The psychology of Wye
By Zvi Bar'el
The question of whether to implement the Wye accord or to
improve its terms is analogous to the question of whether to
continue the talks with Syria from the point where they were
suspended. Both tracks demand an initial concrete payment by the
Barak government in hard currency: Land to the Palestinians and
the annulment, at least declaratively, of Israeli sovereignty on
the Golan Heights. Therefore, at this stage, both Wye and the
Syrian track demand first of all a shift in the psyche of the
Israeli government and the public, and a recognition of the fact
that territories as such have no security value.The justification
for postponing the implementation of Wye or, to put it succinctly,
for linking it to the permanent settlement, is of no relevance.
Wye is a secondary agreement to Oslo and was explicitly intended
to facilitate the execution of the Oslo accords by the sides
involved. The fact that the previous government did not fulfill
its commitments under the accord cannot serve the new government
as an escape hatch for not carrying it out. The Palestinians, like
the Syrians, are unwilling - and justly so - to open a new chapter
with every new government in Israel. Justly so, because without
complete confidence regarding the continuity of these agreements
and understandings, no agreement, whether original or improved,
will have continuity.
In retrospect, it is clear that had Yitzhak Rabin not been
assassinated, the Wye accord would never have come into existence.
On the assumption that the timetable would have been upheld, by
now the permanent settlement would have been behind us, or we
would have been in the midst of the negotiations to conclude it.
Wye was engendered, it should be recalled, in order to postpone
the terrible threat of the declaration of an independent
Palestinian state on May 4, 1999. The main section of Wye includes
a series of articles concerning the war against terrorism,
confirmation of the annulment of certain articles of the
Palestinian Covenant, the establishment of committees to examine
incitement, a discussion about the building of an airport and a
sea port in the Gaza Strip, the release of prisoners and other
points intended as confidence-building measures. These matters
were already included in Oslo and should have long since ceased to
serve as subjects for negotiations.
The other part of Wye, which Barak now wants to amend, refers
to the scope of the IDF's withdrawals in the West Bank and the
timetable for their implementation. Because the original timetable
no longer exists, all that is left to do is to examine - and this
will be a purely academic exercise - what benefit might spring
from amending the size of the pullbacks. The only grounds for this
lies in the possibility that Israel will be left with no assets
when the time comes to discuss the permanent settlement.
The Wye accord entails an immediate transfer of 27.2 percent of
West Bank land from hand to hand. Of this, 12 percent will be
transferred from full Israeli control to Palestinian civilian -
though not security - control; 14.2 percent will change from
Palestinian civilian control to full Palestinian control; and only
one percent of the territory will be transferred from full Israeli
to full Palestinian control. Mathematically, then, Israel will
lose full or partial control over only 13 percent of
territory.
But the debate is not over mathematics and it has nothing to do
with security. Because even if Israel wants to continue holding
military facilities, such as the one next to the settlement of
Ofra, there is no need to hold the settlement as well; and if the
Judean Desert is an important piece of land, its status has
already been determined as a nature reserve in which Israel will
have overall security control. The real point is that these
mathematical percentage points mean, in practical terms,
transferring a few settlements to the Palestinian sector and
positioning many others on the Palestinian boundary line. Because
the issues of Jerusalem, the refugees and control of water sources
cannot be part of an exchange deal involving territory, the
question of the settlements will remain the only one that can be
contemplated in terms of an exchange.
So it's best not to beat around the bush and to state
forthrightly that whoever wishes to postpone the implementation of
Wye in order to leave Israel with assets for later bargaining is
effectively adopting the approach of Likud leader Ariel Sharon,
who urged the settlers to seize as many hilltops and other pieces
of land as they could. This makes the settlements and the settlers
in the West Bank full partners to the negotiations, because they
are holding the percentage points of land that are the subject of
the bargaining. This is a status which Barak does not imagine
conferring on the settlers in the Golan Heights when he talks
about negotiations with Syria
(c) copyright 1999 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved
Source:
http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?id=52253&mador=4&datee=7/25/99
