May 2004 - אִיָּר .. סִיוָן תשס״ד Iyyar..Sivan 5764

It is no surprise to members of Temple Beth Sholom that I do not support the Middle East policies of President Bush or Prime Minister Sharon. But my reaction to President Bush's support for Prime Minister Sharon's Gaza proposal may surprise you. While I do not support the obvious snub of the Palestinians, and ignoring their input into their own destiny, it has become obvious to everyone that something dramatic had to be done. But like you, I am frustrated by the violence and counter-violence and what New York Times editorialist, Thomas Friedman calls the “endless ‘he hit me first’ debates” that have immobilized the peace process.

So the President and the Prime Minister have staged an end run around all of the other major players and declared the obvious. President Bush's meticulous speech writers have written a public statement that declares what any thinking Israeli, Palestinian, and American has to know is going to be the shape of the final agreement of the so-called “Road Map to Middle East Peace”. The three most important parts of this final agreement will be: 1) Israeli withdrawal from most of the captured territories, 2) Israeli annexation of a limited amount of territory in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that will include about 80 % of the “settlers” on about 2 % of the West Bank, and 3) Palestinian “refugees” will be settled in the future state of Palestine and not in Israel. The so-called Geneva Agreement included the same three points, as did the Clinton sponsored Taba Plan, and several other informal and formal incomplete plans.

I have personally advocated negotiating these points, and am saddened to see that this agreement had to be reached between the Israel and United States, and not between Israel and the Palestinians. However, I commend President Bush's exact words to you. In the opening paragraph of his public statement, the president made it clear: “The United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations. That matter is for the parties.” We have to believe him and his administration and hold them to this.

After commenting that the “realities on the ground” have changed greatly and repeating the United States' commitment to Israel's security and well being as a Jewish state, in the fourth paragraph the president repeated his historic commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Then President Bush stated the obvious, that “the settling of the Palestinian refugees [would be] there rather than in Israel.” Note well that the president did not say “all of the Palestinian refugees” or “most of the refugees,” the number and percentages of refugees that still may be allowed to settle in Israel for “family reunification” or the like may still be open for negotiation. (See point # 3 above.)

The next paragraph refers again to a final peace settlement negotiated based on UN resolutions 242 and 338 which promise Israel secure and recognized borders after withdrawal from conquered territory. Notice the repeated emphasis on negotiation and eventual withdrawal from the territories. (See point #1 above.)

In the final paragraph of President Bush's remarks, he concluded by saying: “it is unrealistic that the outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” It is very interesting that the president chose the term “armistice line of 1949” instead of the more common “1967 border.” Of course there was no real border in 1967 prior to the Six Day War. The boundary between Israel and Jordan was only a ceasefire line between the sovereign State of Israel and a no-man's-land occupied by Jordan. (No country has been established there since the Hasmoneans in the second century BCE.)

But the so-called green line between Israel and the territories could define future negotiations with the Palestinians. The sooner that the Palestinians give up the Intifada and come to the negotiating table, the stronger their case will be for international pressure on Israel to return closer and closer to those 1949 armistice lines. In the end, President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon may not have by-passed the Palestinians, as much as have sent them a wake-up call and an invitation to the “final status negotiations.” The time for posturing, and arguing over the shape of the table (as in Madrid prior to the Oslo accords), has passed a long time ago. The President and the Prime Minister have started the clock on the final status negotiations. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Shalom, Shalom --

—Rabbi Harry A. Manhoff, Ph.D., D.D.

April

Index

June