Israeli concessions
The IDF announced on Thursday that it will no longer remain inside and patrol four West Bank Palestinian cities (Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jericho and Hebron), but will leave them to the newly trained PA police force. This move is seen as a concession by PM Netanyahu to the Obama Administration, that is intent on bolstering the authority of Pres. Abbas of the PA. The IDF will not leave the towns completely, but will remain on the outskirts to intervene in case the situation becomes a threat to Israeli security. Until now the IDF operated mainly at night while the PA police operated during the day. Now the PA will have 24 hour responsibility for security within these towns, as well as several other towns that the IDF has previously withdrawn from, including Jenin, a former troublespot in PA-Israel relations that is now relatively quiet.
This move is consistent with other moves that the IDF is making, for example, in reducing the number of checkpoints in the West Bank by 140 roadblocks, that is designed to make movement easier for Palestinian civilians and also to give more control to the PA under Abbas. While this move from the citities met with State Department approval, there will no doubt be little consideration shown in the foreign press, that will probably ignore this important Israeli concession to the PA and the US. Security experts have warned that these two moves, from the cities and reducing checkpoints, could give rise to an increase in terrorism in Israel. Thus, Israel is taking a real risk, while the PA once again does nothing in return.
However, the IDF would be unlikely to make these moves if they weren't relatively sure of the security situation and the risks involved. It is felt that the PA police, trained under agreement with the US, EU and Jordan, need to be able to show their control over these cities and to prevent Hamas from operating there. A Hamas resurgence, after several years of Israeli control, would be a major setback for the PA and for US peace aims, as well as for Israel.
Some may see these Israeli concessions as a counter to the US emphasis on a complete settlement feeze on the West Bank, that the Netanyahu Administration is resisting in relation to "natural growth." The feeling in Israel is that by agreeing not to initiate any new settlements, not to expropriate any more "Palestinian" land and by removing "outposts," Israel has gone a long way towards placating the US position. Why Obama insists on a complete freeze of all "natural growth" seems calculated to antagonize Israel, and seems to be a pro-Palestinian move, as if the fate of the settlements has been decided in advance, while in fact they should be decided by negotiation.
Also, Pres. Bush gave an undertaking in a letter written to PM Sharon relating to the Road Map peace plan, that Israel would not have to relinquish all of the West Bank (as explicitly envisaged in UN Security Countil resolution 242) because of new "realities", i.e. dense Jewish population in specific settlements that have grown up over the past 42 years (since 1967). However, now the Obama Administration and Secty of State Clinton have rejected that letter as being an actual commitment, although former Bush deputy security advisor Elliott Abrams has come out publicly saying that Clinton and Obama are "incorrect" in rejecting this as a Bush commitment.
It seems that Israel has gone a long way to show its willingness to compromise and make concessions to the US and PA positions. However, to reject important and significant commitments made previously will only lead to chaos and confusion. If the US can unilaterally reject a former President's commitment in writing to Israel, then Israel cannot be considered to be bound by other former commitments.
This move is consistent with other moves that the IDF is making, for example, in reducing the number of checkpoints in the West Bank by 140 roadblocks, that is designed to make movement easier for Palestinian civilians and also to give more control to the PA under Abbas. While this move from the citities met with State Department approval, there will no doubt be little consideration shown in the foreign press, that will probably ignore this important Israeli concession to the PA and the US. Security experts have warned that these two moves, from the cities and reducing checkpoints, could give rise to an increase in terrorism in Israel. Thus, Israel is taking a real risk, while the PA once again does nothing in return.
However, the IDF would be unlikely to make these moves if they weren't relatively sure of the security situation and the risks involved. It is felt that the PA police, trained under agreement with the US, EU and Jordan, need to be able to show their control over these cities and to prevent Hamas from operating there. A Hamas resurgence, after several years of Israeli control, would be a major setback for the PA and for US peace aims, as well as for Israel.
Some may see these Israeli concessions as a counter to the US emphasis on a complete settlement feeze on the West Bank, that the Netanyahu Administration is resisting in relation to "natural growth." The feeling in Israel is that by agreeing not to initiate any new settlements, not to expropriate any more "Palestinian" land and by removing "outposts," Israel has gone a long way towards placating the US position. Why Obama insists on a complete freeze of all "natural growth" seems calculated to antagonize Israel, and seems to be a pro-Palestinian move, as if the fate of the settlements has been decided in advance, while in fact they should be decided by negotiation.
Also, Pres. Bush gave an undertaking in a letter written to PM Sharon relating to the Road Map peace plan, that Israel would not have to relinquish all of the West Bank (as explicitly envisaged in UN Security Countil resolution 242) because of new "realities", i.e. dense Jewish population in specific settlements that have grown up over the past 42 years (since 1967). However, now the Obama Administration and Secty of State Clinton have rejected that letter as being an actual commitment, although former Bush deputy security advisor Elliott Abrams has come out publicly saying that Clinton and Obama are "incorrect" in rejecting this as a Bush commitment.
It seems that Israel has gone a long way to show its willingness to compromise and make concessions to the US and PA positions. However, to reject important and significant commitments made previously will only lead to chaos and confusion. If the US can unilaterally reject a former President's commitment in writing to Israel, then Israel cannot be considered to be bound by other former commitments.
posted by Jack Cohen at 11:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home