Only a short while ago, all pro-Israel (at least those centre to right of centre) bloggers were in almost complete agreement with one another. Today, two distinct groups have emerged - those that accept Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan, and those that don't accept it. Good arguments have been made by both sides and the debate has generally been rational and reasonable. It's worth noting that the very existence of this newfound disagreement between the pro-Israel blogs is evidence that Israel is making painful, difficult and potentially compromising (in terms of their security) decisions in order to move towards a possible end of conflict. When everyone agrees, nothing is happening. Disagreement is a sign that things are moving ahead (or behind as others may argue) - all the while nothing seems to change in the Palestinian camp. It's a pity that Israel isn't receiving the credit due for even considering these moves.
Arguments for and against the disengagement are often provided, but here is a quick look at what the disengagement plan actually is - as described by the Israeli government.
1. General
Israel has concluded that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement, based on the following considerations:
i. The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation.
ii. The assumption is that, in any future permanent status arrangement, there will be no Israeli towns and villages in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas which will be part of the State of Israel, including cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel.
iii. The relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria (as delineated on Map) will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions.
iv. The hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement to break out of the cycle of violence and reengage in a process of dialogue.
v. The process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
When there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue.
2. Main elements
Gaza Strip
Israel will evacuate the Gaza Strip, including all existing Israeli towns and villages, and will redeploy outside the Strip. This will not include military deployment in the area of the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt ("the Philadelphi Route"). Upon completion of this process, there will no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or civilians in the evacuated areas of Gaza Strip territory. Thus there will be no basis for claiming that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory.
West Bank
1. Israel will evacuate an area in the Northern Samaria Area including 4 villages and all military installations, and will redeploy outside the vacated area.
2. On completion of this process, there will no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or civilians in the Northern Samaria Area.
3. The move will enable territorial contiguity for Palestinians in the Northern Samaria Area.
4. Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation.
5. The process will facilitate Palestinian economic and commercial activity in the West Bank.
The implications of this plan for the Jewish residents of the areas to be evacuated are difficult to bear - the Israeli Courts ruled that the evacuation does amount to a violation of their human rights but still ruled in favour of the plan submitting that the interests of the State must be put before the interests of individuals.
Israel will continue to build the security fence, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court. The route will take into account humanitarian considerations.
Comments