Opinion Editorials, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Sharon's 'unilateral plans'
Musa Keilani
Jordan Times, Sunday, November 30, 2003
THE REPORTED plan of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to dismantle Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and “annex” settlements in the West Bank is not a new idea. It is part of a wider plan that was devised and was made visible when the Oslo agreement got stalled under his Likud predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu. The settlements in the Gaza Strip were retained until such time when Israel would be ready to tell the world, without reservation, that it had no intention whatsoever to give up the West Bank settlements but would give up the ones in Gaza as a “compensating” measure. Actually maintaining the “security” of the settlements in the Gaza Strip is costing Israel heavily, both in terms of expenses and army deployment. The location of the settlements and the terrain make it senseless for the Israeli government to hold onto them permanently and the reported plan to give them up now makes sense for the Israeli strategy.
Even before Oslo was signed, Israel wanted to relinquish control of Gaza, if only because the densely populated strip was proving to be too unwieldy for Israel's military. It was also clear that Sharon was being deceptive when he threatened to “reoccupy” the Gaza Strip if resistance groups maintained attacks on Israelis.
“Reoccupying” the strip was never in the cards for Israel after Oslo. Even Netanyahu, who is even more hawkish than Sharon, had ruled out “retaking” Gaza in his bid to eliminate everything that was accomplished under the Oslo accords.
With a major segment of the “security wall” that cuts deep into West Bank land already built, Sharon now feels comfortable to make his “magnanimous” offer to dismantle the Gaza Strip colonies while annexing West Bank land.
Indeed, his “offer” to dismantle the Gaza settlements would be highlighted to his backers in the US and Europe as a reflection of his “genuine” commitment to making peace, and given that Israel is in physical control of the land, the US and Europeans would no doubt urge the Palestinians to accept the deal as the best they could wrest from Sharon.
Sharon's comments that “some territorial compromise” would have to be made with the Palestinians are also not a new admission. Again, they are part of his scheme that took shape with his orders to his army to launch a brutal crackdown on the Palestinians two years ago, with a view to weakening resistance to a point where he hoped he would be able to impose on the Palestinian people his terms for “peace”.
What “territorial” compromise are we talking about? What compromise anyway? The entire land of the West Bank and Gaza belongs to the Palestinians. If “allowing” them to stay there and not seeking to “expel” them from their land is a “compromise”, then one could only imagine the extent of his “willingness” to make peace with the Palestinians.
The so-called ultimatum that he has given the Palestinian leadership is also part of Sharon's well-scripted plan, since it is coupled with a threat of “unilateral action” in the absence of movement towards peace, including total crackdown on all resistance groups to be carried out by the Palestinian leadership. Never mind that the Palestinian leadership does not have the infrastructure to keep a tight check on groups which carry out armed resistance and that it was Sharon himself who ordered the wrecking of the Palestinian police force.
It is questionable that the Palestinian leadership will be able to rein in the hardline groups, and this automatically leads to Sharon's adopting “unilateral moves”. Sharon's position also implies that he had been waiting all along with a perfect peace agreement in hand that meets the demands of the Palestinians, and it was only because the Palestinians relaunched the Intifada that he was forced to keep the accord locked up. Well, that could be the image that he might want to project to the US and the rest of the international community. But that does not cut any ice with the people of the Middle East and those who have witnessed the systematic Israeli moves to grab Palestinian land and deny the Palestinians a feasible statehood.
Sharon is a master of deception. What we are seeing today is the deception being played out. However, the danger is magnified now. Sharon would go ahead with his “unilateral plans” and create a fait accompli on the ground that will prove to be too difficult to reverse at a later stage.
In the meantime, it does not really matter in concrete terms whether Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia succeeds in convincing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to accept a “ceasefire” — i.e., suspension of anti-Israeli attacks. Sharon should actually be hoping that Qureia succeeds in his efforts and he might even contribute to reigniting tensions by ordering more army brutality that would no doubt trigger Palestinian retaliation and thus offer him the perfect ground for his “unilateral plans”.
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03). |
 |