Olmert's arrogance
By Ari Shavit Haaretz 14 March 2006
www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=olmert++settlers&itemNo=694172

In September 2000, the Palestinians began a terror offensive against Israel.
They did this because they refused to accept the Camp David proposal, which
promised them the entire Gaza Strip and 91 percent of the West Bank in
exchange for full recognition of Israel and an end to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Ehud Olmert is elected prime minister and
implements his convergence plan, then in September 2010 the Palestinians
will have sovereignty over the entire Gaza Strip and some 91 percent of the
West Bank, and all this without recognizing Israel and without ending the
conflict.

Thus will the national Palestinian movement fulfill the objectives of its
wars and obtain a full strategic resolution against the State of Israel. The
history books will record Olmert's unconditional withdrawal as the
unconditional surrender of Zionism. No, it will not be the end. But it will
be the beginning of the end. While relying on big money on one side and big
journalism on the other, Olmert will lead the country to the beginning of
the end.

At first glance, Olmert's plan appears enchanting - no fear, no hesitation,
and very Israeli. Here, we'll take our destiny in our own hands. Within
three years we'll evacuate some 80,000 settlers. Within less than five
years, we will undergo a final disengagement from the Palestinians and
converge within the borders of a flourishing lowlands country. We will
surround our existence with a high wall, which will protect us from both the
craziness of the Land of Israel and from the threat of Palestine. And so, in
one term, we will isolate ourselves from all the sickness and terrors of the
Middle East. So simple. So clear. How did we not think of this sooner. Why
did we wait so long so that the man who saved Jerusalem could also save the
State of Israel.

However, on second glance it becomes clear that the Olmert plan has a small
flaw: It has no Palestinians. This is a plan whose logic is simplistic and
patronizing. This is a plan for Israelis only, which ignores its
ramifications on Israelis. It takes an extreme unilateral position to the
point of absurdity, totally ignoring the fact that the conflict is bilateral
and the political reality is multilateral. The plan, then, is an arrogant
one, and the hubris that characterizes it is no less than the hubris of the
person who formulated it.

What Olmert plans to do in the next few years is to establish an armed Hamas
state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Via the nearly complete withdrawal, Olmert
will promise Hamas almost total control in the Palestinian state for
generations. The Palestine of Olmert will be hostile, dissatisfied and
violent. Its founding ethos will be "We've chased them out of Ofra, we'll
chase them out of Tzahala too."

Since Olmert is establishing this country without first assuring its
demilitarization, it will have significant military capability. Since he is
establishing it without removing the right of return from the agenda, it
will have a destructive claim against Israel, whose legitimacy is recognized
by the international community. The combination of political sovereignty,
military power and a commitment to demanding return will transform Olmert's
Hamas state into one that will endanger the very existence of the State of
Israel.

Despite the irony, the convergence plan will not implement the Bush vision,
but will destroy it. It will not build a stable two-state solution, but will
create an unstable reality in which an Islamic Palestinian state
systematically undermines the foundation of the Jewish democratic state.

But it is not just the stability of Israel that Olmert is endangering. He is
also endangering the regional stability. A Hamas state will accelerate
Jordan's collapse. There is no chance that the Hashemite rule will stand up
against a Palestinian state on its doorstep whose religious fervor has just
subdued the Zionists. Egypt will also be threatened. A victorious Muslim
Brotherhood republic that controls a third of Jerusalem and devours the
Temple Mount will be the beacon of zealotry for the Muslim Brotherhood in
Cairo. And in Damascus. And in Amman.

And Olmert will be supporting not only anti-Israeli terror, but also the
anti-Western revolutionary movement. His radical unilateral process will
disrupt the American strategy in the area and will bury U.S. President
George W. Bush's dream of stability and democracy in the Middle East.

The Land of Israel must be divided. The occupation must end. A two-state
solution is necessary. But the Hamas victory has made a two-state solution
more distant and more complicated. Olmert's convergence plan makes it
impossible. Therefore, if the public gives him the chance to carry out his
arrogant plan, then March 28, 2006, will go down in history. History will
remember it as the day that did not bring peace and did not bring security,
but began the end.