let's make ourselves popular with the international community
by "waiting" for a Palestinian partner, and maybe it will never happen.