Sharon playing a deadly game

April 22 2004
PV Vivekanand

LET us make no mistake about it. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is poised to implement a long-term grand plan aimed at turning all the territory between the "sea" — the Mediterranean — and the "river" — Jordan — into an exclusively Jewish entity. His unilateral "disengagement" plan is the first step towards that objective — notwithstanding the 750-kilometre "separation" wall in the West Bank that many see as Sharon's definition of the border between a would-be Palestinian state and Israel. Effectively, the plan would turn the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into a large prison camp holding more than 3.5 million people who would remain under intense Israeli-induced suffering aimed at pressuring them into leaving their land.

IN A SPAN OF less than a month, Sharon dramatically changed the Middle Eastern equation. By floating and successfully securing American endorsement of his unilateral "disengagement" plan with the Palestinians he has unveiled his the beginning of his version of a solution to the Palestinian problem. By ordering and ensuring tacit American endorsement of the assassination of senior Palestinian resistance leaders, he showed that he could not care less for what the international community thought about his policy of "targeted killings" that serve his drive to impose his unilateral plans on the Palestinians.
By securing Washington's acceptance of Israel's refusal to respect the right of return of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to their ancestral land, Sharon has also declared that, as far as the US and Israel are concerned, the refugee problem has ceased to exist, whether the Palestinians, the UN or anyone else in the world agreed with it.
Sharon's plan to end the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and remove Jewish settlers from the Mediterranean coastal strip is borne out of an Israeli need — rather than a desire to meet any Palestinian demand. The Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world and a hotbed of Palestinian resistance, was always too hot for Israel to handle.
Continuing to militarily occupy a chunk of the strip in order to offer "security" to the Jewish settlers there has always proved to be too costly for Israel. Therefore, getting out of Gaza should not been as a magnanimous Israeli gesture. It is nothing but cutting and running away from a problem that also implies getting rid of about 1.2 million Palestinians whose long-term presence under Israeli control would only gnaw away at the Jewish identity of Israel.
Obviously, deciding to withdraw from the Gaza Strip without negotiating a smooth transition negotiated with the mainstream Palestinian leadership under Yasser Arafat, Sharon is leaving the door open for post-withdrawal chaos to prevail there pitting Palestinian groups vying for each other for control of the territory.
However, withdrawing the army and relocating the settlers does not mean any dilution of the overall Israeli control of the Gaza Strip.
As the translated version of his plan has highlighted, Israel will maintain its stranglehold on the strip. It will have control over all accesses into and out of Gaza, meaning that it could impose a crippling blockade on the flow of food and water, labour movement, trade and everything essential for the people there to survive, particularly that the strip will not have any sea or airport.
The Israeli army will be able to stage any operation against the residents of Gaza like fish in a living room bowl; and so will be the status of West Bankers.

New 'realities'?

It is the next phase of Sharon's plan — and clearly mentioned in a letter of endorsement given to the Israeli prime minister by US President George W Bush — have really changed the equation on the ground. It involves relocating the evacuated Gaza settlers by expanding existing settlements and building new colonies in the occupied West Bank. Effectively, he is giving up housing for 7,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza in return for consolidating West Bank settlements, where 250,000 Jewish settlers live.
Indeed, the plan calls for dismantling four settlements in the West Bank, but that move is seen as rather cosmetic.
As Uri Avnery, a noted Israeli pacifist and analyst, puts it: "The Americans demand a symbolic gesture in order to show that the plan does not apply to the Gaza Strip alone.
"Actually, the evacuation of the four small settlements has only symbolic value. This is a negligible area with a few small and unimportant settlements. Sharon's settlement and annexation map in any case provides for the evacuation of dozens of small settlements in the areas that will be left to the Palestinians."
Indeed, Bush in his letter of endorsement given to Sharon clearly acknowledged that Israel would not give up its absolute control of all entry and exit points to the West Bank and the same conditions as the Gaza Strip would apply.


'Separation wall'

The so-called "security" or "separation" wall/fence that Sharon is building in the West Bank, is only a tool to help his plans. In the short term, when completed, it would be a barrier against Palestinian resistance attacks and will encompass all areas which Israel considers as vital to its "strategic interests" at this point in time. Israel would be able to remove it as and when the elements have been turned into its favour and when it could claim all the land of Palestine as a Jewish state.
As Avnery phrases it, since "an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the West Bank) is not feasible for the time being," Sharon "is implementing his minimum plan: to enlarge the borders of the Jewish state as much as possible, without incorporating a further large Arab population."
The "minimum" plan another clincher that has to do with "ethnic cleansing" although very subtle.
Sharon wants the Palestinians — at some point — to agree to a "population" swap: Arab Israeli towns in return for further West Bank land. Effectively, it would serve several purposes for Sharon. He could further reduce the number of Arabs who opted to stay on in their land in 1948 and accept Israeli citizenship and also strengthen the presence of Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
Sharon's mistrust of Arab Israelis is well known although he had sought their votes in elections. His approach to Arab Israelis should be seen against the 1980s and early 90s backdrop that he had been one of the ardent advocates of expelling all Arabs not only from the West Bank but also from the areas that became Israel in 1948.

Right of return

The American endorsement of Israel's refusal to respect the right of return of refugees has shocked many. But, a fine print reading would show that need not be a jolt at all.
Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, said in a Jan.8, 2001, speech — notably the last while he was in office — set the ground for the American position on the issue. He said, as Avnery recalls, "A solution...for the Palestinian refugees (will allow) them to return to a Palestinian state... Others who want to find new homes, whether in their current locations or in third countries, should be able to do so, consistent with those countries' sovereign decisions. And that includes Israel."
In Avnery's interpretation, this means that "only Israel alone will decide whether refugees will be allowed to enter its territory - and that is what Bush said, too."
The noted Israeli peace activist notes that "contrary to the official translation of his letter into Hebrew, Bush said that the refugees must be settled in the Palestinian state "rather than in Israel." The Hebrew translation said "and not in Israel"," he points out, adding "a subtle but not unimportant difference."
Palestinian refugees are defined as those who resided in Palestine two years prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1948 and who lost their homes and livelihoods as a result of that war.
The Palestinian position on the refugees is based on UN Resolution 194 of 1948, which draws from the international law that states that refugees have the right to return to their homes of origin, receive real property restitution, and compensation for losses and damages.
UN Resolution 194 provides only two solutions: repatriation for those refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbours or compensation for those choosing not to return.
The General Assembly adopted Resolution 3236 in 1974, making the right of return an "inalienable" right.
In practical terms, according to surveys conducted in Palestinian refugee camps, the first generation of Palestinian refugees is fast disappearing and not many in the second generation wish to go back to their ancestral land which most of them could not even remember.
While there is no accurate data, a majority of the refugees are likely to opt for real property restitution, and compensation for losses and damages in lieu of their right to return, UN officials say.
In any event, they are far from any stage where they could exercise that option since Israel has steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge Resolution 194.
The majority of Palestinian refugees live in Arab countries neighbouring Israel and the occupied territories.
More than half the refugee population lives in Jordan. Approximately 37.7 per cent live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, comprising about 50 per cent of the population in the occupied territories; 15% per cent live in almost equal numbers in Syria and Lebanon; about 260,000 internally displaced Palestinians reside in Israel. The remaining refugee population lives throughout the world, including the rest of the Arab World (from the Gulf States to Egypt). Of the 3.8 million refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 33 per cent live inside UNRWA's 59 refugee camps throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (source: Al Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition).
The Israeli argument against the right of return had been based on three points: there is no space in Israel for the refugees to return, that the return of Palestinian refugees would threaten security and lead to conflict, and finally, that the return of the refugees would jeopardise the Jewish nature of the state.
Al Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, rejects the argument. It says: "With regards to the first argument recent research shows that 78 per cent of the Jewish population of Israel resides on 15 per cent of the land. The areas where Palestinian villages were demolished lie mainly uninhabited. At the same time, all Jews worldwide are encouraged to immigrate to Israel based on the Israeli 'law of return.'
"As for security concerns, Palestinian refugees broadly accept that exercising their right to return would not be based on the eviction of Jewish citizens but on the principles of equality and human rights.
"The final argument though is a testament to Israel's false claim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a Jewish democracy, and this oxymoron should not be confused with real democracy."
No end to killings

Only disappointment greeted those who might have thought that Bush's endorsement of the "disengagement" plan meant an end of Israel's policy of "target killings" and the beginning of preparations for an Israeli evacuation of the Gaza Strip. One of the first things that Sharon ordered prior to after his return from Washington last week was the killing of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (in late March) and of his successor Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi.
While assassinating noted Palestinian resistance leaders is in no way new to Israeli policy — scores have been "eliminated" in various countries the last three decades —  the killing of Yassin marked a definite turn to the worse. Sharon could not have been unaware of the fury it would spark among the Palestinians and dangers such fury would bring about —  plus of course international condemnation. It was all the more jolting that Sharon followed it up with assassination threats against Arafat and Lebanon's Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and then ordered the Rantisi killing.
Obviously, Sharon, boosted by the American approval of his "disengagement" plans and assured by the track record that Washington would not censure it for killing Palestinians and also offer protection against UN punitive action, no longer feels any reason to exercise any restraint in his drive to "condition" the Palestinians into accepting his terms.
He has declared that he would continue to chase and kill every Palestinian resistance leader worth the name.
That is indeed a most dangerous development. Every Israeli killing of a resistance leader, whether from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fateh or any other group, only serves to fuel Palestinian despair and frustration into undertaking suicide missions and more daring attacks against Israelis.
The Palestinian mindset was clearly spelt out by Rantisi himself in an interview a few days before his death.
"I am not afraid," he said. "I want to be a martyr and will die, not at the hands of Sharon, but when Allah wants it.
"I would prefer to die a martyr rather than of cancer or heart arrest."
While the international community was almost unanimous in condemning the Israeli policy of killing as illegal and counter-productive to any prospects for a negotiated settlement of the Palestinian problem, the US was an exception. Washington refused to criticise Israel and instead affirmed what it said was Israel's a right to defend itself.
Obviously fearing further killings, Hamas has named a successor to Rantisi, but his identity is a closely guarded secret, but it is largely easy to guess, given the prominence of some of its activists as committed and dedicated resistance leaders.
Hamas revenge for the death of its leaders could come anytime, and observers, including Israeli commentators, have said that it could be too intense and devastating. If it has not come until now, it is only because of the unprecedented security measures that Israel has adopted.


Palestinian rejection

In response to the Sharon plant, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has vowed that Palestinians will never give up their quest for an independent state and the right return of refugees.
Arafat also warned that there can be no security for Israel as long as the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands continues.
"The Palestinian people will never give up the goal of achieving freedom and independence and a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," said Arafat.
He noted that while Israel has killed Palestinian leaders over the decades, it has failed to stop the Palestinian people.
"Yes, my brothers and sisters, our fate is to defend our land, our holy shines, defend Jerusalem and the right to live in freedom and national independence and the right of refugees to return to their lands. ...
"Israeli crimes will be faced with more resistance to force Israeli occupiers and herds of settlers to leave Palestinian land," Arafat said. "Israel will not achieve security through occupation, arrogance and assassinating our leaders."
Fears are high in Palestinian circles that there could be confrontation between forces loyal to Arafat and those who back groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to take control of Gaza as, when and indeed if the Israeli withdraw from the strip.
Intense discussions are under way among the various Palestinian faction to find a formula for shared authority in the Gaza Strip. However, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, aware that they have gained additional support in recent weeks, are holding out for a lion's share of power and influence.



'Roadmap' rolled up


On the diplomatic front, Sharon's "disengagement" has effectively killed any chance for the revival of the "roadmap" for peace backed by the Quartet — the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia.
However, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair appear to believe that the Sharon plan offers a "fantastic" opportunity for the Palestinians to negotiate peace with Israel.
It is an irony. Bush's endorsement of the Sharon plan has closed the door on two key Palestinian demands — the right of return of refugees and dismantling of all West Bank settlements; add to that the reality that Israel had been insisting on changing some of the key stipulations in the "roadmap" as conditions for its acceptance of the blueprint.
Effectively, that leaves nothing for the Palestinians to "negotiate" with Israel except the "technicalities" of how they should carry out the "civil administration" of the territory under their control on the eastern side of the "security wall" that cuts across the West Bank.
No doubt, it was fears of a wider Muslim and Christian backlash that prevented Bush from publicly endorsing Israel's "right" to the whole of Jerusalem, including the eastern part of the Holy City that it seized in the 1967 war.
While Washington's publicly stated position that the fate of Jerusalem should be negotiated between the Palestinians and Israel, it is widely held in the Arab and Muslim world that the US is only waiting for the right opportunity to announce its support for the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as its "indivisible and eternal capital."
The US-British assertion that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should continue has an implicit rider — the Palestinians should forget about ever demanding the right of return of refugees and removal of West Bank settlements.
In the hypothesis that is indeed is the way the Palestinians would opt, then the net shape of the West Bank under their nominal control would resemble South Africa's apartheid-era Buntustans — large population centres cut off from each other by access roads under the absolute control of the Israeli army.
In Avnery's words:
"Almost all the Palestinian population in the West Bank, some 2.5 million people, will be crowded into the remaining 45 per cent of the area, which, together with the Gaza Strip, will constitute about 10 per cent of the country called Palestine under the British mandate, before 1948.
"This area will be a kind of archipelago in the big Israeli sea. Each 'island' will be cut off from the others and surrounded by Israeli areas. The islands will be artificially connected by new roads, bridges and tunnels, so as to create the illusion of a 'viable, contiguous state,' as the Americans demand.
"According to the written plan: 'Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the Judea and Samaria region (Israeli-given name for the West Bank), in order to make possible uninterrupted Palestinian transportation.' In practice, these connections can be cut off within minutes at any time. Pretexts can always be found easily."

Why the Sharon plan?


Questions are being asked why Sharon opted to float his "disengagement" plan at this point in time.
Several theories are debates, and it would seem a combination of those theories could be the right interpretation.
These include:
Sharon is aware that Bush is finding himself in a difficult situation with regard to his prospects of re-election in November because internal and external factors (notably Iraq). Therefore, an Israeli "initiative" — notwithstanding its overwhelmingly negative points — to "settle" the Palestinian problem would never be rejected by a US president desperate for Jewish and pro-Zionist support in the polls. If anything, the president would only seek to turn around the "initiative" to his advantage and use it to highlight a dramatic turnaround in prospects for peace in Palestine.
At the same time, Sharon is also aware that he would be better off to grab whatever he could from Bush before the incumbent is possibly forced to pack up and leave the White House. No doubt, it might not be a major problem for Israel to pressure any occupant of the White House to see things the Israeli way, but why wait for a Bush successor to be installed —  if indeed that is how the vote turns out in November — and then convinced into publicly accepting and supporting the Israeli "initiative"?
On the internal front, Sharon could not but be aware that apart from the cycle of killings and Palestinian resistance war, nothing much had been happening in the last two years in any movement for peace, realistic or otherwise. He had to grab the initiative and hit the headlines and, in the bargain, gain a ground advance towards creating facts on the ground that would serve his quest for his own version of "peace" and also dump the so-called "Geneva initiative" worked out by his political rivals and Palestinian leaders.
Indeed, there are some who argue that Sharon is also seeking to shield himself from prosecution in a political scandal where he is accused of accepting illegal money for his election campaign.
By setting a target of end of 2005 for implementing the plan, Sharon seemed to be seeking to stall any move by the judiciary to charge him for corruption. After all, how could a prime minister who has come up with what is definitely the most dramatic "peace initiative" that serves Israel be sent to court to face corruption charges and thus undermine the prospect of the country gaining something historic?
Again, the shape of the Middle East could change dramatically in the next 20 months, given the upheavals in Iraq and other developments in the region, thus giving Sharon additional lifeline and time to save himself from being prosecuted.And finally, there is the argument that Sharon has not really cooked up anything new.
Sharon's Likud party, long an advocate of building settlements in the occupied territories, is to vote in a referendum on the plan on May 2.
Sharon has told the party that his plan will boost Israel's security by reducing friction with Palestinians, and Likud leaders are lining up behind it. He got a strong boost when his main rival within the party, former prime minister and current finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said he backed the plan.
According to Avnery, the "disengagement" plan "conforms exactly to the plan that Sharon has been propounding for decades. He just cut out a piece of it and is presenting it as an up-to-date plan. "
In fair terms, the implementation of the plan depends on how it suits Sharon's political and personal agenda.
Notwithstanding the timing, the reality today is that the president of the United States has said that it would support the annexation by the occupier of parts of the occupied territory.
One fails to see any provision whatsoever anywhere in the world that gives the United States the right to grant Palestinian territory to Israel. Obviously, that does not seem to have bothered Bush any, and, the Palestinian might get easily stuck with what the president has endorsed, given the geopolitical realities in a regional and global context.