Ha'aretz English edition fails to run Shavit's 2nd article against
retreat plan

Dr. Aaron Lerner 25 March 2006

Ari Shavit's March 14 article, "Olmert's arrogance", (repeated
below), is probably the most eloquent - and disturbing - attack
by any Israeli against Acting PM Olmert's retreat plan.

So when Shavit's column in the Friday 24 March Hebrew edition of
Haaretz carried a follow-up debate between Shavit and Haim Ramon,
it was only natural to expect the folks in charge of the English
edition to dutifully translate and publish the article - even if
it provided strong ammunition against their own support for retreat
to the '67 lines.

But instead of running the article so that those who don't read
Hebrew could also be exposed to possibly the most interesting
debate of the election campaign, the English edition ran an old
piece from earlier this week.

The Hebrew article can be found at

www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=697984&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0

In it Shavit patiently explains to Ramon that he is ignoring
the profound significance of Palestinian sovereignty and how if
Israel retreats from the bulk of the West Bank that it is
inevitable that a well armed sovereign Hamas state will form and
exploit its sovereignty to not only prevent Israel from taking the
simplistic action Ramon suggests ["What kindof war will there be?
The IDF with all of its ability against 3,000 - 4,000 Hamas men
barely armed?(AL: not a typo - "3,000 - 4,000" rather than the
at least 50,000 - 70,000 trained armed men Hamas will now have
under its control) If the Palestinians create any threat I
conquer the West Bankwithin 24 hours." ] but to seriously threaten
Israel's existence

.================

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.