Disengagement from Gaza Can be Catalyst for Peace

By Consul General David Akov
Printed in the Seattle Times on November 16, 2004

Recent events in the Middle East have the potential to positively impact the region. Lost amongst all of the coverage of Yasser Arafat's passing was a historic 67-45 vote by Israel's parliament to authorize disengagement from the Gaza Strip and much of northern Samaria.
The plan, to pursue an incremental approach to making peace with the Palestinians, is a sincere effort to resolve a problem that has plagued the region for decades.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took considerable political and personal risks knowing that this was Israel's most realistic chance at advancing the peace process. He was able to muster an ad hoc coalition based on wide support from the Israeli public even as dissent existed within his own party.

The United States, the European Union and the United Nations are all in support of the disengagement plan. While several votes remain before the plan can go into effect, clearing this first hurdle was a major victory for Sharon and, in the end, peace.

The decision to consider such a policy came about because the Palestinian leadership refused to implement its part of the U.S.-brokered peace plan, or "road map," a document that Israel supports. With Arafat at the helm, there was no authoritative leadership willing to make sacrifices for peace; the Palestinian leadership instead continued to allow activities such as the recent terrorist attack on the largest open-air market in Tel Aviv. This unwillingness to fight terrorism only served to weaken any prospects for peace.

The goal of disengagement is simple: to eliminate much of the friction that has afflicted Israelis and Palestinians alike. This plan calls for the dismantling of settlements — something that has never been attempted in the Gaza Strip, Judea or Samaria — as well as the redeployment of Israeli forces.

The Palestinians in turn will control their own destiny in the Gaza Strip, showing the world whether or not they are able to govern themselves and control terrorist activities against Israel.

Israel stands ready to make peace with its neighbors, as long as they are not concurrently engaged in undermining the process. We are hopeful that a moderate and democratic Palestinian leadership not compromised by terror will emerge now that Arafat is no longer an impediment to the peace process. It is only through new leadership that a possibility exists to go forward toward a negotiated settlement that takes into account Palestinian national aspirations and Israeli security.

By commencing peace-making efforts through unilateral actions, Israel is not denying the eventual need for negotiations. Sharon made this abundantly clear in his speech to the Knesset shortly before the vote. He said, "The disengagement plan does not replace negotiations and is not meant to permanently freeze the situation which will be created. It is an essential and necessary step in a situation which currently does not enable genuine negotiations for peace."

Sharon deserves credit for a bold and dramatic plan that has the potential of being a catalyst for peace in the region. With changes forthcoming in the Palestinian leadership, let us hope that day will arrive soon.

 

David Akov is consul general of Israel for the Pacific Northwest region. He is based in San Francisco.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002091752_akov16.html