Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- New York Times SEP 04, 2001 How About Sending NATO Somewhere Important? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN n a recent column I offered a possible new approach for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis — that NATO or a NATO-like force be invited to assume control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. What prompted this idea was a sense that no one is talking about the real problem between Israelis and Palestinians — that Israel cannot continue to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and remain a Jewish state, with a Jewish majority and democracy. But it also cannot just unilaterally quit the West Bank and Gaza without any deal with the Palestinians, because it would leave an angry, uncontrolled, chopped-up Palestinian mini-state that would be economically non- viable and strategically unstable. What Oslo I was all about was an attempt at negotiated separation. It didn't work — because Israel built peace with one hand and greedy, idiotic settlements with the other; and because the Palestinians built peace with one hand and hatred of Jews in mosques, schools and textbooks with the other (see Durban). Eventually, though, this latest return to a grinding conflict will exhaust everyone and prompt another attempt at negotiated separation — Oslo II. The big problem in Oslo II will be overcoming the fact that Palestinian police, armed by Israel and entrusted with keeping the borders quiet, have turned their weapons on Israel. It is impossible to imagine a majority of Israelis saying: "Oh well, we entrusted Yasir Arafat with our security in Oslo I. He flunked, but what the heck, let's try again." So where does that leave us? (1) We know that if Israel remains in the West Bank and Gaza it will undermine Jewish democracy. (2) We know that if Israel just pulls back and puts up a wall, it will leave behind a dangerous, threatening, unstable vacuum. (3) We know that Mr. Arafat alone cannot be trusted by Israelis to maintain the peace along any new border or wall, but we also know that only Mr. Arafat and his security forces are able, when they want to, to control Palestinian extremists on their side. (4) As such, we know that some trusted, neutral force — other than Mr. Arafat — has to be enlisted to patrol any border between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza, and that this border needs to be drawn in a way that gives Palestinians a big enough state so they have an incentive to maintain internal security and work with whoever is guarding the wall. This is where NATO could play a critical role. Obviously, first there will have to be a cease-fire and some cooling-down period. After that, though, one can still imagine a deal in which Israel agrees to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza along the lines proposed by Bill Clinton — which is to say from roughly 95 percent of the territories, with Israel retaining the other 5 percent, where 80 percent of the Jewish settlers live. The Palestinians would be compensated with 5 percent of the northern Negev near Gaza, as well as certain purely Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. In return, the Palestinians would have to agree that their state would be entirely demilitarized and that this demilitarization would be supervised and maintained by 30,000 NATO troops, similar to Kosovo's. NATO would have responsibility for controlling all borders and entry points, to ensure that no heavy weapons come in, and would work with the Palestinian police force — the only armed units Palestinians would be permitted — on internal security. The Palestinians would have to decide: Do they want a state, with a flag, their own government, currency and a homeland for refugees — or do they want an army? If it's an army they want, then it is an army they already have. And if that Palestinian people's army decides it would rather fight the Jews with suicide bombs than talk, it will — I fear — eventually trigger a movement in Israel for the expulsion of the entire Arafat leadership, if not more. If it is a state that the Palestinians want, then the price would be the rough Clinton compromise, demilitarized, with NATO supervising that demilitarization. Yes, yes, yes, I know — this is not a perfect solution, and millions of issues would have to be resolved. But perfect isn't on the menu anymore. The only choices are "awful," "worse" and "least bad." Israel indefinitely occupying the West Bank would be awful. Israel simply quitting part of it, and leaving behind a roiling mess, would be worse. Some variation of this NATO approach could be the least bad. Think about it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
