Israel's Likely Course: Unilateral Action, Separation and No Talks With Hamas

By GREG MYRE
News Analysis
The New York Times
January 27, 2006

JERUSALEM, Jan. 26 — The Hamas landslide in Palestinian elections has stunned Israelis, but it may also have brought them a rare moment of clarity: with peace talks off the table, Israel will most likely pursue unilateral actions, drawing its own borders and separating itself from the Palestinians.

Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister, made it clear after an emergency cabinet meeting that talks with Hamas, a Palestinian party sworn to Israel's destruction, were out of the question, while experts said Israel was now freer to establish its future on its own.

They said Israel — whose own elections in two months could be heavily influenced by the Palestinian results — was likely to focus on speeding up construction of the separation barrier, which runs along and through parts of the West Bank. After more than three years of building, it remains less than half finished, but Israeli officials say it has contributed enormously to the reduction of suicide bombings and other attacks. Palestinians, on the other hand, say the barrier takes land they want for a future state.

"The differences between the sides are now much deeper, and the chances for negotiations are much more remote," said Shlomo Avineri, a liberal political scientist at Hebrew University. "The only realistic steps may be Israeli unilateral steps."

Unilateralism was the approach taken by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister for the last five years, who now lies in a coma. He withdrew Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza last summer without negotiating the move with the Palestinians, and left open the possibility of more such moves in the West Bank.

Since on-and-off peace talks began more than a decade ago, Israelis have been deeply divided over what sorts of concessions to make, how much territory to keep and whether the talks would lead to an end to the decades-old conflict. On Thursday, it seemed there were few such doubts.

From Israeli hawks who oppose concessions to doves who constantly pressed for renewed peace talks, Israelis said there could be no negotiations with Hamas.

Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service and now a parliamentary candidate for the left-leaning Labor Party, said the absence of a negotiating partner should not halt Israeli actions aimed at separating from the Palestinians.

Israel, he said, should seek "to create a situation where Israel disengages from the Palestinians and preserves the character of Israel as a Jewish democracy." Israel should continue, he said, "to move fast and independently to our goal."

Mr. Olmert hopes to become prime minister in elections on March 28 as head of the centrist Kadima Party started by Mr. Sharon.

But Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud Party, made clear that the Palestinian results offered an opportunity for his more hawkish message to be heard. He said the Hamas victory was a result of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and proved that no more withdrawals should occur.

Yuval Steinitz, a member of Parliament from Likud, said Israel should have prevented or canceled the Palestinian elections. He cited the 1993 Oslo accords, an interim peace agreement that bars the participation of armed groups and those that do not recognize Israel.

Mr. Steinitz noted that Palestinian terror attacks against Israel had gone down in recent years, but that Hamas's popularity had gone up. "This is a major loss in our war against terror despite all our tactical successes," he said.

Since the Oslo accords, the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships have maintained a dialogue at some level.

But Israel and Hamas have never had contact with each other, aside from exchanging bullets and bombs. Their relationship is similar to the one that existed in the 1980's and earlier between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, with their refusal to recognize each other.

Hamas's electoral triumph comes at a time when Israel is going through its own political upheavals, and the government is unlikely to make any major moves until after the Israeli election.

"Election time means time out," Mr. Avineri said. "There is a strong argument for refraining from doing dramatic things right now."

The campaign may also mean that Mr. Olmert and his party will have to take a tougher tone to ensure that they are not outflanked on the security issue by Likud.

Israelis are beginning to debate whether the reality of being in power will tame or moderate Hamas. Mr. Avineri suggested a Hamas-led government might not be as threatening as some Israelis feared. He cited the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah, which battled Israeli troops for years in southern Lebanon and now takes part in Lebanese politics.

"Hamas may behave like Hezbollah," Mr. Avineri said. "The rhetoric will be harsh, and they will still be armed, but they will be part of the political system, and their actions may be more restrained."

Others, like Mr. Steinitz, argue that Hamas wants Jews pushed into the sea, and did not enter politics to change its goals but to advance them.

Still, the Hamas victory injects uncertainty into the Israeli election. In previous Israeli campaigns, Hamas and other Palestinian factions have staged deadly attacks that pushed the Israeli electorate to the right.

In 1996, the Labor Party, led by the dovish Shimon Peres, seemed headed for victory after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an ultranationalist Israeli. But after a series of Palestinian suicide bombings during the Israeli campaign, Mr. Netanyahu, of Likud, won a narrow victory.

The Palestinians started an uprising in September 2000, and in a February 2001 election for prime minister, Mr. Sharon trounced Ehud Barak, the Labor Party leader, who had tried but failed to reach a comprehensive accord with the Palestinians.