JERUSALEM // The Israeli cabinet on Sunday postponed a scheduled debate on a law to offer compensation to settlers willing to leave parts of the occupied West Bank. That may have been just as well for Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, and his deputy, Haim Ramon, who proposed the bill, because the debate promises to be a rancourous one.
The Evacuation Compensation Bill proposes that the Israeli government buy out anyone who agrees to be moved from settlements east of Israel's separation barrier, mostly to settlements west of the barrier, before any comprehensive agreement is reached with the Palestinians. As such, the bill is notable not only for tackling head on what most think is unavoidable, namely how to evacuate Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but also for establishing the separation barrier as the de facto border around which negotiations will revolve.
Mr Olmert said Israel needed to look into the issue of voluntary relocation of settlers, especially since "serious negotiations" with the Palestinians are underway. "Negotiations evidently could at some stage lead to decisions, including removing residents from their places of abode. We should look at what this all means," Mr Olmert said at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting on Sunday. But all three candidates vying to succeed Mr Olmert as head of Kadima in a Sept 17 poll and ultimately as prime minister have voiced their objections to the bill.
Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and front-runner in the leadership race, said a compensation offer was premature and should only be considered after a comprehensive agreement had been reached with the Palestinian side. Her closest rival, Shaul Mofaz, the minister of transport, said the legislation would "weaken" Israel in future negotiations with the Palestinians, while outsider Meir Shetrit, the interior minister, said approving the bill could undermine the stability of some West Bank settlements.
Their opposition to the proposed bill prompted criticism from the liberal Israeli press. By opposing the legislation, wrote Uzi Benziman in the Haaretz newspaper, the three contenders had revealed themselves to be "entrenched in an outdated world view". The legislation, he continued, was a "timely step ? freeing Israel from the burden of becoming a binational state". But the bill is notable not only for wanting to tackle an issue that most consider unavoidable - how to evacuate at least some settlements. By essentially demarcating the separation barrier as a de facto border beyond which settlements are likely to be removed but behind which they are liable to stay and be annexed, Israel would appear to be pre-empting negotiations.
For Israeli liberals, wedded to the idea of a negotiated solution, this should pose a problem. Gershon Baskin, head of the Israel-Palestinian Centre for Research and Information, however, rejected this reading of the bill. "Olmert has reportedly proposed that Israel keep control of around eight per cent of the West Bank. The separation barrier takes around 10 per cent, so there would be some adjustment to the barrier. It is only reasonable to expect that some compromise based on the barrier be reached."
Mr Baskin accepted, however, that the bill meant the route of the barrier would be the "point of the beginning of negotiations" and also noted that the legislation was another indirect admission by the Israeli government that the barrier is more than just a security measure Indeed, to Yisrael Harel, an Israeli columnist and the former head of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organisation for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the bill is notable for its unilateralism.
"This is a unilateral decision that says to the whole Israeli population, take it or leave it," said Mr Harel. "We will compensate you here and there, but this is our borderline when it comes to the central part." While Mr Harel accepts that "everyone knows" that if there is agreement with the Palestinians, the barrier route will be the border, he opposes the bill, which he says is an attempt by the government to "buy people's principles" and believes it is a non-starter.
"The settlements east of the barrier are ideological ones. Very few people will take up this offer." To Palestinians, the unilateralism implicit in the bill is unacceptable in principle. Palestinian negotiators consider the 1967 armistice lines as the only acceptable border, though the PLO has been willing to talk about a limited swap of around two per cent of that land. In addition, all settlements in occupied territory are illegal according to international law, and while, again, Palestinian negotiators have shown willingness to entertain the idea of some settlements being annexed to Israel, they are likely to baulk at the scale of such annexation the route of the separation barrier would necessitate.
"In general terms, if the Israeli government is contemplating removing settlers, this is good," said Ali Jarbawi, a Palestinian analyst. "But the fact that they are only compensating settlers east of the wall means that Israel wants to impose a settlement on the Palestinians according to Israeli conditions. In other words, Israel is unilaterally deciding what it wants to keep and what it wants to rid itself of."
Nevertheless, Mr Baskin considers the bill, should it gain government sponsorship and be legislated in parliament, a "sign of progress". "I think it would be an important message to the Palestinian people and one that would strengthen Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president]." okarmi@thenational.ae
