Sharon’s Gaza plan prompts questions

With Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal plan passing an important Knesset vote last month, and evacuation from Gaza drawing closer, the recent release on the Internet of the details of the disengagement plan have some asking whether members of the Knesset and Mideast journalists covering the issue have read the plan’s fine print, which discloses the withdrawal is not as complete as many are portraying.

Sharon last month won a historic vote in the Knesset, with a majority of the Israeli parliament voting to approve the disengagement plan and remove all settlements from Gaza and some from the West Bank. Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli praised the vote, saying “We think the withdrawal plan presents an opportunity to advance the interests of both sides.”

The evacuation from Gaza has been mostly portrayed by the Israeli government and media as a separation from the Palestinians, who turned down an offer of a state at Camp David in 2000, and instead launched a terrorist war that Israel says proves the Palestinians are not negotiating partners, and that the Jewish State has no choice but to separate itself until a Palestinian leadership emerges that is willing to make peace.

But the details of the plan, recently released on the website of the office of the prime minister, seem to indicate the disengagement is not as thorough as many think, and that after the plan is implemented, Israel will continue to maintain strong ties to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

While the premise of the plan, for example, states “the process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,” the plan later details that Israel will be obligated to continue to “provide water pipes, electricity, industrial zones, markets, employment and an industrial zone to sustain the Palestinian Arab economy of Gaza.”

The plan mandates “other existing arrangements, such as those relating to water and the electromagnetic sphere shall remain in force” while “economic arrangements currently in operation between Israel and the Palestinians shall, in the meantime, remain in force.”

Although many have said the ultimate purpose of the plan is to keep the Palestinians out of Israel, and thus unable to commit terrorism against Israeli civilians, according to the published plan, economic arrangements that shall continue after disengagement include: “the entry of workers into Israel in accordance with the existing criteria; the entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Israel and abroad; the monetary regime; tax and customs envelope arrangements; postal and telecommunications arrangements.”

The plan also obligates Israel to “improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation.”

Another section of the plan seems to state that while Israel will vacate Gaza, there is the possibility a military presence may remain in Gaza. “Military installations and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria will be dismantled and removed,” the plan states, “with the exception of those which Israel decides to leave and transfer to another party … .”

“While the Sharon Plan is described as a disengagement plan, it does anything but disengage Israel from the Palestinian Arab population,” said David Bedein, Bureau Chief of the Israel Resource News Agency, who recently published an analysis of the plan.

The plan states the Gaza Strip “shall be demilitarized and shall be devoid of weaponry, the presence of which does not accord with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements,” but Bedein points out the plan “doesn’t even allude to the fact that the PLO violated all previous agreements in this regard and refused to implement the agreement with Israel to have their personnel vetted by Israel. … How are they going to keep Gaza demilitarized?”

Bedein explains Sharon’s plan doesn’t state exactly who will take over security in Gaza when the IDF leaves its positions.

“Does that mean that the PLO security forces, described in Clause 1 of the Sharon Plan as ‘not a reliable peace partner,’ will now inherit Israel’s abandoned IDF military bases?” he asks.

The plan also says Israel will provide “advice, assistance and training” to “the Palestinian security forces for the implementation of their obligations to combat terrorism and maintain public order, by American, British, Egyptian, Jordanian or other experts, as agreed with Israel.”

Says Bedein, “This ignores Israel’s decade-long failed experience with security assistance that Israel facilitated for the PLO. … The Sharon Plan ignores how military training facilitated by Israel and Western countries for the PLO was abused to conduct a terror campaign against Israel in every part of the country for the past four years. The U.S. State Department trained Palestinian policemen for ‘security’ who then used that training to kill Israelis.”

The plan continues that “Israel will be willing to consider the possibility of the establishment of a seaport and airport in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with Israel.”

In the past, the Palestinians have used their control of sea and airports to smuggle weapons into their territory to use against Israel.

The plan ultimately leaves to Egypt the control of some of the Gaza borders: “The evacuation of [the Gaza/Egypt border] area will be considered, dependent on the security situation and the extent of cooperation with Egypt in establishing a reliable alternative arrangement.”

Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told WorldNetDaily, “Egypt is a supporter of terrorism and a distributor of vicious, dangerous anti-Israel propaganda. … We’ve already witnessed Egyptian violations of its peace treaty with Israel when it allowed the Palestinians to build smuggling tunnels that run from Egypt to Israel. How is Ariel Sharon possibly going to let a country like this bring weapons and soldiers into Gaza?”

Bedein says, “The text of the Sharon Plan speaks for itself: strengthening of the PLO, and no disengagement whatsoever. This is a plan of hasty retreat that doesn’t even include a request of the Palestine Authority to stop endorsing the murder of Jews from their own television shows. Is this not worse than the Oslo Accords?”