Israel Matzav

Source of European idea to undermine Israeli control of Area C?

In an earlier post, I reported that the European Union has decided to undermine the agreed Israeli sovereignty over Area C, in violation of the Oslo accords, and hinted that the United States was likely to follow suit in the event that Barack Hussein Obama is reelected (God forbid) later this year. I have since come upon a source who may have inspired the Europeans. He is none other than Dennis Ross, Obama's former adviser on Iran and a long-time peace processor who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Peace, a think-tank that is considered pro-Israel. This is from last Friday's Washington Post.

What could demonstrate to the Palestinians that the occupation is receding? Examples are not hard to come by. Since the interim agreement of the Oslo process was finalized in 1995, the West Bank has been divided into non-contiguous areas known as A, B and C — with the Palestinians having putative control in Area A and Israel retaining overall responsibility in the two other areas. From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 2002, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) largely stayed out of Area A, which constitutes about 18 percent of the territory and includes all the major cities in the West Bank. According to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians are to have civil and security responsibility in this area.

But in 2002, at the height of the second intifada and the horrendous suicide bombings that Palestinians were executing in Israel, the IDF began operating in Area A again to try to stop the attacks. Though the intifada ended in 2005 and Palestinian security forces have been generally effective in preventing terror attacks, the IDF still carries out periodic incursions into Palestinian cities to reinforce local security efforts. This grates on Palestinians, reminding them who remains in control.

So, one meaningful step would be either to stop all such incursions in Area A or, if there are continuing security concerns, to phase them out based on the security situation. Gabi Ashkenazi, former chief of staff of the IDF, has consistently said that “as the Palestinians do more on security, we will do less.” A gradual ending of incursions in Area A would certainly be consistent with that axiom.

In Area B, about 22 percent of the West Bank, Palestinian police maintain law and order but are not permitted to deal with terrorist threats. Israel could allow their presence to grow. From my discussions with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, I know that he is open to increasing the number of Palestinian police stations and broadening the areas where Palestinian security personnel operate. Now would be a good time to take these steps, as any such expansion would certainly be noticed, and welcomed, by the Palestinian public.

Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.

To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A, but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.

Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy. (In the West Bank, unemployment has come down in recent years but remains at about 16 percent.)

From reading former Prime Minister Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in 1995, it seems likely that what Rabin intended was to set up a 'Palestinian autonomy' in Area A, leave Area C in the hands of Israel, and to reach some sort of compromise about Area B. At the time, Rabin's opponents warned that he would not be able to put a stop to the concessions, and that Israel would eventually face demands to retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, and to acquiesce to a 'Palestinian state.'

Rabin's opponents are being proven correct. What's worse is that it is happening without any Arab recognition of the right of Jews to a state anywhere on Israel's territory - just like the three noes of Khartoum: No recognition, no negotiations, and no peace with Israel.

And all this under the guidance of one of our supposed 'friends.'

What could go wrong?

Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Dennis Ross, Three no's of Khartoum

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:56 PM