Tom Friedman argues Sunday, for not the first time, that Israel needs to withdraw from the settlements. He recommends that Israel negotiate a withdrawal similar to the Clinton plan, and if that does not work, to withdraw unilaterally.  Friedman must be a lousy card player.

Why would the Palestinians negotiate if Israel is willing to give them all of the West Bank and Gaza if they don't negotiate?
 
Ariel Sharon has made it clear that either negotiations will move towards a settlement in the next six months or he will take unilateral steps, which will include abandoning some settlements, and creating a new Israeli Palestinian separation line.  Now Friedman would likely disagree with Sharon about where a line should be drawn, but Sharon, unlike Barak before him, or Friedman today, has not given away the store before the Palestinians have a chance to reject it. A good card player keeps his cards covered. 

Friedman seems to believe that the rest of the world will hate Israel less if it withdraws, and abandons the West Bank and Gaza. Since the rest of the world, other than the United States, seems to take its lead on Israel from the reactions of the Palestinians and the Arab world, what is the likelihood that they will accept what Israel leaves for the Palestinians, even it if were all of the territories, if there is no right of return for millions of refugees, and a wall separates the two peoples? 

The right of return, which in essence means the end of a Jewish state, has always been the Palestinian and Arab goal. That is why the Camp David and Taba offers were not nearly enough.  With each offer, Israel gave the Palestinians pretty much all the land for a Palestinian state, and asked the Palestinians to agree that the conflict between the two sides was then over.  That of course was not possible, since this conflict will not end with a two state solution. The demand for a right of return is there for one purpose only — to insure that there is never a negotiated settlement, or end to the conflict. 

Sharon, I believe, understands the futility of negotiations. Israel's great mistake was bringing Arafat and his terrorist cronies back from Tunisia in 1993. An indigenous Palestinian leadership had emerged during the first intifada. They might have been willing to compromise to achieve better lives for the Palestinians.

Arafat has never been a builder of anything for the Palestinians. His goal is, and always has been, to destroy Israel. This has never changed. Israelis hoped for a new Arafat after Oslo. But there is no new Arafat, and there won't be in the future. There will also be no new Hamas, and no Islamic Jihad and no new Hizbollah.

Sharon understands the demographic argument that Friedman, and many others have made (one thing Friedman is not is original). He also understands that the IDF has a challenging task protecting lots of small interior settlements. So he will likely pull back from some of them. In the area that Israel retains, there will be no demographic nightmare.
 
But Sharon will not unilaterally withdraw from the borders of the West Bank or Gaza with other Arab states — Rafah, or the Jordan Valley for instance. That would be an invitation for unimpeded smuggling of ever more dangerous weapons into the Palestinian terror entity to use to shoot down Israeli commercial jets, or fire rockets with WMDs. Massive killing of Jews, after all, is part of the Palestinian plan. The new security fence, and a new line of separation threaten the use of the terror weapon against Israel. This is why the Palestinians are fighting it so fiercely.

The fence would also cut off economic opportunity in Israel for Palestinian laborers. But its impact on Palestinian incomes would be less than the damage that has been caused for the Palestinians by the intifada their leaders chose as a strategy to forestall any successful negotiations. In time, some Palestinians may desire to eat more than they desire to kill Jews. So far, this point has not been reached.

These are Sharon's considerations — Israeli security, and the destructive goals of the other side. Friedman's concerns are different t— winning another Pulitzer, adding to his cachet on the upper West Side of Manhattan, insuring that the welcome mat is thrown out to him next time he dines with the Saudi princes or Assad.

Friedman says Israeli policy is insane, and American disengagement is insane. I trust that Sharon knows what he is doing. And Bush understands Sharon's challenges, and why the Clinton effort went off the track. He will not repeat Clinton's mistakes. Friedman on the other hand wants more American engagement, which of course means leaning on Israel to follow the Friedman plan. That plan is to offer something for nothing.  Now that is insane.

Posted by Richard 01 19 04