העמדה של ביילין בנושא ההתנתקות
הנה המכתב שיוסי ביילין שלך למר"צ ארה"ב: 26 October, 2004 Dear Friends, These are dramatic days for the political system in Israel, with a vote on the disengagement plan in the Knesset scheduled for tonight and a possible shakeup of Sharon’s government in the days to come. As many of you know, Yachad will vote tonight in favor of the plan. Moreover, the party has decided not to lend a hand to the extreme right in toppling Sharon over this plan. Our decision does not mean that we are suddenly enthusiastic about Sharon’s plan. On the contrary; I still believe that Sharon’s plan is bad and dangerous, first and foremost because it is unilateral, and unilateral action - by definition - can only strengthen extremists and weaken pragmatists, and on both sides. Moreover, Sharon’s plan is dangerous because it distorts reality. Indeed, as the past several months have already demonstrated, Sharon’s plan has the power to shift the whole question of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence onto the future of the Gaza Strip, the one component that until very recently was not even in question. Indeed, in all Israeli-Palestinian discussions over how much of the Palestinian territory Israel would withdraw from in the context of a permanent settlement - whether 91 percent (as was suggested at Camp David), 96 percent (the Clinton parameters) or 100 percent (the Geneva Initiative) - the numbers were always in relation to the West Bank; Gaza was never at issue. In other words, Sharon’s plan has already created a situation whereby the very possibility of Israel withdrawing from the Gaza Strip has itself become contested. With Gaza being only 6 percent of the entire Palestinian territories, Sharon has thus succeeded in making a mountain out of a molehill and, by implication, in undermining years of understanding in both the Israeli and Palestinian publics of what a future agreement might look like. In this respect, the question of whether or not Sharon’s plan was intended (as his closest political aide told Ha’aretz earlier this month) to freeze the peace process for an indefinite period of time and further entrench Israel’s control in the West Bank, is almost beside the point. For Sharon has already rendered any further territorial withdrawal considerably more difficult in the future. Even so, and despite the damage that I believe Sharon’s plan is intended to inflict (and has already inflicted) on the peace process, I believe that my political responsibility forces me to support this plan. This is because, for all its faults, Sharon’s plan of withdrawing from Gaza is better than the alternative of staying in Gaza. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the political setback that this plan represents, I also believe in our ability to lead Israel beyond Gaza: that once Sharon takes Israel out of Gaza, in other words, we can move a political dynamic that would lead both sides to the negotiating table. Given the political developments of the past several months, with about half of Likud “rebelling” against Sharon and such coalition partners as the National Religious Party splitting and leaving him, I also believe that supporting Sharon’s plan for disengagement is meaningless if he is toppled the next day over another issue. And since the right wing in Israel is intent on scuttling the disengagement plan by toppling Sharon, Yachad cannot lend a hand to a move aimed at targeting the very political plan it has decided to support. In other words, if Yachad is to act in good faith in supporting the disengagement plan, it cannot vote for this plan on one day only to join the right wing in toppling Sharon the next day. Yachad must see the plan through, in other words, by allowing Sharon to implement his plan in full. These are complicated times with difficult decisions to make. Yet as popular as Sharon’s move is in the larger public, almost as popular remains the notion that Israel must engage the Palestinians and reach agreement with them. A recent public opinion poll suggests that while 40 percent of the Jewish public supports the idea of disengaging unilaterally from Gaza, about 33 percent says it would prefer to leave Gaza with agreement and negotiation. Of course, the first position need not preclude the second, and our task in the weeks and months ahead is to ensure that whatever begins unilaterally becomes bilateral. And that the road that starts in Gaza leads in the direction of Geneva. Yours, Yossi Beilin
