Before this month is out, both Palestine and Israel will have formed new officially endorsed governments that do not recognize each other, thus creating a situation that is looking more and more untenable. Israeli elections are scheduled for March 28. A new Palestinian government is expected to be formed about the same time. The two sides are currently led by prime minister-designates espousing different positions. Israeli Prime Minister-designate Ehud Olmert would like to continue where Ariel Sharon left off, which amounted to pulling out of the occupied Gaza Strip in 2005 as part of a unilateral plan that circumvented negotiations with the Palestinians.
Olmert’s recently broached plan to establish Israel’s permanent borders through unilateral withdrawals from select West Bank settlements is his promise to continue Sharon’s legacy. However, while the plan might make political sense for Kadima — the party Sharon founded with Olmert now carrying its torch — it has very little chance of leading to the two-state peace accord Palestinians seek. The Olmert plan would leave 250,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, prolong a military occupation that regularly humiliates Palestinians and makes daily life infuriatingly difficult; it also carves up the territory left to Palestinians in a way that makes the formation of a viable state practically impossible.
Hamas, with Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh at the helm, seeks resistance to Israel, a position it believes will be an improvement on Fatah which, for more than a decade, never made a peace deal with Israel that worked. There is little doubt that the opening showdown last week between Hamas and Fatah in the legislative council is certain to enforce an already strong belief within Fatah to boycott the next government. Should that happen, contact between Palestine and Israel will never be initiated. From the moment of Hamas’ victory, Olmert has insisted that Israel’s terms for dealing with the next Palestinian government must be recognition of the Jewish state, disarmament and adherence to previous agreements — conditions that Israel itself has never met. The problem is that the more Israel becomes inured to a Hamas government, the more untenable the conditions become.
This situation might not make much of a difference. Israel under Sharon was not negotiating with the Palestinians when Fatah of President Mahmoud Abbas was in charge; now that Hamas is forming a government, Israel is still not talking to the Palestinians while deciding for itself what and what not to cede. As the outlines of Olmert’s plans emerge, it looks increasingly clear that they do not leave the Palestinians with much.
The Israeli government chosen on March 28 will have a better chance of achieving secure permanent borders if it proposes negotiations toward a peace accord. It is a mistake for Olmert to cite the electoral triumph of Hamas as justification for taking unilateral action. It might be satisfying for Israelis to opt for unilateral moves, but such moves cannot resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, and so cannot bring Israel genuine security.
