The Myth of Unilateralism

What Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is attempting

to pull off through unilateralism is historically

unprecedented - to take a disputed territory and mark

its own borders without taking in to account historical aspirations, negotiations or international law. Convergence is a public relations term rather than something to be taken seriously as diplomacy.

It will never be a sustainable course of action. It

will more than likely perpetuate the vicious circle

which has gone on since 1993 and could stoke the fires

of a third intifada.

But then again, nothing about this conflict is about

logic or reason or trying to find peace. It is about

the distortions of systems and processes driven by the

Israeli right wing, the needs of US foreign policy and

to a degree by the lethargic acquiescence of the

European Union. It is also about the management of

fundamentalisms - an attempt to find order amongst

disorder. As the prevailing theme in Israeli

political life, the conflict has become normalized

along a dangerous strain of thinking where the

majority now support the ethnic transfer of Israeli

Arabs.

The question of Labor leader Amir Peretz still remains

open - is he prince or puppet? The darling of the

Israeli Left is now Defense Minister in charge of

authorizing targeted assassinations and home

demolitions.

Former US President Jimmy Carter writing in USA Today

about the plan said "It is inconceivable that any

Palestinian, Arab leader, or any objective member of

the international community could accept this illegal

action as a permanent solution to the continuing

altercation in the Middle East. This confiscation of

land is to be carried out without resorting to peace

talks with the Palestinians, and in direct

contravention of the 'road map for peace,' which

President Bush helped to initiate and has strongly

supported."

Olmert's motivation in moving to convergence is to

avoid a series of internal divisions. During the lead

up to decision-making related to the disengagement

from Gaza, Haaretz writer Aluf Benn recently reported

that Olmert suppported the evacuation of 17 West Bank

settlements. A disengagement of that size and larger

could cost as much as 25 billion US dollars. It could

start as soon as the summer of 2007 and could take up

to two years to complete. Maintaining a coalition

through this period would be difficult for Kadima.

Even at the end of this process, the Palestinians

would still not accept the final status borders. With

a change in the US Administration in early 2009, there

is no guarantee that the new leader will accept such a

deviation from the Roadmap to Peace that both Ariel

Sharon and Ehud Olmert have tried to fashion into a

new reality. Bush has given Olmert the green light to

move.

What will be building up over the next two years is an

increasingly vocal call for economic sanctions against

Israel largely led by churches and labour unions in

North America and Europe. As Israeli public policy

has willfully championed the use of time to solidify

new realities on the ground such as the expansion of

West Bank settlements and the construction of the

Separation Wall, Israel will be held to a new standard

as their cyclical strategy of denouncing the

Palestinian leadership will be increasingly called

into question.

The next four years seem to be about passing time

rather than making peace. Israel has to get back to

the negotiating table or the gig is up.

Ironically, Kosovo and Montenegro in the former

Yugoslavia are closer to achieving independence than

the Palestinians are.