The fence, colonies and the Palestinian choice

The decision of Prime Minister Sharon to evacuate most of the colonies in Gaza and several in the West Bank offers the Palestinians an opportunity to resume peace negotiations with Israel in earnest. Yet, for peace efforts to go forward, Sharon must realise that he cannot have both security and colonies by building a wall separating Israelis from Palestinians in the West Bank.

When he came to power more than three years ago, Sharon never imagined that some day he would support the erection of such a wall. But nearly three-and-a half years of intense violence, especially suicide bombings, have gradually convinced him that only physical separation can protect his people from the wanton violence that has left every Israeli with deep emotional scars.

In deciding whether to build a wall, Sharon had to find a way to deal with the Israeli colonies that would be left on the Palestinian side once construction is completed. And, of course, he had to consider the wall's effect on the peace process.

To deal with these dual problems, Sharon decided to incorporate as many colonies as he deemed viable in terms of security and demographic considerations by extending the wall in various places into the West Bank beyond the 1967 lines.

In the process, he also created the initial outlines of a future political border with which he can live, allowing for some minor modifications, should peace negotiations resume.

Still, the decision to evacuate even a single colony assaults every fibre of Sharon's being. While his decision should be applauded in principle, he will sooner than later realise that he cannot have a wall to keep the Palestinians out while leaving a substantial number of Israeli colonies in the West Bank. Such an outcome will be nothing less than a security nightmare, challenging the very premise on which the wall is built.

There are three groups of colonies adjacent to Jerusalem that occupy about three per cent of the West Bank land mass that may be incorporated into Israel proper under any possible peace accord with the Palestinians.

Whether Sharon accepts just that, which was agreed upon at Camp David in the Summer of 2000, is not known. What is important is that he subscribes to the notion that an Israeli withdrawal from some territory is a pre-requisite for any type of co-existence.

Displacement

As to the relocation of the rest of the colonies in West Bank, this becomes only on a question of time. The Palestinians should build on the proposal rather than denounce it. Obviously, the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to fear that the wall may be a means by which Sharon annexes more territory and water resources.

And they may well equally fear that its by-product will be further displacement of more Palestinians, causing tremendous economic dislocation and daily hardship. That said, the fact remains that Israeli forces will withdraw from Palestinian territory and colonists will be removed, both of which the Palestinians have sought for so long.

The only way the Palestinian National Authority, PNA, can make the wall obsolete is if it ends violence and continues to press politically for further Israeli withdrawal. Its leaders must realise that if Sharon had the choice he would not be supporting the wall because he never before contemplated complete withdrawal from the West Bank.

Security, and security alone, is the critical factor behind the wall, and it has forced Sharon to re-think his earlier position. The Palestinian leadership must stop kidding themselves by disregarding security as Sharon's main motivation in this situation.

Neither the International Court of Justice, ICJ in The Hague nor the Israeli Supreme Court, which are looking into the legality of the wall, can change anything unless the Palestinians come to grips with the problem of violence.

Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and from some Israeli colonies in the West Bank provides them with a great opportunity to change course. The Palestinian leadership must understand that once Sharon moves to re-locate or dismantle the first colony, his hard-core right-wing coalition partners will most likely defect and his government will fall.

Progress

Labour, which wholeheartedly supports even partial withdrawal, will join Sharon by forming a national unity government with Likud. Such a prospect will leave the door open for future negotiations and further withdrawals, which the Palestinians should welcome.

The Bush administration is likely to support the Sharon initiative on the condition that it remains consistent with one of the key goals of the peace plan known as the "road map" - to ensure future progress towards a Palestinian state.

Sharon himself is very keen on co-ordinating his strategy with that of the United States. He views this as essential to the health of the critically important bilateral relationship between the two nations and for garnering wider international support for his plan.

The PNA has now another opportunity to work with the Bush administration to press Sharon for total evacuation of all the colonies in Gaza as phase one, while pressing Hamas and Islamic Jihad to forsake violence.

Only such an approach, one built on a sustained commitment to end violence, will bring the wall down. This time the Palestinians should not allow their instinct to suspect everything that Sharon does to betray their ultimate national interests.

Alon Ben-Meir is the Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute, New York. He is also a professor of International Relations at New York University.