Olmert's promises got him elected, because most Israelis understand that we cannot continue to rule the Palestinian Arabs. However, it was clear that he didn't have a plan to end Israeli rule of Palestinian Arabs in a way that will bring peace. Everything was fine with Olmert's plan except for reality.

In the same article, I also wrote:

The truth is that while the Qassam rockets rain down on Israel, Israel has "stunning accuracy" in killing some terrorists and along with them some innocent bystanders, but zero success in stopping the rockets.

Does it sound familiar? I could write the same thing today, could I not? So indeed, I just did. From the point of view of security, the Gaza disengagament was a miserable failure. The rockets come down, and Israel has not found either the military or diplomatic means to put an end to them. Israeli reprisals don't stop the rockets, they just provide more bad publicity for Israel. True, Israel may not have been responsible for the deaths of the Palestinian family on the beach, but the damage is probably done. In any case, Israel was certainly responsible for the deaths of innocent people in today's targeted killing.

The second problem is that of course, Israel cannot set its permanent borders unilaterally. The slogan was obviously untrue when it was manufactured, because the Kadima party insisted that Israel would be willing to negotiate borders in the future if a Palestinian partner was available. If the borders can be renegotiated, they aren't permanent. So people understood that they were voting for a lie, but they voted anyhow.

Another paradox is also built into the convergence plan. The plan is based on the assertion that there is no Palestinian partner and Palestinians do not want peace. If so, it is difficult to understand what the Israeli government thinks will happen to the territory that is evacuated. Of course, it will come under Palestinian jurisdiction. Without an agreement, that Palestinian juridiction will certainly be inimical to Israel. So what is the point?

Borders, of course, cannot be set without at least some international recognition. Right now the only borders anyone might recognize are the cease-fire lines of 1949. Ehud Olmert is meeting with the great leaders of the world, and everywhere he goes it seems, not surprisingly, that we get the same story. The meeting is a great success, and everyone loves Olmert, but nobody is interested in any Israeli unilateral moves. This was the result of Olmert's visit to the USA, and it is the result of his visit to Britain. In fact, Blair and Bush now have Olmert trained so he will say their lines for them:

The "first priority for Israel is negotiations," Olmert added, saying "the
status quo is the enemy of everything that we are in favor of."

He said that Israel is "ready to go a long way in order to convince [the
Palestinians] that it is preferable and worthwhile to meet... the road map."

It is not just lip service any more either. According to Akiva Eldar, Israel has begun to scrap the convergence plan in favor of a negotiated alternative. Israel would withdraw from about 90% of the West Bank and the Palestinians would form a state in "provisional" borders" in a negotiated interim settlement that would be considered "stage II" of the roadmap. However, the Palestinians had previous rejected an interim state. The "plan," if it deserves that name, would not require the Palestinian authority to disarm terror groups. The Hamas will remain armed, and in opposition to this interim agreement, and apparently in charge of the PNA. Past experience has shown that Hamas finds unsatisfactory ways to express their displeasure. They don't send diplomatic notes or hold sit-ins.

Presumably the territories ceded to the Palestinians, like the Gaza strip, would not be able to import goods, just as in the Gaza strip. The boycott of the Hamas would also remain in effect, guaranteeing misery for the populace of the West Bank, and misery will guarantee terror. Instead of Land for Peace, this plan seems to call for Land for Terror and poverty. That is someone's idea of a fair compromise - a plan that inflicts equal doses of misery on both sides and gives neither side any of their requirements.

Perhaps there is no better plan, but this "plan" is worse than doing nothing. The problem is, that everyone seems to be coninced that "something" has to be done. Israeli Foreign Minister Livni is quoted as saying:

We believe that time is working against us... We believe that
stagnation shouldn't be an Israeli government policy.

Ehud Olmert said:

I don't think that we should wait too much...

As usual, we are on the brink of a great disaster, and about to take a bold step forward.
Ami Isseroff