Israel & Palestine and the Spread of Empire and Desolation

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict and the spread of Empire and Desolation

A talk presented at the Friends Peace Center
San Jose, Costa Rica,

January 27, 2005

by Ronald Bleier



Good evening. My name is Ronald Bleier. I’d like to begin with a few words about my background. I was born during the Second World War, in November 1942, on a tiny island called Lopud off the Croatian coastline near Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, while my parents were escaping from the Nazis. Fifteen months later, my brother was born in February 1944 on yet another of these islands called Vis, as my parents continued their escape. In due course, we made it safely to a refugee camp in Italy from where were fortunate to find passage along with about 1,000 mostly Jewish refugees who were granted temporary asylum in the United States by President Roosevelt during the war. About a year after the war, our entire group was granted permanent residency leading to citizenship by an act of Congress during the Truman presidency. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York where I attended yeshiva elementary and high school and where I was indoctrinated in Zionism, an ideology that I didn’t question for many years. After graduating from Brooklyn College, I spent two years with the Peace Corps in Iran.


It was only in the aftermath of the 1967 war when it became clear to me that the Israelis did not intend to withdraw from the territories they captured, and were bent on an indefinite military occupation, that my views slowly changed. In the fullness of time I was to meet with a series of disillusionments that culminated in my present anti-Zionist views. The horrific Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 made me understand some of the depths of the savagery and the ruthlessness of Israeli policy. The first Palestinian uprising in December 1987 sparked tremendous interest and activism on the Palestinian issue and roughly coincided with the publication of several revisionist histories by such writers as Simcha Flapan, Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Schlaim and others which opened my eyes to the myths surrounding the birth of Israel. It was then that I learned that Israel was born out of the expulsion of the Palestinian people, and that cruelty and oppression was required in order to retain control of a second class population. Around that time, I realized that I needed to determine for myself the meaning of Zionism. I deduced that it meant the ideology that a Jewish state should replace the former Palestine. From this I concluded that Zionism is manifestly racist in theory and in practice since it treats only Jews as first class citizens.

In my yeshivas we were taught ethical, universal Judaism. We learned about the Torah, the Law of Moses and the Talmudic tradition. I was imbued by my rabbis with the notion of Judaism as a religion embodying justice and human rights. Only much later did I begin to recognize the reality of Israel as a state like other states, engaging in the very worst atrocities of which it was capable in order to further its political goals. And later still I began to recognize the special, terrible way Israel was different from other states since it acted with the full diplomatic, economic and military support of the United States.

My next great disillusionment was to find that I was alone among my family and friends in taking an objective and critical view of Israeli policy. I can still recall the moment in the early 80s when I broached my new views of Israel with my father, a dedicated Zionist. We were in a restaurant and his first reaction was to laugh at my ignorance and naiveté. He couldn’t believe that his son would take the side of the Arabs – that’s how he saw it. His second reaction was to ask me to lower my voice lest others overhear my outlandish views. My father and I very quickly had to agree to disagree on the issue.

I underwent another disillusionment with regard to the role of the media. I had already been something of a critic of the press, not to mention TV news, but it was a completely new world to learn of the power of the “friends of Israel” lobby to obscure the reality of the crimes of Israel. As it happened, my first publications appeared in the now unfortunately defunct magazine, Lies of Our Times. The rumor going around when the magazine died was that its forthright stand on the Israeli Arab issue doomed its funding in the post Oslo period. On the power of the Israeli lobby to ruin careers, to stifle dissent and to procure political support and scores of billions of dollars in military and economic aid for Israel, I read Paul Findley, Moshe Menuhin, Donald Neff, Jeffrey Blankfort, Alfred Lilienthal and others who pointed to the dramatic and rigid control by Zionists and their supporters over the media and over Congress and the administration on Middle East Policy.

The Widening Gyre

Until the advent of the current Bush administration and the terrible events of 9/11, it may have been possible even for those sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, to view events in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East, as confined to that area of the world, with relatively minimal effects on daily life elsewhere. Needless to say there was more than an element of denial in such a view as we had to put to one side the corruption of our national discourse and the censorship of information coming out of the Middle East, not to mention the raiding of the U.S. Treasury of $3-6 billion a year or more to satisfy Israeli demands.

But today, in the wake of 9/11 and the reinstallation of George W. Bush for a second term as president, once again, many believe through fraudulent means, we are confronted with an energized and radical neo conservative movement with nowhere to go but onward and down. I think my father said it best a few months before he died a year and a half ago, “they don’t do anything good.” He was absolutely right. They are bent on an ideological destruction of the mission of government which is supposed to be by, for, and of the people.

One way to get some perspective on what is happening to the Palestinians and their prospects is to examine in some detail Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Gaza Disengagement plan which was published in the Israeli papers April 16, 2004. The disengagement plan appeared at the height of the corruption scandal that engulfed Sharon and his sons and served to deflect domestic criticism as well as growing international opposition to Israel’s construction of the Wall on Palestinian territory. Sharon’s plan provided President George W. Bush with sufficient cover to reverse long-standing U.S. policy relating to the Palestinians. In particular, Bush brushed aside the critical principle, often reiterated at the U.N., of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory conquered by force. In his dramatic joint press conference in Washington with Sharon on April 14, 2004, President Bush, bowing, as he put it, to “new realities on the ground,” declared that Israel could permanently keep major settlements in the West Bank. Bush also rejected the Palestinian right of return to Israeli territory and froze the Palestinian leadership out of negotiations. At the same time, Bush effectively gave carte blanche to the continued Israeli construction of the Wall albeit with the meaningless reservation that it was to be regarded as a temporary structure. In June 2004, both houses of Congress, by lop sided majorities, followed up with resolutions unreservedly endorsing President Bush’s giveaway to Sharon.

The disengagement plan provided Sharon with cover on the military front. A succession of ruthlessly brutal intensive major Israeli Defense Forces operations followed the March 2004 assassination of wheelchair bound Hamas political leader Sheik Yassin in Gaza and continued the next month with the murder of his successor, Dr. Abd al- Rantisi. This was only the beginning for Gaza residents as operations followed from May 2004 through October. Typical of the brutality, in a two-week period during Operation Rainbow in southern Gaza in May, at least 60 Palestinians were killed, almost 300 Palestinian homes demolished, and close to 4,000 people made homeless. Throughout these operations, large amounts of Palestinian farmland and property including olive groves were confiscated and bulldozed.

One reason that Sharon has continued to get a free ride on the strength of his disengagement plan, despite his long history as a tireless and powerful opponent of Palestinian national rights, is that many cannot believe that he would be so reckless as to propose the unilateral removal of Jewish settlements in Gaza without the intention of following through. But such a view of Sharon fails to take into consideration his willingness to take unprecedented risks, as well as his shrewd calculation of both the domestic and international political landscape. In Israel, there is no opposition to speak of. In the United States, Bush and his radical, pro Israeli neocon team is firmly in place for a second term and wholly supportive of Sharon’s goals and vicious tactics. Moreover, as a veteran of more than 50 years on the Middle East scene, Sharon understands that pretexts can always be found to break, postpone and put off indefinitely agreements and treaties with the Arabs.

Thus far only a few lonely voices in Israel have pointed to the counterintuitive nature of the disengagement plan and have openly questioned Sharon’s intention to remove the Gaza settlements. Israeli author and academic Tanya Reinhart has gone further than anyone else, providing invaluable documentation demonstrating the lack of any practical steps Israel is taking that would indicate a serious intent to remove the settlers. Despite the absence of such evidence, the media and the international community largely continue to take Sharon’s disengagement plan seriously. Meanwhile Israel continues to pour resources into the settlements, suggesting that so far from evicting Jewish settlers from Gaza, the plan is to maintain them over the long term. In that case, it’s not the Israeli settlers who will be leaving, but rather a million Palestinians who will be forced from Gaza.

As part of her expose, Tanya Reinhart also reveals that compensation to settlers willing to leave Gaza is to be postponed indefinitely. She explains that if the Israeli government were seriously interested in removing settlements, they would begin to compensate those willing to leave in order to isolate the remaining hardcore. Many believed that the compensation plan was approved by the Knesset in November. However, upon closer examination we find that the required 2nd and 3rd readings of the bill “will take place only after the government decides on actual evacuation, in March 2005 or later. Till then no one will be compensated.” Meanwhile, the Israeli press reported that in December, 11 more families moved into a Gaza settlement.

Kathleen Christison, a former CIA analyst who has been following Middle East issues for three decades, in a recent article, summarized some of the bitter reality Palestinians confront under the current regime. The picture she paints is important because it is evidence that Sharon is in the midst of a campaign to make civil life impossible for the Palestinian community. The current dimension of the situation, she writes, goes back to the April 2002 siege of the West Bank when

Israeli forces rampaged through the territory, destroying the entire infrastructure of Palestinian civil society: Israeli soldiers laid waste Palestinian civil ministries for education and health and agriculture; smeared feces throughout the Ministry of Culture; destroyed computers and hard disks and, with them, the entire written record of Palestinian society; ransacked Palestinian businesses and banks; bulldozed whole housing blocks; destroyed land registry maps and census records, as if to erase all trace of Palestinian existence. …

Gaza is largely in ruins, a Middle Eastern Dresden, thanks to repeated Israeli air and bulldozer assaults. Nearly two thousand homes have been demolished in Gaza since the [September 2000] intifada began, leaving many more thousands of innocent civilians homeless, and Israeli helicopter gunship attacks and assassination operations have wrought still more destruction.

Israel's separation wall has destroyed prime Palestinian agricultural land, bulldozed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian olive trees, destroyed or more often appropriated for Israeli use most Palestinian water wells, destroyed Palestinian markets [and] homes. Israeli closure policies have prevented most Palestinians from working inside Israel since the beginning of the peace process a dozen years ago. Israeli checkpoints throughout the West Bank impede movement and halt commerce. …Yet the West wonders why the Palestinian economy is not thriving.

Israel has reduced every Palestinian security headquarters throughout the West Bank and in Gaza to rubble. These structures, which served…as security headquarters [and also] as the center of municipal governance, with mayor's offices, jails, and health clinics [are] now mere heaps of concrete.

Arafat’s sudden illness and death in November [2004] briefly put a halt to some of Israel’s most high profile deadly and destructive military operations. Yet, only a month later in mid December, using the pretext of rockets fired by the military wing of Hamas, Israel resumed its pitiless assaults in a two-day operation that killed 11 Palestinians in Khan Yunus in Gaza. Confiscations of Palestinian land also resumed. In early January, Dr. James Zogby appeared on BBC TV news, pointing out that in the previous two weeks, Israel had appropriated 3,000-4,000 acres of Palestinian land.

Arafat’s death and the election of Mahmoud Abbas as new president of the Palestinian Authority spurred hopes that we might be entering a new period of reconciliation and movement toward a meaningful peace process. However, even the mildly positive atmospherics did not last beyond a week or two after the election as Sharon used a predictable “terror” incident as a pretext to “temporarily” end such discussions as had been envisioned. Nor is this a surprise since Sharon is dead set against giving up anything to the Palestinians in negotiations since he holds all the political and military cards. Sharon’s immediate plan is to destroy any and all remnants of Palestinian resistance. He is embarked on a campaign to make civil life more and more impossible for the Palestinian community as he pursues the logic of Zionism, which foresees a land of Israel for Jews only. Such a plan would involve ethnic cleansing on a massive scale – the mass expulsion of the Palestinian people similar in scope to the events of 1948 when upwards of 750,000 Palestinians were expelled.

Turning now to US foreign policy and the origins of the Iraq war we see evidence of Israeli influence on US actions –what one writer called “The Fatal Embrace.” First I’d like to tackle the question of whether the Iraq war was fought for oil. I have always believed that the issue of US control over Iraqi oil was subsidiary to ideological goals. Now that we see oil prices near $50 with no apparent prospect of returning below $30, some are beginning to realize that if regime change in Iraq was about oil, it hasn’t succeeded. Had the Administration’s purpose been about providing US drivers with a steady and cheap supply of Middle East oil, the last thing they would have done was go to war against Iraq. Rather, I argue, war against Iraq was driven by a coterie of neoconservatives who have a long record of supporting a Likudnik agenda of destabilizing and fragmenting all of Israel’s potential enemies. Those like Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Eliot Abrams and others in senior government positions are interested in extending U.S. military power abroad not in the interests of democracy as they claim, but in order to sow chaos, confusion, and violent conflict.

They aim to maintain and grow the military budget and starve domestic social spending. In order to maintain an aggressive posture and ensure maximum freedom of action they are determined to subvert the international order that has been the foundation of the stability that has allowed the US and many other nations to grow and prosper over the last century. They eschew conflict resolution and diplomacy because that would threaten to bring peace, which is their anathema. Their modus operandi is to create desolation and call it democracy.

We are confronted in the age of George W. Bush with the enormous success of the neocon program. Many of the neocons were former Democrats in the 70s who were opposed to the liberal agenda of demilitarization, social spending and criticism of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. From relatively modest beginnings we find today that they have achieved their goal of regime change in Iraq against the best advice of major elements of the Republican Party including George H.W. Bush, the father of the president. They have pursued the Iraq war against the greatest outpouring of protest in the US and the rest of the world since the Vietnam War, and against common sense and the best interests of the security of the United States. So the question becomes how did they pull it off? One part of the answer that concerns us tonight is the assistance provided by the powerful Israeli lobby in the United States. The ability of the Israeli lobby to smooth the way for war was highlighted by the furor over Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's response in early March 2003 to a constituent question during a town hall meeting. He said: that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."

Congressman Moran was correct and extraordinarily courageous in pointing to the leadership of the major Jewish organizations, suggesting that they could have blocked the war. As a 13-year veteran member of the House, Jim Moran has been around long enough to understand how political power on Middle East issues operates in Congress. War against Iraq has so isolated the United States and made so little sense that were it not perceived as good for Israel, in all likelihood it would not have gained sufficient traction in the media or in Congress.

It’s probably not possible to reconcile opposing sides on the question of whether Tel Aviv or Washington drives US Mideast policy, but one element of this issue may be worth emphasizing. I would stress the difference between Prime Minister Sharon’s brutal and ruthless pragmatism as he drives forward toward his goal of a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinians and the Arab nation. From a Zionist perspective, it is a zero sum game with winners and losers. On the other hand, the Washington neocons, are bent on war for the sake of war, with tragedy, and death the only winners. Fallujah today is an excellent example of the desolation that the public relations people call democracy. Other examples of the new dark age are the ruins of the Baghdad Museum, the destroyed Baghdad Library, the ravaged Iraqi universities and archeological sites, the murder of scores of the cream of the Iraqi academic, professional and diplomatic classes, not to mention the deaths of more than 100,000 ordinary Iraqis.

The Dimensions of the present problem
There is no point in attempting to soften our description of the nature of the current crisis that we face with the reinstallation of George W. Bush for another four years. With the results of the election in place, the most radical of the neocons are entrenched and empowered to forward their extremist agenda. No doubt there are many like me in tonight’s audience who first read George Orwell’s 1984, awakened but at the same time confident that we would never live to see a US administration that could embody such evil. Lo and behold, we are now confronted with an administration bent on the continual creation of enemies and fighting endless war.

The current devastation and horror that Bush has made of Iraq while not exactly a PR bonanza, is not necessarily perceived by them as a total defeat. For example, if Iraq should wind up fragmented into its three main groups, that would play into neocon and Israeli hands since a potential area counterforce will have been eliminated. Moreover the anarchic climate in Iraq, a perfect breeding ground for terrorism suits their purpose by fomenting real, imagined and created enemies against whom the US leadership can rally and unify the populace, stifle dissent, and push through the most extreme of their radical domestic and international agenda.

The next target on the Bush-Cheney neocon agenda is Iran, now Israel’s strongest enemy. On January 20th, the same day that George W. Bush was sworn in for a second term, Vice President Cheney with astonishing chutzpah, gave Israel the green light to attack Iran. In a radio interview, he said that Iran is “right at the top of the list” of the world’s trouble spots and given that “Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.” The naked irresponsibility and recklessness of such a statement is staggering. For added measure we learn from articles in current issues of the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh that plans have already been made for attacking Iran and reconnaissance for such an attack has already begun including on the ground infiltration of commando forces. (As an aside it may be interesting to speculate that US government leaks to Hersh were intended as a trial balloon in order to measure domestic US reaction as well as to spread confusion in Iran.)

One measure of the contretemps we are in is that there is no one in sight with the stature or courage to challenge Cheney’s characterization of Iran’s posture, which is essentially defensive. If there was one thing that the Bush-Cheney wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have taught Iran and North Korea and the rest of the world it is that weak countries including those without a nuclear deterrent are vulnerable to threats from the US and/or Israel. Iran would be “crazy,” as one analyst elegantly put it, if it did not seek a nuclear deterrent against threatening superpowers. Meanwhile, in Western circles, Israel’s nuclear monopoly is ignored while Iran’s nuclear potential is characterized as a threat to peace. Israel and the US neocon Likudniks are determined to maintain the nuclear status quo in the Middle East because an Iranian nuclear capability might serve as a brake to Israeli and US aggression.

One question raised by US-Israeli threats is whether an attack against Iran would lead to a wider Middle East war. But it is difficult to see who would be or could be waging war against the two superpowers. The military balance in the Middle East is not comparable to that of Europe for example of the 20th and earlier centuries where the various states worked to achieve balance through alliances and détentes. Especially now with Iraq effectively out of the picture, there is no foreseeable combination of Middle Eastern powers that could stand up to an Israel backed by the US. Moreover the latest version of Iran’s Shebab 3 medium range missile, rumored to be able to reach Israel, carries no nuclear warhead and so its deterrent capability is strategically limited. Moreover, Iranian missile strikes against Israel, while doing relatively little damage would serve as pretexts for Israel’s disproportionate retaliations, exactly as we see today in the Occupied Territories. Some analysts have pointed out that Israel’s potential air attacks against Iran may originate in US controlled airbases in Iraq. Thus Israel’s continued nuclear monopoly means that Iran is virtually defenseless against Israeli aggression.

Would an Israeli/US attack on Iran lead to a wider war? One radical faction, led by veteran neoconservative Michael Ledeen who heads the Coalition for Democracy in Iran seems bent on regime change in Saudi Arabia, but it is hard to see how such a change would benefit the US. A destabilized Saudi Arabia would put much of the world oil supply at risk and have nightmare ramifications for the international economy. The Bush-Cheney administration which has longstanding business and personal relations with the Saudi leadership seems to be resisting the concept of regime change there since such plans seem to pass the line of recklessness into pure stupidity. But since the administration seems determined to attack Iran (and Syria for some of the same reasons) we may be in a situation where events are in the saddle and pressures may build to the point where a shaky Saudi monarchy is toppled.

But here we are approaching the horizon of foreseeable events. Suffice it to say for now that the world faces a challenge similar to 1939 with the US and Israel bent on regime change, destabilization, tension, chaos, and endless war.

On the other hand, it may be useful to pull back and remind ourselves that the US is mired in a quagmire in Iraq and that neither the US or Israel have the forces to invade or occupy Iran. Perhaps just as important, on the economic front the US has become a debtor nation big time, no better than a banana republic. Even worse, the Bush Cheney regime shows every evident intention to apply foot to the pedal and drive the US further into bankruptcy by spending endlessly on the Iraq war, and on their military toys, spy satellites and Star Wars programs. Similarly on the domestic front they appear to be determined to continue destroying the economy, with more tax cuts for the wealthy and the huge costs involved in “strengthening” social security. Is it possible that such policies can be sustained another four years? Who knows?

One interesting historical footnote takes us back to the 1956 Suez war when France, England and Israel combined to attack Egypt and Gaza. At the time President Eisenhower – the only US president until Jimmy Carter to stand up to Israel -- was enraged and was able to reverse the tripartite attack by applying pressure on England which at the time was deeply in the US debt for World War Two costs. Is it possible that economically based constraints can save us from the most extreme military daydreams of the current gang in Washington? But even in that least worst case scenario, there will be much desolation, despair and suffering for hundreds of millions of people everywhere.

Solutions

How do we speak of solutions confronted as we are with the magnitude of the current challenges to peace and democracy? My own instincts are to begin by looking the devil – that is to say, reality – in the eye. Our job is first to describe and understand the situation we face as best and as clearly as we are able. That is exactly our purpose this evening. Our next step is to find ways to struggle for our visions and our dreams and our futures. One way to do this is to build community and that is the essential second element of our purpose tonight. From small local beginnings we can try to work to forge the unity and the leadership that we require to survive and prevail. There are certainly no easy answers and no single answer. There is only a difficult and puzzling and impossible process and we need to find ways to plug into that process and to make it happen. And for that task we are armed only with the hope that day will follow night and that we can toil our way toward a better future than the one we seem headed towards now.



The End


1. Ronald Bleier is a freelance writer based in NYC. He edits DESIP, an environmental and security website.
2. Uri Avnery, December 18, 2004. “The Mountain and the Mouse. Tanya Reinhart, “Sharon’s disengagement” from Gaza,” March 30, 2004 and “What kind of state deserves to exist, Yediot Aharonot, April 20, 2004.
3. Tanya Reinhart, “Sharon’s Gaza Pullout: Not Gonna Happen!” November 2004. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3331.shtml
4. Ha’aretz, December 17, 2004. Nadav Shraga, “11 new families settle in Gaza’s Nissanit.”
5. Kathleen Christison, January 3, 2005, “Patronizing the Palestinians: The Trouble with Optimism” http://www.counterpunch.org/christison01032005.html
6. Al Jazeera, December 19, 2004, “Israeli helicopters strike Gaza towns.”
7. BBC TV news, January 10, 2005.
8. Here and in some of the analysis below I am indebted to Stephen J. Sniegoski, “The Future of the Global War on Terrorism,” Current Concerns , September 3-5, 2004.
9. Others like Philip Zelikow, the Executive director of the 9/11 Commission, outgoing Senator Ernest “Fritz’ Hollings, Patrick Buchanan, Justin Raimondo and others have expressed similar views but Moran’s case seemed to attract more media attention in part because, as a result of his remarks he was seen as vulnerable.
10. Israeli military historian, Martin Van Creveld, International Herald Tribune, August 21, 2004. Cited in Khalid Amayreh, “Israel to U.S.: Now for Iran,” August 29, 2004.
11.Sniegoski, op.cit.
12. Based on 2004 analysis by Andrew Cordesman.

T.Reinhart (3/04) Sharon's "Disengagment" from Gaza

Sharon's "Disengagement" from Gaza
Tuesday, March 30th, 2004
Tanya Reinhart

http://www4.alternativenews.org/opinion/display.php?id=3644


Tanya Reinhart, a professor in Tel Aviv University and the author of "Israel/Palestine: How to End the 1948 War" and "Detruire la palestine" (French), is a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN).

A Pacifier for the Majority

At the start of the Oslo process, the majority believed that Israel was withdrawing first from the Gaza Strip. But Rabin gave the concept of withdrawal a new meaning: he left all of the settlements intact, increased their territory, and built a heavy fence around the areas left for the Palestinians. With the Gaza strip imprisoned and isolated, there began a process of eternal negotiations with the Palestinian leadership over the details of further stages that would, perhaps, materialize at some future point. The majority believed at the time not only that we had already left Gaza altogether, but also that we were just about to get out of the rest of the occupied territories and end the occupation. This continued until the explosion that Barak created reminded us that, in fact, we have not yet gotten out of anything.

In February of 2002, Ami Ayalon and the council for Peace and Security called for a break from the route of eternal negotiations. It is both possible and necessary, they said, to withdraw unilaterally from the territories that the majority agrees we will get out of at the end of the process: all of the Gaza strip and all of the West Bank, excluding 6%-10% of the big settlement blocks. This means evacuating unilaterally and immediately all of the settlements in these areas, even before the final agreement. At the polls, 60% supported this idea, but what came out of it at the end was an extensive campaign to 'let us first build a fence' (kodem gader ve-az nedaber). In the elections of 2003, Mitzna stepped into the spotlight with a more modest version of the idea of unilateral withdrawal - Let us evacuate the settlements of the Gaza strip immediately. But during his election campaign, "immediately" has turned into "in a year or two after the elections", and in the meanwhile, let us strengthen the fence.

But now, so the papers say, we have finally reached a historical turn. The majority is asked to believe that of all Israeli leaders, it is Sharon who will get us out of Gaza. Sharon, who shaped the map of the settlements in the Gaza strip in the seventies, and explained persistently the supreme strategic importance of the Netzarim settlement in cutting the strip into halves, Sharon of the Lebanon war, Sharon of Jenin - he is the one who will now dismantle the Gaza settlements and end the occupation there.

For those who doubt, ample evidence is provided by the world of politics. Intensive negotiations of the plan take place, with the U.S. and with Egypt. Low and behold, the right wing is already protesting, the settlers are furious, the chief of staff Ya'alon has reservations, and Sharon may be about to loose his coalition - a strong indication of how serious he is. Those who still doubt remember that there have already been many plans in the past, and road maps and diplomatic convoys, and still it turned out at the end that Sharon did not really mean what he said. To restore their faith, the political discourse is filled with explanations on why this time it is different. Some say that Sharon has changed, or that he has had to yield to the will of his voters, to whom he has promised peace. Others explain that what drives Sharon is the need to distract attention away from the various scandals and allegations of corruption in which he is involved, or that perhaps he is willing to give up on the Gaza settlements in order to gain international support for his fence plan in the West Bank.

The point is that in order to achieve the goals assumed in these explanations, one does not need to dismantle a single settlement. It is sufficient to declare intentions, and start a new process of negotiations. This is precisely what all Israeli governments have done successfully since 1993, and what Sharon has done for the last three years. The only innovation is that now negotiations take place with everyone except the Palestinians. All that is needed is to throw a pacifier at the majority and to convince them that this time Sharon really means it. This way, the majority will continue to sit silently another year, and let Sharon apply the Gaza model also in the West Bank.

The American historian Howard Zinn formulated a simple rule: Governments lie. It appears that this generalization is one of the most difficult for people to internalize and digest in a democratic society. Until this changes, the majority is doomed to believe again and again the same lie.

Narrowing the prison cells

Sharon's "disengagement" plan was introduced in early February 2004, at the peak of international criticism of Sharon's project of the wall, with the Hague hearing scheduled to begin just a few weeks later, on February 23.

In an interview with Ha'aretz, Sharon announced that "this vacuum for which the Palestinians are to blame, cannot go on forever. So as part of the disengagement plan I ordered an evacuation - sorry, a relocation - of 17 settlements with their 7,500 residents, from the Gaza Strip to Israeli territoryThe aim is to move settlements from places where they cause us problems or places where we won't remain in a permanent arrangement. Not only settlements in Gaza, but also three problematic settlements in Samaria." (Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz, Feb 3, 2004). Although the headlines presented this as a plan for an immediate unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, modeling Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, Sharon, in fact, clarified already in this interview that "the process will take one to two years". He explained that a long process of negotiations lies ahead, not with the Palestinians, who will be excluded from any negotiations about the plan, but with the U.S., with whom, "agreement is needed on both the evacuation and the matter of the fence" (ibid).

Three days later, full details were given on what Sharon asks of the U.S. in return for his generous concessions - "shifting the separation fence to the east, with U.S approval, to a temporary security line that will surround more settlements than the present path of the fence The new security line will be maintained until the full application of the road map. After negotiations [with the Palestinians] resume and an agreement reached, [Israel] will move the fence to the border that will be determined." (Aluf Ben, Ha'aretz, Hebrew edition, Feb 6, 2004). Sharon also seeks U.S. permission "to expand the big settlement blocks in the West Bank, which are to be annexed to Israel in the permanent agreement" (ibid).

Indeed, the fence-route has been at the center of intense Israeli negotiations with the U.S. Nachum Barnea, one of the most well briefed Israeli journalists, reports that "Israel does not ask for money to finance the evacuation, although it will be glad to get it. It mainly seeks support of the fence-route." (Yediot Aharonot Saturday supplement, Feb 20, 2004).

Apart from the negotiations with the U.S., there is no sign on the ground of any intention to evacuate from Gaza. A committee was formed to make plans about how to compensate the settlers there, but so far there are no reports of any interviews or contacts made by the committee with any of the settlers, nor of any concrete plans it has come up with. There isn't even a list of the settlements that supposedly will be evacuated from Gaza. Shortly after Sharon's ceremonial announcement to Yoel Marcus in Ha'aretz, we heard that "sources in Sharon's office have said that the planned evacuation of Gaza will include less than the 17 settlements that Sharon mentioned in the interview with Yoel Marcus. According to a diplomatic source in Jerusalem, Sharon may propose to evacuate in the first stage only the isolated settlements and postpone the evacuation of the Katif block [the largest settlements block in the Gaza strip] to a second stage" (Aluf Ben and Arnon Regular, Ha'aretz, Hebrew edition, Feb 9, 2004).

One could infer that at least isolated settlements such as Netzarim are being prepared for evacuation in the near future. This, in fact, would be a significant step forward. As Sharon has repeatedly explained, the Netzarim settlement was not erected arbitrarily. It lies close to the seashore in the middle of the strip. In order to reach it from the mainland, Israel built a special road dotted with Israeli army posts.. This road, with its constantly widening "security strip" separates the northern area of Gaza city from the rest of the strip. Transit between the northern part of the strip and its southern part is completely at the mercy of the Israeli army, which means that, in reality, it is not possible for Palestinians. Evacuating at least this settlement with its road and army posts would enable some territorial continuity in the crowded Gaza strip. But on the ground, work on fortifying this settlement has only intensified in recent weeks. "The IDF is currently building, at the cost of millions of shekels, a new electronic fence for Netzarim The new fence will prevent penetration under foggy weather conditions The chief of staff approved the plan and the region commander issued the orders, including the appropriation of land from Palestinians" (Nachum Barnea, Yeddiot Aharonot Saturday Supplement, March 12, 2004).

But since both Israelis and the world are so eager to believe that Sharon intends to evacuate the Gaza settlements soon, who would notice the daily horrors? At least the fence project in the West Bank is a focus of some world attention. In the Gaza strip, the fence was already completed during the first stages of the Oslo process. The strip has become a huge prison, further divided internally into smaller prison units. But the present project of the military is narrowing the prison cells even further. This is done through a steady erasure of houses and orchards along the "security strips". Alex Fishman, the senior military analyst of Yediot Aharonot, describes one of the projects that continues as Israel "prepares to withdraw". "In the Gaza battalion, they keep executing gradually but systematically the old dream: to widen the "Philadelphia" road [along the border with Egypt] to at least one kilometer in width The realization of this dream has been happening for two years already. Every time the IDF spokesman announces that our forces are operating in the area of Rafa to expose tunnels, a few rows of houses are erased in the refugee camp. In some of the segments of the road, the width is already a few hundred meters, and their hands are still outstretched." (Yediot Aharonot Saturday Supplement, March 19, 2004).

Now that Sharon "intends to withdraw", this project can continue undisturbed. Since the announcement of the new initiative, there have already been three murderous Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza (reported on February 12, March 8, and March 17-21). At the same time, new prospects are opened for the future maintenance of the prison, e.g. who should be responsible for feeding the prisoners. National Security Advisor Giora Eiland, who is in charge of composing the full details of the disengagement plan, explained in a meeting of the security establishment with Sharon that as Israel withdraws from the Gaza strip "it would no longer be responsible for what happened there. 'Let the world worry about them,' he said. 'I will no longer be the occupier in Gaza, so it will be as much the Egyptians' and Europeans' business as mine' " (Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, March 18, 2004).

Here is how Amira Hass describes the daily reality of the Gaza strip:

This is an admission of failure. The written word is a failure at making tangible to Israeli readers the true horror of the occupation in the Gaza Strip. This admission of the failure of the written word is not meant to enhance the role of photography. A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but for the Israeli occupation to approach some level of comprehension, Israelis need to see tens of thousands of photographs, one after the other, or watch documentaries that are at least eight hours long each, so they could grasp in real time the fear in the eyes of the school children when some whistling above turns into twisted crushed metal with charcoaled bodies inside.

Another movie should show the viewers the vineyards of Sheikh Ajalin, the ripe grapefruits, the peasants who for years nurtured the fruit with great love only to see it all turned to scorched earth left behind by Israeli tanks and bulldozers. No movie has yet been produced that would enable Israelis to taste the wonderful grapes of Sheikh Ajalin. The vineyards are gone so the military positions can protect Netzarim.

How would photographs illustrate the following facts - from September 29th up to Monday this week, 94 Israelis have been killed - 27 civilians and 67 soldiers, according to the IDF. From that same date up to February 18th this year 1,231 Palestinians have been killed - all of them were terrorists? Lacking a central Palestinian agency, there are differences between the data provided by Palestinian groups and none claim to be 100 percent accurate.

The failure to bring all this home to readers is not because of the weakness of words or a lack pictures. It is because Israeli society has learned to live in peace with the following facts. There are 8,000 Jews and 1.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The total area of the Strip is 365 square kilometers. The settlements occupy 54 square kilometers. Along with the areas held by the IDF, according to the Oslo accords, 20 percent of the Strip is under Israeli control. That's 20 percent of the territory for half of one percent of the population.

The proximity of every expansive settlement to the densely populated, suffocating crowded Palestinian community is what causes the large number of Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip, including many civilians. It is what determines the flexible rules of engagement, the type of bombs that break into fragments, the unmanned aircrafts that fire missiles.

- Amira Hass, "Words have failed us," Ha'aretz, March 3, 2004.
http://world.mediamonitors.net/

T.Reinhart (4/04) What kind of state deserves to exist?

What Kind of State Deserves to Exist?
Tanya Reinhart

Yediot Aharonot, Tuesday, April 20, 2004;
Translated from Hebrew by Netta Van Vliet


Amidst the political storm in Israel regarding the "Gaza disengagement" plan, only one really meaningful fact emerges: Sharon received Bush's approval to proceed with his plan for the wall in the West Bank.

With regard to the Gaza strip, the disengagement plan published in the Israeli papers on Friday, April 16th specifies that within a year and a half, the Israeli occupation there should be declared to be over. In every other aspect, the situation will remain as is. The Palestinians will be imprisoned from all sides, with no connection to the world, except through Israel. Israel also reserves for itself the right to act militarily inside the Gaza strip. (1) But since the strip will no longer be defined as an occupied territory, Israel will not be subject to the fourth Geneva Convention. Clause f of section I in the published plan states that "the disengagement move will obviate the claims about Israel with regard to its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip". In other words, what Israel does today in violation of international law will become legal: It would presumably become formally permissible to starve people and to kill whoever Israel determines - from a child throwing stones, to the successor of a spiritual leader, himself executed a month before.

The text of the plan also declares that Israel will evacuate the settlements and the army posts inside the strip. It is not clear how this could be accomplished given that the declared intention is to keep the strip under full Israeli "security control". After all, the isolated settlement of Netzarim (like the others) was founded precisely in order to divide the strip into separate parts, thus enabling control of it from the inside. Those who want to, may believe that Sharon will eventually dismantle Netzarim. In the meanwhile, however, Israel invests in its fortification. On channel 1 TV news on April 15, there was an interview with a pretty relaxed settler from Netzarim. "If the defense minister is building right now a new security fence for us" - he said - "then surely no one intends to evacuate us". In any case, the position agreed upon by Sharon and Netanyahu, and which was confirmed in the cabinet meeting of April 18, is that no settlement in the Gaza strip is to be evacuated before the wall in the West Bank is completed.

As for the West Bank, the innovation in the Bush-Sharon agreement is not found at the level of declarations. In the plans of Clinton and of Beilin-Abu Mazen, as well, it was clear that Israel was not offering return to the precise line of the 1967 borders, nor a full realization of the right of return. However, these were plans for negotiation - proposals awaiting the approval of the Palestinian people. Now the Palestinians are not even asked. Now it is Israel and the U.S. who are determining the facts on the ground. Israel marks the land that it desires, and builds a wall on that route.


In the Clinton plan, the Palestinian territory to be annexed to Israel consisted of 5-7% of the West Bank. But when the present route of the plan was first approved by the previous Sharon government, Shimon Peres, then foreign minister, protested that it robbed the Palestinians of 22% of their lands. Since then, the segment of the wall which is already under construction has been extended much further onto Palestinian land. According to a UN report from November of 2003, this segment, which did not include yet the region of Jerusalem, has already appropriated 14.5% of Palestinian land. Along this route, Israel is uprooting tens of thousands of trees, dispossessing Palestinian farmers of their land, and pushing them into small enclaves between fences and walls, until, at the final stage, the wall will surround them on all sides, as in the Gaza strip.

In 1969, the Israeli philosopher Yesayahu Leibovitz anticipated that in the areas of the occupation "concentration camps would be erected by the Israeli rulers... Israel would be a state that would not deserve to exist, and it will not be worthwhile to preserve it". How far are we from Leibovitz prophecy in the fenced Gaza strip?

In the West Bank, the situation is still different. Along the route of the wall, the internal struggle of the Israeli society is now taking place - between the self-proclaimed “land redemptionists” who, no matter how much land they have, will always want more, and those who want to live in a state that deserves to exist. Along that route, there are Israelis who, alongside the Palestinians, are putting their bodies in front of the bulldozers and the Israeli army.

===============
(1) The published plan is available at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtmlitemNo=416024&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y.

Here are some of the clauses that the summary in this paragraph is based on (Italics added):

III: Security reality after the evacuation
1. Israel will supervise and guard the external envelope on land, will maintain exclusive control in the air space of Gaza, and will continue to conduct military activities in the sea space of the Gaza Strip.
3. Israel reserves for itself the basic right of self-defense, including taking preventative steps as well as responding by using force against threats that will emerge from the Gaza Strip.


VI. The border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt ("Philadelphi Route")
During the first stage, Israel will continue to maintain a military presence along the border line between the Gaza Strip and Egypt ("Philadelphi Route"). This presence is an essential security need, and in certain places, it is possible that there will be a need for the physical enlargement of the area in which the military activity will be carried out.


XII. The international crossing point.
1. The existing arrangements will remain in force.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart

Tanya Reinhart (6/04): Labor and Sharon

The address for protest is Labor's headquarters
Tanya Reinhart
Yediot Aharonot, June 8, 2004. Translated from Hebrew by Edeet Ravel

How can we explain the conjurer's trick by which Sharon has turned into the darling of the Israeli peace camp?
Sharon is the worst prime minister we have ever had. No one else has managed to destroy so much in so little time. In the occupied territories, Sharon is realizing with frightening efficiency his long-standing vision of evicting the maximum number of Palestinians from their land. We have become a land of walls and fences and checkpoints in Rafah, in Jerusalem, in the West Bank. And now Israeli Arabs in Lydda are also being imprisoned behind a wall. We have an army that acts in unthinkable ways. Reading a newspaper fills one with shame; it is shameful to be an Israeli abroad.

Internally as well, devastation reigns: people whountil recently led a dignified existence are lining up at soup kitchens. They will soon be joined by municipal workers. Seniors are abandoned, foreign workers are treated like slaves, the environment is being destroyed, the universities are strangled.

Along with our society and state, the last recourse the rule of law is rapidly disintegrating. In a healthy society, a prime minister whose name has been linked to corruption and bribery scandals would resign even before the matter reached the courts.Here, the government'sAttorney General usurps the authority of the courts. Sharon’s trial has been conducted for months now in the inner recesses of AG Mazuz’s mind. In the final analysis, only if Mazuz the prosecutor can convince Mazuz the judge that there is a decisive basis for indicting Sharon, will Mazuz theAttorneyGeneral decide that there are grounds to put him on trial. Thus the prime minister remains above the law.

We have had poor leaders in the past. Netanyahu also sold off state assets, violated agreements with the Palestinians, and was accused of corruption. But no one has been as odious as Sharon. And yet, when an opportunity to bring him down presents itself at last, the Labor Party hurries to his rescue. - It doesn’t matter what he is doing or will do - Labor spokesmen explain - he has to be given a free hand because he has promised to get us out of Gaza within a year and a half. In fact, Sharon has yielded to all the demands of the dissenting ministers, and the decision on evacuating the settlements has been postponed until March 2005. Building and development in the Gaza settlements will continue, with the authorization of a special committee. (1,2) Yet none of this dissuades Labor from backing Sharon.

In his writings, Noam Chomsky persistently asks how it is possible in a democratic society for a small powerful group to impose on the majority a social order that is contrary to the majority’s wishes and interests. In Soviet-style dictatorships, the question does not arise: when there is only one candidate in the elections; when the Party decides and Pravda promulgates, the majority has no say in the matter. In a democracy, one of the processes that can lead to the same result is emptying the political system of content and eliminating genuine opposition.

In the last Israeli elections, many voters who were fed up with Sharon voted for Labor candidate Amram Mitznah. But now their elected representatives are keeping Sharon afloat. Whoever is elected becomes part of the system in exchange for a few crumbs of power, instead of representing the people who voted for them and opposing the government. The disappearance of opposition is supported by an acquiescent media. Haaretz, supposedly the paper of the liberal peaceniks, tells its readers day after day that what is important now is to save the worthy Sharon, who so badly wants to get out of Gaza.

But the virtue of democracy is that, in spite of all this, voters can still impose their will on their elected representatives. The place to address protests in the coming weeks is Labor Party headquarters. Sharon has to go. He must not be given a safety net.

[Background: On Monday, June 7, there were two non-confidence votes in the Israeli Parliament, one submitted jointly by the Beilin's Yahad party and the Arab parties. Labor party sustained, thus giving Sharon the majority he needed to survive.]





===================
(1) Ha'aretz, Monday, June 7, 2004, PM: Disengagement is on its way
By Aluf Benn, Gideon Alon, and Nathan Guttman:

At the end of a dramatic cabinet meeting yesterday, the government passed Ariel Sharon's revised disengagement plan, by a vote of 14-7, but the decision does not allow for the dismantling of settlements and the prime minister will have to go back to the cabinet when he actually wants to begin the evacuation process. ...The decision on the evacuation of settlements will be brought to the government at the end of a preparation period. Sharon told the cabinet the preparation period would end next March 1. ...

.
(2) Ha'aretz, Mon. June 7, 2004
What's been approved, what's changed [][]By Aluf Benn

[][]The government approved the revised disengagement plan and the preparation of the groundwork for the evacuation of settlements in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.
[]

[]
The actual implementation of the evacuation will require additional approval by the government, in accordance with the compromise that was reached yesterday and that enabled enlistment of the support of the senior Likud ministers for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan. In the framework of the compromise, six areas in Sharon's original plan were modified at the request of Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu, Limor Livnat and Silvan Shalom:

1. The name of the plan was changed from the "four-stage disengagement plan" to the "revised disengagement plan."

2. There was no approval of actual evacuations. The draft Sharon presented to the government last week contained a decision in principle to evacuate 25 settlements, which were divided into four groups, with a separate discussion being set for each group. This was rejected by the senior ministers on the grounds that it contradicted the May 2 Likud referendum that had rejected Sharon's original plan.

A compromise suggested by Likud Minister Tzipi Livni stated that the amended plan would not specifically approve evacuation of settlements, and that a second government discussion would be held in this regard, "taking into account the circumstances at the time." This phrasing was the key to the compromise that was reached. ...

3. A "softening" of the timetable. Sharon's proposal stated that "the process of evacuation was to be completed by the end of 2005." In yesterday's decision the government merely "stated its intention" to complete the evacuation by the end of 2005.

4. Cancellation of the ministerial committee. Sharon wanted to set up a special ministerial committee on the evacuation, to be headed by himself and ministers who supported his plan. The approved plan states that the evacuation will be monitored by the political-security cabinet.

5. Watering down of the freeze on construction. Sharon's draft contained a complete and immediate freeze on all government plans for construction and development in areas slated for evacuation. The approved plan ensures "support for the needs of daily life" in settlements slated for evacuation. Bans on construction permits and leasing of lands were also removed from the prime minister's proposal.

6. Change in the panel approving deviations from the plan. The committee under the revised plan will be headed by the directors-general of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), the Finance Ministry and the Justice Ministry.

Preparations for the evacuation will be undertaken in several areas. The defense establishment is planning the army's redeployment around the Gaza Strip and in northern Samaria. A special committee will formulate criteria for compensating settlers and begin negotiating with them. The Ministry of Justice will prepare the necessary legislation. The Jewish Agency will assist in resettling the evacuated settlers. At the PMO, a committee will be set up to oversee the evacuation and compensation process, with the authority to hand out advances to those willing to evacuate of their own free will.

Avnery on Sharon's disengagement fraud

December 19, 2004

Thanks to Uri Avnery’s reporting, we learn that Sharon has openly declared that he will try to avoid implementation of the Gaza disengagement plan. Avnery provides his rough transcription of Sharon’s speech at Herzaliyah (see below). Here is the relevant portion.

(1) If it is possible to avoid the implementation of the plan altogether, especially the evacuation of settlements, without losing the sympathy of the world and the Israeli public, fine.

(2) If there is no alternative and implementation must start - everything must be done to drag out the matter, and especially the evacuation of settlements, for as long as possible. Evacuate one settlement and rest. Evacuate another one and rest again. It should take years.

(3) Either way, the disengagement should not change the plans concerning the West Bank.

Contrast Avnery’s reporting with the cover-up by the rest of the Israeli press which prefers to ignore these points.

See for example Uzi Benziman’s who gives high marks to the same speech and makes no mention of Sharon ‘s intention to avoid removing any Jewish settlers from Gaza. “Can a leopard change its spots?” December 19, 2004.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=516127

---Ronald Bleier



Uri Avnery
December 18, 2004



The Mountain and the Mouse

by Uri Avnery



Ariel Sharon’s speech at the “Herzliya Conference”, an annual gathering of Israel’s financial, political and academic aristocracy, proved again his wondrous ability to conjure up an imaginary world and divert attention away from the real one. Like every successful con-man, he knows that the audience desperately wants to believe good tidings and will be happy to ignore bad ones.

It was an optimistic message, as the bewitched commentators proclaimed. According to him, we are on our way to paradise, 2005 will be a year of tremendous progress in all fields and all our problems will be solved.



Most of the speech was devoted to his fabulous achievements since he launched, at the same conference a year ago, the “Unilateral Disengagement Plan”.

This (in my own free translation) is what he said: America is in our pocket. President Bush supports all of Sharon’s positions, including those that are diametrically opposed to Bush’s own former positions. Europe has resigned itself to him. The Great of the World are standing in line to visit us, starting with Tony Blair. Egypt and the other Arab states are cosying up to us. Our international position has improved beyond recognition. The economy is advancing by leaps and bounds, our society is flourishing. Apart from the right-wing lunatic fringe, there is no opposition left. The Labor Party is joining the government and will support all its steps. (He somehow forgot to mention Yossi Beilin’s Yahad party, which, too, has promised him an “iron bridge”.)

Sharon has achieved all this solely by talking. His words have not been accompanied, up to now, by even one single action on the ground. There is no certainty that Sharon really intends to implement the “disengagement” at all. His intentions can be defined as follows:



(1) If it is possible to avoid the implementation of the plan altogether, especially the evacuation of settlements, without losing the sympathy of the world and the Israeli public, fine.

(2) If there is no alternative and implementation must start - everything must be done to drag out the matter, and especially the evacuation of settlements, for as long as possible. Evacuate one settlement and rest. Evacuate another one and rest again. It should take years.

(3) Either way, the disengagement should not change the plans concerning the West Bank.



And in the meantime: In the Gaza Strip, from which Sharon is supposed to “disengage”, the Israeli army is in action every single day and night, killing from three to ten Palestinians every 24 hours. Houses are being destroyed wholesale. Some of the atrocities committed by the army have shocked the Israeli public. Not one single settler has been removed. On the contrary, new settlers have still been arriving.

All this does not point to any real determination to implement the promised disengagement. Sharon’s actions on the West Bank, on the other hand, show a solid determination to implement his plan there.

In the West Bank, the occupation has intensified . The cruel checkpoints continue to prevent any possibility of normal life. The photo showing a Palestinian violinist compelled to play for the soldiers at a roadblock has evoked terrible memories in the minds of many Israelis. The building of the annexation-wall goes on, with a few changes of the route to placate the Israeli court, while disregarding the decision of the International Court. The settlers uproot Palestinian olive groves in order to build new neighborhoods in their place. Settlements are being expanded all over the West Bank, a network of “Jews Only” roads is being built, more “illegal” outposts come into being under army protection and with the tacit help of all relevant ministries. Plenty of money flows into these projects, while pensions are being cut and sick people lie around in the corridors of the hospitals.

Is this how a statesman with a vision of peace acts? He behaves more like a doctor who treats the hand of a patient while sticking a knife into his belly.

All this is happening while the world gives Sharon enthusiastic support, solely on the strength of his talking. As long as he holds forth on the “disengagement”, he can pretty much do on the ground whatever he fancies.

David Ben-Gurion once said: “It is not important what the Gentiles say, what is important is what the Jews do.” Sharon’s version is: “It is not important what we say, what is important is what we do.”



The most important part of the speech was the part that was not there. There was no peace offer to the Palestinians. He did not talk about peace at all.

Throughout the world, the conviction is spreading that there now exists a “window of opportunity”, that this is the time for a new, redeeming peace initiative. Indeed, Sharon mentioned with great satisfaction that Yasser Arafat is dead and that there is now a chance for the emergence of a “moderate Palestinian leadership”. So what did he offer this moderate leadership in his speech?

Not a thing.

He hinted vaguely at “long-term arrangements”. Meaning: more interim agreements on top of the existing interim agreements, whose sole aim is to push a real peace agreement beyond the horizon. It emerges from his speech that Israel will retain forever not only the “large settlement blocks”, but also “areas essential to our security”. Which areas could he mean? This is well-known: the Jordan valley and the other territories designed in the Oslo agreements as “Area C”. The final result of the “Disengagement Plan” will therefore be the annexation of 58% of the West Bank to Israel, as Sharon has wanted all along.

The Palestinians will retain, under this plan, 10-12% of pre-1948 Palestine, including the Gaza Strip (which is a mere 1.5% of the country). Sharon’s “Palestinian State” will consist of a number of enclaves cut off from the world. That is what he means when he talks about “the end of the occupation”, making “very painful concessions” and “our unwillingness to rule over another people”, words that have attracted widespread admiration.

To rule out any doubt, Binyamin Netanyahu, too, outlined in his speech at the conference the future borders between us and the Palestinians: “Not the Green Line and not even close to the Green Line.”

Nobody is offering the new Palestinian leadership peace negotiations. At most, some coordination of the steps leading to the withdrawal from Gaza. What else? The Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, promised in his speech at the conference that the army would leave the Palestinian towns “for 72 hours” for the elections. Between roadblock and checkpoint, between one “targeted liquidation” and the next, Palestinian democracy will flourish for three days.

Sharon boasted that for all practical purposes the army has already vanquished terrorism. That was said a few days after the Palestinians, in a commando action that elicited some silent admiration even from the army, succeeded in destroying an entire army outpost on the “Philadelphi Axis” by detonating a huge amount of explosives in a tunnel dug beneath it and storming the remains. (This did not cause too much excitement in Israel, because all the five soldiers killed were Arabs, mostly Bedouin volunteers from among the state’s Arab citizens.)

For the time being, the number of violent attacks on Israeli citizens has indeed fallen, but mainly because of Abu Mazen’s efforts. This may well continue for some time, as long as the Palestinian public has some hope of seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. As soon as they lose this hope, they will give the green light to a new wave of attacks.

Sharon promises Israelis a wonderful year, a year of security and tranquility, economic growth and social progress. There is no chance of this coming about as long as he is blocking the road to peace and keeps the peace process “in formalin”, as described by his closest advisor.

European leaders talk about making a huge donation to the Palestinian authority after the election of Abu Mazen. This is an illusion as old as Zionism itself: that the Palestinian people – or any other people fighting for its freedom, for that matter - can be bought off and will give up its land and independence for a mess of pottage.

If the money is not accompanied by a massive European intervention for the speedy termination of the occupation and the attainment of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian solution, the mountain (as the ancient saying goes) will give birth to a mouse.

T.Reinhart: (11/04) Sharon's Gaza Pullout: Not Gonna Happen!

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3331.shtml

Sharon's Gaza Pullout: Not Gonna Happen!
Tanya Reinhart, The Electronic Intifada, 16 November 2004

This article is the text of a speech given at the Euro/Palestine concert, Paris, on 6 November 6 2004.

We gather here at difficult times, when it seems that the Palestinian cause
has been almost eliminated from the international agenda. The Western world is hailing the new "peace vision" of Sharon's disengagement plan. The day this plan passed in the Israeli Knesset ("Parliament") last week was hailed by Le Monde as a historical day. Who would pay attention to the two line news piece that on that same day, the Israeli army killed 16 Palestinians in Khan Younis?

It is pretty much known even in the West that Sharon's plan is not about ending the occupation. With regard to the Gaza Strip, the disengagement plan published in the Israeli papers on Friday, April 16, specifies that "Israel will supervise and guard the external envelope on land, will maintain exclusive control in the air space of Gaza, and will continue to conduct military activities in the sea space of the Gaza Strip". In other words, the Palestinians will be imprisoned from all sides, with no connection to the world, except through Israel. Israel also reserves for itself the right to act militarily inside the Gaza Strip. In return for this "concession", Israel would be permitted to complete the wall and to maintain the situation in the West Bank as is. The innovation in the Bush-Sharon agreement that approved this plan is that this is not a proposal awaiting the approval of the Palestinian people. Now the Palestinians are not even asked. It is Israel and the U.S. who are determining the facts on the ground. Israel marks the land that it desires, and builds a wall on that route.

For those who oppose Israeli occupation, it is clear, then, that Sharon's disengagement is just a plan for maintaining the occupation with more international legitimacy. However, there is one presupposition shared in all discussions of this plan - that in the process, Sharon also intends to dismantle the settlements of the Gaza Strip, and return the land they are built on to the Palestinians. I should say that had I believed this might happen, I would have supported the plan. The Gaza settlements, together with their land reserves, security zones, Israeli-only roads, and the military array protecting them, occupy almost a third of the strip's land, which is one of the most densely populated areas of the world. Had this land been returned to its owners, it would be a step forward. We should never forget that the Palestinian struggle is not only for their liberation, but for regaining their lands in the occupied territories - lands that Israel has been appropriating since 67. As long as the Palestinians manage to hold on to their land, under even the worst occupation, they will eventually also gain their liberation. Without land, what is at stake is not just their liberation, but their survival.

But what basis is there to believe that Sharon indeed plans to dismantle settlements at some point? Certainly not the content of the resolution passed by the Israeli Knesset on October 26 - the day that has been depicted by Israeli and virtually all Western media as a "historical" day with "dramatic" resolution. In fact, the Israeli parliament voted to approve "the revised disengagement plan", which was previously approved in another "historical meeting" of the Israeli Cabinet, on June 6, 2004. So it is appropriate to check what was actually approved at that Cabinet meeting.

Ha'aretz's ceremonial headlines on June 7 declared "Disengagement on its way". But here are the smaller letters in the body of the report:
"At the end of a dramatic cabinet meeting yesterday, the government passed Ariel Sharon's revised disengagement plan, by a vote of 14-7, but the decision does not allow for the dismantling of settlements and the prime minister will have to go back to the cabinet when he actually wants to begin the evacuation process. ...The decision on the evacuation of settlements will be brought to the government at the end of a preparation period... [that] would end next March 1" ( Aluf Benn, Gideon Alon, and Nathan Guttmanm, Ha'aretz, June 7, 2004).

Elsewhere in that paper it is explained that " there was no approval of actual evacuations... A second government discussion would be held in this regard, 'taking into account the circumstances at the time' " (Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, June 7, 2004). The only thing the Israeli government, followed now by the Israeli Knesset, have approved, then, is to have a discussion of the idea of dismantling Gaza settlements sometime next year. It was also decided that in the meanwhile, building and development in the Gaza settlements may continue: "The approved plan ensures 'support for the needs of daily life' in settlements slated for evacuation. Bans on construction permits and leasing of lands were also removed from the prime minister's proposal" (ibid). And indeed, on the ground, slots of land are still being leased (for ridiculously cheap prices) to Israelis who wish to settle in Gaza, and building permits are granted by a special committee appointed by the government in the same "dramatic" meeting on June 6.[1]

Still, none of these facts were registered in public consciousness. The actual content of the cabinet decision was reported only once - on that same day - and then disappeared from the papers that keep recycling the stories about its heroic significance. Precisely the same happened in the present round. The fact that the Knesset has only voted to approve "the amended disengagement plan" that contains no decision to dismantle settlements was reported in the Israeli media:
Knesset members voting tonight on the disengagement plan have received a copy of the "amended disengagement law" the cabinet passed on June 6, plus appendices containing the principles of the plan and its implementation... According to the compromise negotiated at the time... the cabinet decision "contains nothing to evacuate settlements." To remove any doubt in this regard, the cabinet decision also states that "after the conclusion of preparatory work, the cabinet will reconvene to separately debate and decide whether or not to evacuate settlements, which settlements, and at what speed, in consideration of circumstances at that time. (Yuval Yoaz, Ha'aretz, Oct 26, 2004)

But again, this information appeared only once or twice, buried underneath bold headlines that even compared Sharon to Churchill. This is how a myth is built.

Another test-case for how serious the evacuation intentions are is the issue of compensations for the evacuated settlers. Since the cabinet's decision in June, many of the Gaza settlers began inquiring, directly or through hired lawyers, how and when they can be compensated. Behind the noisy protest of the settlers' leadership, many are relieved to be able to finally leave, and are just waiting for the compensations. Anybody intending seriously to evacuate them, would start by compensating first those who are ready to leave immediately, leaving only the ideological minority to be evacuated forcefully. Indeed, for five months, since the cabinet's decision in June, both the settlers and the Israeli public believe that this is about to happen any moment now. Again, a faith with no basis.

Special committees have worked with much publicity on every detail of the compensation plan. Many believe this was finally approved by the Knesset on November 4. Only in the small letters of what actually happened one can learn that the compensation law has passed only its preliminary first hearing (reading). In principle, the second and third hearing could take place within few weeks, but it was clarified in advance that the second reading will take place only after the government decides on actual evacuation, in March 2005, or later (Yosi Verter, Ha'aretz, Oct 8, 2004.) Till then, no one will be compensated. As Aluf Ben summarized this, "the Knesset will vote in the first reading of the Implementation of the Disengagement Plan Law, which authorizes the government to evacuate settlements and compensate those evacuated. Then there will be debates in the committees, and a second and third reading... and the law could be blocked at any stage" (Ha'aretz, Oct 27, 2004).

Outside Israel, the details of what was actually decided didn't even make it into the news once, and all that is repeated over and over again in the Western media is the propaganda produced by the Israeli political system - headlines from which one could infer that the dismantling of settlements is around the corner. Thus, the political debate around Sharon's plan concentrates only around whether it is good enough. The possibility that this is just another Israeli deceit does not even arise. And if you try to bring it up, you are perceived as having landed from the moon, as has happened to me in several European media interviews.

Deception and lies have been a corner stone in Israeli policy, brought to a new level of perfection since Oslo. While the world believed that Rabin promised to eventually end the occupation and dismantle the settlements, the number of Israeli settlers actually doubled during his rule. At the same time that Barak declared he intended to dismantle the Golan Heights settlements, in 1999, he actually poured money into their expansion. As Sharon promised to dismantle at least the illegal settlement posts in the West Bank, their number kept increasing. Still, none of this is ever remembered. Each new lie is received with welcome cheers by the Israeli peace camp and by European governments. Since Oslo, every Israeli government knows that all it takes, to ease diplomatic pressure, is to come up with a new "peace plan".

The ritual repeats itself with each new "plan" of this sort. The crucial factor in convincing the world that this time "it is for real" is right wing protest. Of course when the government comes up with a new scheme of deception, the right wing and settlers believe it as well. Rabin's deceit has cost him his life. The same threats are now being directed at Sharon. This is sufficient to convince the Israeli peace camp that Sharon is determined to dismantle settlements. Even serious anti-occupation thinkers write articles warning of the danger of "civil war" with the settlers (forgetting that for this to be even remotely possible, someone should try indeed to evacuate them first). The implication is almost unavoidable: In view of this coming civil war, Sharon is our leader. We should all unite behind him, against the dark forces in Israel.

Indeed, this massive Israeli propaganda works. Throughout the Western world, Sharon is now depicted as a messenger of peace, because he has declared that he is willing to evacuate some of the territories. All of a sudden, Sharon is viewed as the sane center of Israel, withstanding right wing pressure. The prevailing perception is that Israel is finally led by a man of peace, with a respectable determination to carry out painful concessions. And as long as this is the perspective, Sharon can do whatever he wants. The Israeli army terrorizes the Gaza Strip. dozens of Palestinians are being killed, including children on their way to school, houses are demolished and agricultural land destroyed.


At the time of operation "Defensive Shield" in the West Bank and Jenin refugee camp two years ago, there was substantial world protest. The last operation "Days of Penitence" in the Jabalia camp in the Gaza Strip has hardly received any coverage. Backed by the U.S., Sharon is realizing with frightening efficiency his long-standing vision of evicting the maximum number of Palestinians from their land. In the spirit of Orwell, it was even explained that one of the aims of "Days of Penitence" is to "expand the security zones" around the Gaza settlements (namely to enlarge their lands, pushing more Palestinians out of these lands), in order to guarantee that when they are evacuated, it would not be "under fire". (Aluf Ben, Ha'aretz, Oct 4, 2004). But Europe looks the other way, reassured of Sharon's new vision of peace.

These are difficult days, when Orwell seems to pale, compared to the power of present day propaganda, when it seems that the European governments are immovable in their support of Israel, no matter what crimes it commits; and the Palestinians are dying slowly, with their suffering not even being reported. But in such times, when governments are unwilling to impose international law, the people of the world can still take matters in their hands. Largely unreported, there is a growing on-going joint struggle of Palestinians, Israelis and internationals from the International Solidarity Movement, who stand daily in front of the army and the settlers in the Palestinian territories, in nonviolent, peaceful protest, documenting the crime, protecting as much of the land as they can, and slowing down Sharon's massive work of destruction. For the first time in the history of the occupation, we are seeing joint Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Along with Israel of the army and the settlers, a new Israel-Palestine is forming.

The breathtaking scenery of the West Bank has been sliced up by the new roads that the rulers have built for their own exclusive use. Beneath them lie the old roads of the vanquished. There, on the lower level, is where the other Israel-Palestine treads. For almost two years, Israeli youths arrive in settlement buses and then make their way on foot and in Palestinian taxis among the checkpoints. They trek between the villages in groups or alone. Some sleep in the villages. Others will travel the same route the next day to reach the demonstration. Everywhere they go they are greeted with blessings and beaming faces.

"Tfaddalu," the children in the doorways say, as if they had never heard of stone-throwing. All along the "seam line" in the West Bank, along the root of the wall, the Palestinians have opened their hearts and their homes to the Israelis and internationals who come to support their non-violent resistance to the wall and the occupation robbing them of their land. These days, hundreds of Israelis are going almost daily to the West Bank to protect the Palestinian olive harvest from the settlers, who, protected by the Israeli army, try to prevent the harvest.

What has brought young Israelis to stand with the Palestinians in front of the army is the conviction that there is a basic line of justice that must not be crossed, that there is a law that is higher than the army's laws of closed military zones: there is international law, which forbids ethnic cleansing, and there is the law of conscience. But what makes them return, day after day, is the new covenant that has been struck between the peoples of this land, a pact of fraternity and friendship between Israelis and Palestinians who love life, the land, the evening breeze. They know that it is possible to live differently on this land.

This daily struggle is our hope. It has become possible with the help of individuals from all over the world who come there to join the new form of resistance. They are facing harassment. Many are being stopped and deported, but they still keep coming. As long as more people come, even for a short time, as long as they are backed and supported by many others at home who could not join in yet, the struggle will go on, offering hope where governments fail.

Related Links

BY TOPIC: Sharon's "Gaza Disengagement Plan" (early February 2004)

BY TOPIC: Israeli raid on northern Gaza, "Operation Days of Penitence" (28 September-15 October 2004)

BY TOPIC: Israel's "Operation Rainbow" in Rafah, Gaza (13 May 2004-)


Footnotes 1. eg. "Yesterday, press photographers were invited in to take a picture of the first session of the committee to deal with the construction in the [Gaza] settlements, headed by PMO Director General Ilan Cohen. The committee is meant to examine the issue of construction and other development projects in settlements that are designated for evacuation. Cohen says Sharon told him 'not to compromise over security needs'. Gaza Regional Council Chairman Avner Shimoni won approval for 26 bullet-proofed buildings in Gush Katif. The new buildings are meant for residences, and school rooms are meant for Kfar Darom, Netzarim and Neveh Dekalim. So far, some 350 development projects have been submitted to the committee" (Aluf Benn and Nir Hason, Ha'aretz, July 27, 2004).


Prof. Tanya Reinhart is a lecturer in linguistics, media and cultural studies at the Tel Aviv University. She is the author of several books, including Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948. This article is the text of a speech given at the Euro/Palestine concert, Paris, on 6 November 6 2004.

Sharon's Phony Disengagement

http://desip.igc.org/desip/Sharon'sPhonyDisengagement.html


Sharon’s Phony Disengagement

by Ronald Bleier
June 2004



It’s remarkable that Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan is not more widely recognized for the hoax that it is, as only a few lonely voices have done. Left journalist Haim Baram has termed it a “fairy tale,” and Gush Shalom activist Uri Avnery has called it a “fraud,” “an exercise in deceit,” while author and academic Tanya Reinhardt has provided documentation demonstrating the lack of any practical steps Israel is taking that would indicate a serious intent to remove the settlers (see below). Nevertheless, despite the absence of such evidence the media and the international community largely continue to take Sharon’s disengagement plan seriously, aiding his agenda. Meanwhile Israel continues to pour resources into the settlements, even as it consistently moves the pullout date further and further into the future. At the same time the Israeli government maintains its hard line policy against the Palestinians, driving military incursions into Gaza and the West Bank at will, without let or hindrance from the U.S. or the international community. Sharon refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians, continues work on the separation Wall, gobbling up Palestinian land and water resources and as his government relentlessly strengthens its crushing encirclement of hundreds of thousands of thousands of West Bank Palestinians.

Sharon advanced the Gaza disengagement plan at the height of the corruption scandal that seemed to enmesh him and his sons. Sharon’s plan cleverly shifted the agenda and provided the political cover enabling President George W. Bush by means of an exchange of letters in mid-April to reverse long standing U.S. policy and U.N. resolutions relating to the Palestinians. In particular, President Bush brushed aside the critical principle, often reiterated at the U.N., of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory conquered by force. In his dramatic joint press conference in Washington with Ariel Sharon on April 14th, President Bush, recognizing “new realities on the ground,” declared that Israel can permanently keep major settlements in the West Bank, For good measure he also rejected the Palestinian right of return to Israeli territory. In addition, while freezing the Palestinian leadership out of these negotiations, Bush effectively gave carte blanche to the continued Israeli construction of the Wall on Palestinian territory, albeit with the meaningless reservation that it was to be regarded as a temporary structure.

While the Bush concessions to Sharon were not in themselves binding, nevertheless the Israeli prime minister well understood their value as an historic precedent that it may be difficult even for a succeeding Kerry administration to ignore or overturn. It’s no wonder that on the return flight from Washington, Sharon and his colleagues celebrated with champagne. In a Knesset speech two weeks later, Sharon bragged that the U.S. concessions represented “the harshest blow to fall on the Palestinians since 1948.” Not surprisingly, when Israel’s attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, a member of Sharon’s government, announced that Sharon was cleared of all corruption charges, aside from a relatively quiet opposition, there was little hint of effective public protest against a leader who had successfully brought about a crucial change in U.S. policy.

Ironically and tragically, the Gaza disengagement plan also provided political cover for the brutal ravages Sharon ordered this winter and spring in Gaza. These included the assassinations of Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Dr. Abd al- Rantisi, an extensive Israeli invasion of Rafah in which at least 60 Palestinians were killed, almost 300 Palestinian homes demolished, and close to 4,000 people made homeless. These outrages should be seen as more than merely an attempt to defeat the Palestinians: the Palestinians were soundly defeated in 1948 and once again in 1967. Sharon’s purpose goes much further. His aim is to continue the consolidation of Israeli control over all of the former Palestine and ultimately to make it impossible for the bulk of the 4.8 million Palestinians who now live there to remain.

Sharon’s apparent plan is to continue to put tremendous pressure on selected areas in the occupied territories, biding his time until events allow him to proceed with large-scale expulsions from the West Bank and Gaza (and later from Israel). Shraga Elam, a Swiss based Israeli investigative journalist, suggests that the Operation Rainbow Rafah operation was conducted along the lines of the old master plan, “Field of Thorns” which foresees a mass deportation of the Palestinians.[1] The photos that appeared in April of Palestinian families carrying away their belongings as best they could from their homes in Rafah in fear of Israeli tanks and bulldozers, could not but bring up memories of the mass expulsions of Palestinians in 1948. The images from Rafah are harsh reminders of how relatively simple from a military point of view it will be for the IDF to carry out expulsion orders once the political shoe has dropped.

Despite these stark realities, commentators continue to put forward the theory that Sharon’s brutalities in Gaza and the West Bank are meant to put the Palestinian community on notice in preparation for the day that the Israelis leave! Much also is made in Western analysis of the supposed Israeli willingness to be rid of Gaza. Yitzhak Rabin’s statement in 1992 that he wished that Gaza would just “sink into the sea,” is perceived as expressing a consensus Israeli attitude. But such a view doesn’t take into account the Zionist goal of a creating a Jewish state in all of the former Palestine. Removing Israeli settlers would be at cross-purposes with everything the Zionist community has worked toward since well before the birth of Israel.

Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan is not new. As Meron Benvenisti, longtime critic of Israeli settlement policy, explained in Ha’aretz, similar plans have come and gone “quite a few times over the past 20 years.”[2] Moreover, if the Western media weren’t generally prejudiced to favor Israel over the Arabs, more would be able to see through Sharon’s parliamentary maneuvers and his recurrent “Cabinet Crises.” The May 2nd Likud party referendum that voted down his plan was widely seen as a personal defeat for Sharon, even though the vote suited his purpose to delay any substantive changes to the Gaza settlements. It’s telling that Sharon decided not to present his scheme to a national referendum that stood excellent chances of winning.

On the ground, there is no evidence of Israeli plans to leave Gaza. Instead, circumstantial evidence supports the view that the Israeli settlers are planning to stay indefinitely and in good time will increase their numbers. Tanya Reinhart pointed out in March that there was “no sign on the ground of any intention to evacuate from Gaza.” Work on fortifying the strategically important settlement of Netzarim that separates the northern area including Gaza City from the rest of the strip “has only intensified.” At the cost of millions of shekels, the Israeli government continued to build a new electronic security fence around Netzarim. Reinhart emphasized that the Israeli chief of staff approved these plans and the region commander issued orders that included the appropriation of land from the Palestinians.[3]

Two weeks later Reinhart noticed a “pretty relaxed” settler from Netzarim appearing on Israeli TV who reasoned that “If the defense minister is building right now a new security fence for us, then surely he does not intend to evacuate us.” [4] Even the New York Times noticed that the settlers have little cause for concern. A relevant story in early April quoted an unnamed Israeli official to the effect that there were no plans in the offing to dismantle Gaza settlements and that settlement projects “in the pipeline” are going forward. The same article quoted Eran Sternberg, a spokesman for the Gush Qatif settlement bloc in Gaza who flatly contradicted an Israeli government announcement that settler development would be halted. “On the ground there are a lot of projects, a lot of families coming here all the time.”[5]

In early May, Sharon’s own national security advisor, Giora Eland appeared to be confident enough of the strength of the Israeli position to state flatly that the disengagement plan “could be dead.” At a Washington Institute symposium, Eland, the chief architect of the disengagement plan, said: “Frankly, I don’t know what would be the political solution that would enable [Sharon] to move forward [with the plan], if such a solution can be found.”[6]

But such brash truth telling, was at cross-purposes with U.S. diplomatic requirements that demanded a more comforting cover story. Thus, on June 6, 2004, Sharon engineered a 14-7 cabinet vote in favor of his proposal. Even so, the approved plan included “contradictory language about the evacuation of Jewish settlements.” Disengagement from Gaza was approved but there was no decision to dismantle the Jewish communities there.[7] In order to enable this sleight of hand in plain sight, Sharon was forced to pay a political prince, effectively narrowing his parliamentary majority down to 62 of the Knesset’s 120 members. Two members of Sharon’s coalition quit, Effic Eitam of the National Religious Party (NRP) and Likud member, Yitzhak Levy, the deputy social affairs minister. A few days earlier, when it appeared that otherwise Sharon would narrowly lose a 12-11 vote, he dismissed two extreme right wingers from his cabinet: Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Tourism Minister Benny Elon.

But compared to his achievements, Sharon’s parliamentary losses are marginal, especially since his attorney general has cleared him of corruption charges. Relieved of this pressure, Sharon was able to regain the initiative in his negotiations with Labor and if he decides to include them in his government, clearly it will be on his terms. In addition, Sharon has deflected any serious criticism from Washington. At least through the U.S. election season, the likelihood that he will experience any pressure to advance the peace process or to negotiate with the Palestinians is close to zero. Moreover Sharon’s program of devastation in the West Bank and Gaza continues, as he shrewdly continues to increase the military pressure on the Palestinians in such a way as to keep the violence below a critical threshold to minimize any international criticism.

The propaganda campaign continues

In early June Israel announced that it would offer compensation to Jewish settlers who are willing to pull out of Gaza. Settlers were given a September 1, 2005 deadline to leave voluntarily. If they don’t leave, according to the announcement, the Israeli army, would then evacuate any remaining settlers by September 15th. Each of the evacuated families would receive an average of $300,000 according to press reports.

Once again, this new compensation initiative seems merely a public relations move to satisfy the U.S., Arab leaders and the international community. The latest plan puts off the date of settler evacuation until September 2005, almost a year after the U.S. presidential elections. (An earlier deadline had been set at March 2005.) Moreover, it was announced that the withdrawal will take place in four stages, with each stage requiring a positive vote in the cabinet. It’s not difficult to imagine that those votes will come out the way Sharon decides they should.

As far as compensation for those settlers who voluntarily choose to leave, if payments are eventually made, it’s not unlikely that the U.S. will find a way to pick up a large proportion of the tab, resulting in a win-win situation for Israel. Even as Israel continues to pour money into the Gaza settlements, some Israelis would receive payments to relocate elsewhere (perhaps temporarily?) while Sharon’s government will find ways to postpone indefinitely the removal of the Gaza settlements.

It’s all in the fine print

The details of the June 6 revision of the disengagement plan confirm that no actual removal of settlers is mandated, or even allowed. Tanya Reinhardt referenced two articles in Ha’aretz detailing the changes that emphasize, “the decision does not allow for the dismantling of settlements.” Special roadblocks to removing settlers are created, especially one that forces the prime minister to return for another positive cabinet vote should he wish to begin the evacuation process. Moreover, when this cabinet discussion takes place, the members are enjoined to take “into account the circumstances at the time.” According to reporter Aluf Ben, “this phrasing was the key to the compromise that was reached.” In addition, “A softening of the timetable was adopted whereby the government merely ‘stated its intention’ to complete the evacuation by 2005, instead of the previous: "the process of evacuation was to be completed by the end of 2005.”

Ben also reported that the freeze on construction in the Gaza settlements was significantly watered down. Under the guise of an allowance for the “support for the needs of daily life,” virtually no restriction are placed on the resources that could continue to pour into the settlements. And to emphasize that the revised Sharon plan would not interfere with current and future plans for the expansion of the Gaza settlements, the Knesset also removed any and all bans on construction permits and leasing of lands for the Gaza settlements. [8]

In this election season, the Bush administrations as well as prospective Democratic nominee John Kerry seem more than ever subservient to Israeli wishes. The same can be said for the U.S. Congress, unable to voice even the smallest protest against the assassination of the top Palestinian political leadership in Gaza in March and April. In late June, both houses of Congress, acknowledged the power of the Zionist lobby with lop sided majorities voting for resolutions strongly endorsing President Bush’s giveaway to Sharon. Absent the kind of pressure only two presidents, Eisenhower and Carter, were able to mount to force Israel to return captured Arab territory, it’s hard to see what motive Sharon would have for displacing settlers he has worked so diligently to implant. It’s true that American interests vis à vis the Arab and Muslim community would be served if some positive movement regarding Israeli settlers, not to mention negotiating with the Palestinians, could be offered. But Sharon understands as well as any previous Israeli leader that it is not his job to please the Americans. It’s their job to please him.

The End

Notes:
[1] See http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2000/dec/Shagra_Elam.htm

[2] April 8, 2004, quoted in Middle East International, No. 723, April 16, 2004.

[3] Tanya Reinhart, “Sharon's ‘Disengagement’ from Gaza, March 30th, 2004, http://www4.alternativenews.org/opinion/display.php?id=3644

[4] Yediot Achronot, April 20, 2004, Tanya Reinhart, translated by Netta Van Vliet.

[5] New York Times, April 3, 2004. James Bennett, “Sharon Says He Has Ordered a Halt to Gaza Development.”

[6] Forward, May 14, 2004. Ori Nir. “White House Pressures Sharon on Disengagement Plan,”

[7] Washington Post, June 7, 2004. Robin Shulman, “Compromise Plan on Gaza Approved by Israeli Cabinet.”

[8] Yediot Achronot, June 8, 2004. Tanya Reinhardt, “The address for protest is Labor’s headquarters.” Ha’aretz, June 7, 2004. Aluf Ben, Gideon Alon, and Nathan Guttman, “Disengagement is on its way.” Ha’aretz, June 7. Aluf Ben, “What’s been approved and what’s been changed.”
***



-