Michael Koplow thinks through Gaza part deux:
An Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank certainly is fraught with dangers both known and unknown. That does not, however, mean that it will automatically carry with it the same consequences as the Gaza withdrawal did. Barak is right in noting that Israel at some point is going to have to do something, since holding onto the West Bank indefinitely is not a real option and Palestinian intransigence in negotiating needs to be met with some sort of response. The immediate PA attack on the idea itself gives you a good idea of whether Palestinian officials think that a unilateral withdrawal is in their best interests, and perhaps the credible threat of withdrawal will give them the kick they need to resume negotiations. In any event, the idea of unilateral withdrawal should not be so casually dismissed with facile comparisons to Gaza.
Hussein Ibish counters:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is correct in warning that unilateralism runs counter to the whole framework of a negotiated agreement. Rather than calming the situation on the ground, this could greatly inflame an already tense situation. Whatever the professed or real intentions behind such a move, Palestinians and other Arabs will assume that what is enacted as “temporary” will be at least semi-permanent (if not, indeed, permanent). They will believe that Israel is imposing unilaterally, by force and fiat, what it could not get Palestinians to accept at the negotiating table.
That's true enough, if Israel tries anything other than the 1967 lines with land-swaps. But if they arrive at a border that is in line with US and European views, or the contours of the 2000 proposal, I think it would be a great idea to withdraw unilaterally. It would, for example, automatically mean the unraveling of the illegal settlements, walls and road barriers than impede a Palestinian state on the West Bank. In that sense, wouldn't it in some way comply with the Palestinians' understandable request that construction be stopped before negotiation? My suspicion, alas, is that this is a feint, engineered to foster the impression that the current Israeli leaders are still interested in a two-state solution, even though their actions prove they aren't. But any move to get a real partition off the ground seems welcome enough to me.
The Dish 