This is the other side of Sharon's "Gaza withdrawal" scheme.
An entire population is being brutalized and alienated beyond endurance,
and the future welfare of the Israeli people and state is being put at
risk, to satisfy a dangerous ideological urge and reward a militant
settler constituency.
It will be argued, fairly, that attacks on civilians have dropped
significantly since the erection of the wall. Even if we accept a direct,
causal connection in the short term, where does this leave us in the
longer term?
If the Palestinians fail to gain their place in the sun, the Israelis
will never be left in peace to enjoy theirs. Each holds the key to the
other's destiny. The answer to Israel's security problems is not to
tighten the screw and further inflame the passions. This will invite
perpetual conflict.
The erection of the wall is tantamount to giving up on peace - probably
still attainable on well-rehearsed terms - and to an acceptance by Israel
of a permanent international pariah status. This is not inevitable and is
in no one's interests. We should not blindly be supporting it.
Imagine that we switched on our radios one morning to learn that the
Israeli government had stopped all work on building the new (very un-
Zionistic) ghetto and declared instead its willingness in principle to
terminate in full its 37-year occupation of Palestinian lands, subject to
mutually agreed equitable land swaps and assurances on security.
The local and global repercussions of an Israeli invitation to its
neighbours to agree the modalities of such a withdrawal in the context of
a full peace arrangement would be swift and profound. It would almost
certainly trigger a new momentum. Why, then, do we not hear it?
========
Dr Tony Klug is an international relations specialist and co-vice chair
of the Arab-Jewish Forum.
This article was published in:
Jewish Chronicle 16 July 2004
Article comments