With the election of the Olmert government this year, a new
"convergence" or "realignment" plan was presented. This was a
continuation of several other Israeli plans that existed even when
the peace process was very active. Last year's disengagement from
Gaza and Israel's unilateral plans for the West Bank have changed
the course of the political struggle. Articles in the issue try to
widen our understanding of what has motivated Israel to adopt a
unilateral stance and to evaluate its influence on the prospect for
a peaceful solution to the conflict.
It seems that the shift to unilateral withdrawal continues to
reflect Israel's refusal to translate de jure recognition of the
Palestinian right for a state into de facto peace- and
reconciliation-oriented policies. Since the Israeli leadership does
not trust the ability of the Palestinian leadership to bring the
violent conflict to an end, the unilateral solution seems to them
attractive, even if it gives up hope for an end to the
conflict.
While many of the articles in this issue of the Palestine-Israel
Journal (PIJ) focus on the damage that unilateral withdrawal
may cause to the prospect of peace, some try to look for the new
chances that the plan may open up.
The articles indicate that, in order to transform unilateral moves
into a lever for a better future, the following measures must be
taken. Rather than viewing the plans as a final step, Israel must
present it as a further measure in an overall attempt to reach
peace based on political compromise. The unilateral steps should be
agreed upon and coordinated between the two sides. Both sides
should commit themselves to the peace process based on two-nation
states with slight reciprocal changes to the 1967 borders, two
capitals in Jerusalem, the return of refugees to the Palestinian
state as outlined in the Clinton parameters of December 2000, and
both sides would guarantee the security of the other. If these
conditions are met, unilateral plans may be considered as part of
the trust-building process.