In Israel there is a wall being erected right now around the West Bank that will be followed by withdrawal of the Israeli Defense Forces from the territories which are planned to be ceded to Palestinian Authority (PA). Constructing the fence it the right way- that would benefit both sides- could achieve many objectives: reduce infiltration of suicide bombers into Israel, thus reducing the violence, and perhaps bring Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
Before this happens, however, the fence would serve as a provisional border, that later can be revised if the Palestinians make a substantial progress in stopping the terrorism and will be willing to restart cooperation. In addition to the security reasons, there is also a demographic factor that has been second most important one contributing to the Israeli support of the fence. The current proposal for the two-state solution is not a recent creation, neither it is an outcome of current intifada.As a matter of fact the idea of separating Arabs from Jews goes back as far as the Peel's Commission's report on Palestine in 1937. 0 years later, in 1947 the UN resolution on partition called for establishment of two separate states linked with economic union. In both cases the idea was supported by the mainstream Zionists (except the precursors of the Likud) and refused by the Palestinians.
The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in his pre-1992 election speech remarked on the need for Israel to "take Gaza out of Tel Aviv"- to create two separate entities. This approach led him to signing Washington peace accords with Palestinian Authority on the 13 September 1993.Later, in 1994, after a series of terrorist attacks he declared: "We have to decide on separation as a philosophy. There has to be a clear border.
Without the border demarcating the lines, whoever wants to swallow 1. 8 million Arabs will just bring greater support for Hamas. " As a result a commission was establish to decide about the best way to build the fence, later the fence arouse around Gaza to correspond with the handling over control of the area accordingly with the Washington peace accords. However, the idea died with the assassination of Rabin.
The next two PMs decided not to implement it, though for a different reasons.The Palestinians usually opposed any solution that was accepted by Israel's authorities according to the zero sum game theory they favor. Now after a long absence of any kind of bilateral peace talks, after the collapse of road map peace plan, and Israeli unilateral actions of disengagement by building the fence, it is important to involve third party in order to secure the minimization of the hardship for the Palestinians who will be left on the Israeli territory, and the Israeli settlers that will stay on the Eastern side of the west bank, after the fence will be completed.The international involvement will be also crucial due to weakening of the already fragile position of the Yaser Arafat. Therefore if the Israelis withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, as they claim to do, it is unclear whether Arafat's loyalists, or other, much more extreme people- in Hamas will fill the void. And that, in turn, will hardly be the best way to get the parties back on the almost -out- of- sight American- and European- - backed "road map" to peace.
Oslo and The Road Map fails to focus on occupation, but instead concentrates on Palestinian Violence and how to extinguish it as if that violence emerged from vacuum"1 It has to be admitted that it was due to the loss of the confidence in the ability of peace process to deliver a permanent agreement that had impact on the level of Palestinian support for violence against Israel, including suicide bombers. In this paper I will try to present ideas for the solution that should result in not just resolving the problem but also benefiting the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the whole Middle East region.Polish Involvement Ever since the historic visit of Walesa to Isreal in may 1991, and by his symbolic speech opening of the new chapter in bilateral relations Poland was engaged in developing relations between the two countries. However, the first decade after communism, the Israeli-Polish relations were dominated by empty declaration, never followed by any significant actions.
The economic relation, on the other hand has always been characterized by an enormous deficit of payment on the Polish side. Present economic relations are also affected right now by a very tense current situation in the Middle East.The relations as they were till 2000 were dominated by trade, economic cooperation, culture, exchange of youth and scientists and so on. The political cooperation was practically non-existent. The only big success of Polish foreign policy in regards with Israel was Israel's and Jewish organizations' support of the Polish aims to join NATO.
Since 2002 Poland's relations with Israel were dominated by issues concerning contemprorary situation in the Middle East. Poland got actively engaged in finding peacful means of resolving Israeli-Palestinain conflict.Warsaw was offered as a site for future peace talks. Later Israeli company won a contract for delivering missiles for Polish Defense Forces. Poland's participation in the invasion of Iraq, changed this country's image in Israel, however the Eastern Europe is still seen through painful past, including holocaust. This will change also through the participation of countries like Poland and Hungary in the coalition against terror.
Nevertheless, the active participation in the process of stabilization of the Middle East region should be of the main concerns of Poland's foreign policy right now.By doing it Poland will simply follow the current policy and be consequent of its previous actions i. e. engagement in invasion of Iraq. What is more, active participation in the Palestinian-Israeli dialog will increase the county's visibility in the world, strengthen its position on the arena of international politics, and most of all in the European Union.
Further on, providing that the following recommendations will be successfully implemented, the results will bring possibility to establish economic relations with Arab countries, and strengthen the bond we already have with Israel and the United States of America.The possibilities that such relations might bring for our economic and political development are simply unlimited. American ledership? The United States of America have always been involved in the peace mediation between the nations of Israel and Palestine. American leaders, however, always lacked determination and deep commitment to fulfill their role as leaders of the peace making attempts that have taken place in the past. They have done too little to persuade Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate since they unfurled that road map two years ago.
With the growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East region resolving the problem should be on the top of the agenda. "Anti Americanism, for Palestinian leaders, has functioned as a smoke screen to cover up for their own rejection of compromise peace offers from Israel, and as a way to mobilize Arab backing"2 What, then Washington should do? "U. S. policy makers should understand, that various public relation efforts, apologies(...
)policy shift will not do away anti-Americanism. Only when the system that manufacture and encourage anti-Americanism fails will the popular opinion also change.In the interim, the most Washington can do is show the world that the U. S. is steadfast in support of its interests and its allies. This approach should include both standing by Israel and maintaining good relations with moderate Arab states- which should be urged to do more publicly to justify U.
S. support. Steadfastness and bravery remain the best way to undermine the political impact of Arab anti-Americanism. "American role is crucial, but there are also other conditions that have to be met.
3basic conditions Firstly, for the good beginning, as mentioned above, we need U. S. unconditional commitment to the peace process. Secondly, PA must achieve, between the old guard and the young guard unity of purpose.
In addition there is an urgent need for Palestinian apparatus to crack down on terrorism. Finally, Israeli government that does not want greater Israel, that wants to return territories seized after in 1967, and to accept land swap, also Sharon's policy 'no negotiations under fire' that gave a veto power to the most extreme among Palestinian terror groups has to go. What is the plan?The United States should lead an international push to create a trustesheep for Palestine. This could lead to creation of a responsible and accountable Palestinian political partner and effective Palestinian security compatibility, thereby triggering the appropriate Israeli response. Conditions for such a trustesheep should be established beforehand in multilateral agreement, along with procedures for judging the fulfillment of the conditions. Withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied territory should be followed by exchanging them for trustee's forces.
It should be done in a way that the latter would be portrayed as liberators rather than enemies. Very important will be gaining support of the populace. In the present circumstances I would say it is crucial. To do that U. S. -led force would have to be presented as defenders of the Palestinians rather then as defenders of the Israelis per se.
Trusteesheep would be responsible for relocating of some of the settlements. Moreover, it would take appropriate steps to change school's curriculum to promote coexistence and elimination of the incitement from the media.Naturally Israel would have to take reciprocal steps. It would be designed to stave off disaster on the Palestinian side of the fence.
Another role that the trusteeship will need to play is gathering international aid for the Palestinians, and promotion of the economic development for the newly establish entity. What fence? To start with, for Israel, to remain Jewish and democratic the fence has to be built in a way that would avoid absorbing areas or population groups that would undermine its Jewish majority. There are right now four proposals for the fence.The first one is the buffer fence, currently supported by the Israeli government. It would leave Palestinians living in five enclaves west of the fence( around 100,000 people), which would be connected to the West Bank by underpasses and checkpoints.
Second option, the encirclement fence, showed on the PLO's web site, would leave Palestinians only with the land allocated to them under the Oslo process- around 53 percent of the West Bank- Palestinians worst nightmare. However, for the Likud, such a solution would remain true to Sharon's commitment to retain the Jordan Valley.Jordan Valley is considered crucial for Israel's security. This theory is supported by the fact, that in the past armies of Iraq, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel over this eastern frontier.
Third option is the one proposed by President Clinton in December 2000. Clinton wanted Israeli withdrawal from around 94-96 percent of the West Bank; the rest would accommodate 74 percent of the settlers. This proposal is very similar to the fence that is being under construction now (the number of population). The main difference is that Clinton planned for Israel to annex only 5 percent of the land not 14,5.The last option is the Geneva Accords.
According to this plan Israel would give up 98. 5 percent of the land , what would leave 100 percent of the Palestinians on the Palestinian side. However, this would leave around 100,000 Israelis on the wrong side. The following maps illustrate the four abovementioned projects. The tables illustrate the projects in numbers. In light of those numbers, the U.
S. -led coalition should support the fence that is being under construction right now-the Ministry of Defence Fence.This fence will make enforce on Palestinians fighting with terrorists. Washington should also insist that must not build the fence on the east side of the west Bank as this will hinder a contiguous Palestine state. From the begining of its existance Israelis have been choosing demographics over georaphy. Also today most of the population of Israel prefer Jewish democratic state and partition from the West Bank and Gaza.
Which of the four scenarios will come true depends on how the fence is build. If done properly it will provide security for Israel.If not done properly it can lead to the destruction of the state as a Jewish by preserving binationalism. Considering how much people on both sides have suffered during years of current intifada, it seems that seperating the nations for the time being seems to be the only way to bring them together in the future. 4 "Although it may be painful initially- indeed, the economic dislocation may be severe- separation should ultimately profit both sides. And it will help create the conditions that may ultimately lead to the final negotiated peace between Israel and Palestinians.
"5
