Haaretz
Cheshvan 13, 5765
Palestinian Authority
Chairman Yasser Arafat's departure from the scene would bring about a
significant transformation in both the Israeli and Palestinian political
scene.
The claim that "there is no partner," which has formed the
basis of Israeli foreign policy over the past four years and justified the
refusal to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, would depart together
with him.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement
plan would lose the central justification for its existence - the lack of
a Palestinian partner.
Only one day after the Knesset approved the
disengagement plan and the dramatic schism took place in the Likud
leadership, all the circumstances appear to be suddenly changing.
One can already hear Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom navigating a
compromise proposal: postponing disengagement until a new and stable
Palestinian leadership is formed that would take over the Gaza Strip by
agreement.
Shalom supported the "disengagement with a partner"
from the beginning, and now it can be used to bring Benjamin Netanyahu,
Limor Livnat and their supporters back to their chairs and to calm down
the rebellion in the party.
The American president who will be
elected Tuesday would be free of the dilemma that has tied down U.S.
policy in the region: How to renew the political process with the
problematic Arafat stuck in the middle.
With European
encouragement, Washington would be able to renew its involvement and lead
the negotiations between Israel and Arafat's successors, particularly if
John Kerry is elected.
Sharon would be required to begin
negotiations immediately if the Palestinian leadership is taken over by
moderates like Abu Mazen, who has not been involved in
terror.
Arafat's successors would have to renew talks on a final
agreement and not make do with the interim solutions proposed by Sharon.
They would agree to put an end to the conflict and set up a state if
Israel withdraws to the pre-1967 borders more or less and would get wide
international support for an independent state.
As a first step,
Israel would be called upon to make gestures to enable the new leadership
to settle in - opening up roads, freeing prisoners, genuinely freezing
settlements.
Sharon would claim that as long as the situation is
not clear and the new leadership is not stabilized, no risks can be taken.
Undoubtedly he can win some time until he is forced to discuss difficult
issues such as borders, Jerusalem and refugees. But the claim about "chaos
in the PA" would shake the disengagement initiative and make it difficult
to withdraw. How is it possible to withdraw if there is no
order?
At the same time, Sharon would demand that the road map be
followed to the word and that negotiations be postponed until terror,
violence and incitement are completely contained. Meanwhile, he may want
to carry out the disengagement unilaterally.
The international
community would find it difficult to accept this for fear that Sharon is
returning to the "seven days of silence" maneuver that held up the
diplomatic dialogue at the start of his term of office. Israel would be
expected to transfer control in the territories in an orderly manner,
otherwise, it would be accused of responsibility for a
disaster.
But from one point of view, Sharon is close to being able
to check off an item on his list. For years he has been hoping for the
death of his perpetual adversary, Arafat. Every time Sharon found himself
in a crisis, and his chair was unsteady, it seemed as if Arafat would
remain in power while he would return to the Sycamore Ranch. Now it
appears that is one nightmare Sharon no longer needs to live
with.