The Appropriate Palestinian 5-Point Response To Sharon's Threat By Ali Al Jarbawi

Aljazeerah Info Center needs your support

Send donations by check to: Al-Jazeerah Info Center, P.O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30722-0724, USA.

Those who believe that a major change has happened in Sharon's ideology and vision of a political settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are very mistaken. The opposite is true. His speech at the Hertzilia conference should be viewed as the means through which he regained control over the initiative for the region. In the speech, Sharon sent a warning to the Palestinian Authority: either negotiate on the principles of a Sharonist Roadmap (which includes 14 modifications), whereby according to it, the Palestinians obtain a state within the separation wall, or Sharon will take unilateral measures to severe ties, giving Palestinians control over land that is even less than that. This is what is available and the option is left to the Palestinians to make such a difficult choice.

They are locked in a tight margin because the Zionist mind from the extreme left to the extreme right has a limited vision. The reason is that this mind is a racist and solitary mind established on the principles of forming a Jewish state free from the Palestinian race. When it was not possible to make Palestine free from its native Palestinians, specifically after the 1967 war, Zionist ideas started appearing to accomplish what is possible. In return for the pragmatic Leftist Zionist mind, which produced many suggestions accepting the principle of establishing a Palestinian state within a land that has different sizes in the West Bank and Gaza, Sharon called for throwing the Palestinians out and making Jordan their home instead. However when he became convinced that this couldn't be possible, specifically after the Oslo Accords and the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, he started working on squeezing the Palestinians in the smallest piece of Palestinian land, in order to later give them freedom to govern themselves in a land that could be called the Palestinian state.

However according to Sharon or even the radical Israeli left, this state cannot be completely independent and will certainly not include all the land that was occupied in 1967. This is why the construction of the wall came to divide the West Bank and turn it into a group of isolated parts in which the largest majority of the Palestinians of the occupied land.

Therefore the frightening obsession of Israel and the Israelis is embodied in the future political effect on the demographic factor, which threatens Israel's preservation of its Jewish character. In addition to squeezing the Palestinians, this matter will also lead to politically eliminating them and seceding from them. As for Israel, the most important task for the Palestinian Authority is to establish a committee separated from it, which takes the responsibility of its political nationality and legislation for Palestine and therefore protect it from the dangers of this demographic factor, which is destructive to its existence.

With a situation like this how can it be possible to face the Israeli plan that aims at eliminating the Palestinian cause and at the same time confront Sharon's threat in his speech, which is based on squeezing the Palestinians within isolations inside the wall?

Assuming that the minimum limit for an acceptable political compromise with Israel is formed on the principle of the official declared position which calls for ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state with complete sovereignty and independence on the lines of the 1967 and finding an acceptable solution for the case of the refugees according to international and legal principles knowing that with Israel continuing the settlement operation will not allow this target to be accomplished. Therefore, any kind of negotiations with Sharon will be considered by the Palestinians as ineffective and will only benefit the Israelis. On top of all, the Palestinians guarantees will not lead to a positive Israeli position in this compromise. Israel's power adds to its arrogance and makes it feel unthreatened and therefore set the demands and conditions which most of the time leads the Palestinian side to offer compromises from their behalf.

The Palestinian side does not have to comply with the Israeli demands and conditions unless it is weak and has no other option. However it is a fact the Palestinians do have other options but these options depend on the price paid to switch from one option to another. The important question: is the Palestinian side prepared to pay the price of the other option?

The Palestinians should confront Israel with threats rather than continue to make compromises if they want to end the occupation and regain their sovereignty. This threat should be made official demanding a meeting with the Prime Minister in the presence of politicians where the meeting will be publicly broadcasted and focusing on the following points:

1- Adopting a political settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the two-state solution.

2- This state should be independent and based according to the 1967 lines. Anything less wouldn't be approved by the Palestinians.

3- The deadline given to Israel to decide if it is willing to end this conflict based on such solution is only six months. Israel should also prove its determination to end this conflict by stopping the construction of the wall and the settlement operations. During this period, the Palestinian side will respect the ceasefire.

4- If Israel is does not comply with such compromise, then this ends any chances for the two-state solution. This is where the Palestinians will have to retreat to their other option, which is imposed by Israel, and that is the option of one state.

5- In order to move towards the option of one state imposed by Israel, the Palestinian side will dissolve the Palestinian Authority at the end of the time limit, leaving Israel fully responsible for all the outcomes of its Palestinian occupation and the deterioration of the situation.

5- Israel should be aware that the option of one state will launch the political effect for the demographic factor and it should tolerate the expected results to that. Either the separation based on the solution of establishing an independent state on the 1967 occupied Palestinian land or to lose what it is working very hard for which is the Judaism of the Jewish state.

This is the initiative that Palestinian side should take instead of accepting the Israeli demands. Israel will not approve to the Palestinian demands unless it feels that this will lead to a very negative impact on it.

The suggestion of one state is required in order to obtain the option of two states based on the minimum Palestinian limit that is officially announced. However for the suggestion of the one state option to be taken seriously, the Palestinian side must make the possibility of dissolving the Palestinian authority a personal matter and effective. Therefore is it possible for the Authority to seriously consider this? This is the strategic question that needs to be answered.

Ali Al Jarbawi is the Secretary General of the Central Elections Committee overseeing the upcoming Palestinian presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections.