An Examination of Olmert's Peace Plan

The PA just rejected Olmert's most recent peace overture, due to "lack of seriousness". The overture was based on a PA takeover of Gaza. The PA, knowing it is weak, chose to reject the offer so it would not have to face its inability to fulfill the conditions of the offer. Still, it's a pity. In a region that needs peace so badly, sacrifice will be needed by all parties. The PA claims it will only accept a plan on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. But, with the land swaps in Olmert's plan, the Palestinian State would have gotten roughly the same area as 1967 borders and Olmert's peace plan did not rule out the Jerusalem capital possibility - it merely left it to be negotiated later. The Palestinians must be willing to compromise as well - is 7% of land really worth not having peace? The PA rejected the plan outright, not even expressing a willingness to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss it. This goes back to my theory that the PA is rejecting the plan to avoid pressure to take out of Gaza, which it knows it is to weak to do. The new plan was brave on the part of Olmert.

Basic summary of the plan: 93% of the West Bank goes to the Palestinians, with some land from the Negev given instead of the remaining 7% of the West Bank. An Israeli-controlled passage between Gaza and the West Bank where Palestinians can pass freely.  Right of Return to Palestine. (not Israel -except in cases where doing so would reunite families) Jerusalem to be negotiated over later.

A couple of points: 1. Yesterday, Queria, from the PA, said that if Israel continued being an obstacle to the two-state solution, the Palestinians would demand a one-state bi-national solution. Today a new peace plan is on the table....coincidence? I have no doubt this plan has been in the works for some time, but Queria played an effective political move and pressured Israel into making another step towards a peaceful 2-state solution.

2. This plan is contingent upon Fatah retaking Gaza. Problems with this: 1. Hamas, though a religious extremist organization that never officially recognized Israel's right to exist, won Western-backed elections. So what does this say - that elections are only legitimate if the right person wins? 2. Is Fatah strong enough to retake Gaza? They seem to have trouble just holding on to the West Bank. Assuming the answer is no, will Israel help Fatah by giving them weapons and training, or was this simply a smart bluff on Olmert's part? This way he - and Israel - were willing to make peace, and it was the PA's weakness that got in the way. Israel comes out looking like the willing peace partner without having to actually give anything up or make peace, since the PA never takes over Gaza.

3. Some might complain about 93% of the West Bank. It would be very difficult to remove people from major settlement blocs, not to mention that it would be creating a new humanitarian crisis of Jewish refugees to solve the humanitarian crisis of Palestinian refugees. Since the Palestinian state will be given land from the Negev, and it's only 7% of the West Bank that's being kept, the plan seems reasonable to me.

4. The free passageway between Gaza and the West Bank, while maintaining a modicum of Israeli control for security purposes, is a good compromise. The complex take on the refugee/right of return issue is also good.

5. It is bad to delay talks about Jerusalem, since peace talks could still fall apart over that, but I understand why Olmert is doing so: Shas, a religious party, threatened to leave his coalition in Israeli Parliament if he put Jerusalem on the negotiating table.

Overall, the bravest peace initiative that's been seen in a while. It took Olmert's knowing that his political career was already over for him to stop worrying about his career and have the cojones to do what he thinks is best for Israel.