Haaretz
Adar2 18, 5765
The desire to avoid doing anything that might
sabotage the prime minister's political efforts to achieve a majority for
the disengagement plan has postponed the public debate about the final
border with the Palestinians. But no matter how strong the desire to
support Ariel Sharon at this stage and to postpone debate over the future
of the settlements to a later stage, it is difficult to accept the
revelation that the government plans to build another 3,500 housing units
in the area known as E-1, between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, and thus
obstruct the territorial contiguity needed for a Palestinian state,
something Sharon has already agreed on.
The construction plan for
Ma'aleh Adumim is the basis for a new dispute between Israel and the U.S.
and between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Approval of the
construction plans could cloud the atmosphere between Israel and the PA,
and even spark a renewal of violence. It is impossible to continue
demanding of the Palestinians that they prevent terror when Israel is not
keeping its commitments to suspend all settlement activity.
The map
of a solution between Israel and the Palestinians is already more or less
clear, along broad lines. For a decade there has been talk of "settlement
blocs" that would be annexed to Israel as part of a final agreement. Ever
since, after the prime minister made the political change that gave birth
to the disengagement plan, there has not been a significant difference
between the maps of Sharon, Ehud Barak and Yossi Beilin. The Americans
also agree that settlement blocs remain, and the Palestinians have also
agreed to that in exchange for territorial compensation.
The heart
of the dispute now is the size of those blocs and their boundaries. Sharon
apparently wants to keep shaping the blocs up until the last moment, to
thereby annex into the settlements more land. Thus, every American attempt
to map the settlements in cooperation with Israel has failed so
far.
Ma'aleh Adumim is a large town, with more than 40,000
residents. Presumably, the chance that it will be evacuated is nil. The
question of what will happen to the territory between it and Jerusalem
must be determined in the negotiations with the Palestinians.
Logic says the area should be preserved for Palestinian
construction. Israel should not be interested in blocking the connection
between the northern and southern parts of the West Bank, and it should
leave open negotiations about the Palestinian capital, the special status
of the Temple Mount and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Presumably
the negotiations over Jerusalem and its environs will be part of the
difficult process of shaping an agreement. An addition, or even the
planning of new housing in sensitive areas without taking into account the
needs of the other side, is not wise.
The question whether the
Americans are winking their agreement or deliberately ignoring Israel's
new expansionist intentions is not the point. A demonstration of some
sensitivity toward the Palestinians at this fragile state of the
relationship is far more important than adding any new
territories.