http://www.nypress.com/14/17/taki/bunker.cfm
Sharon's Palestine
By George Szamuely, NY Press 04/25/2001
So much then for the "Nixon Goes to China" thesis that Israel's
champions trotted out to welcome the election of Ariel Sharon. Sharon
was the only man who could do a deal with the Palestinians because no
one would ever believe he was giving away the store. The argument was
totally dishonest. The Sharon amen corner knew exactly what they were
getting. That is why they were so excited.
Charles Krauthammer lamented that Israel could not go back to the
"comparative nirvana of the pre-Oslo years-when Arab expectations
were...low, and negotiations were about the margins." But perhaps with
Sharon now at the helm the Arabs could once more be bullied into
submission. The idea was that Sharon would put forward a "peace plan"
so ludicrous the Palestinians would be bound to reject it. There would
then be another armed uprising, which Sharon, unlike the pusillanimous
Ehud Barak, would put down mercilessly. Then the Palestinians-crushed,
humiliated and desperate-would have no choice but to accept the Sharon
"plan."
This was the cheerful view of the future envisaged by William Safire:
"For years, on a settlement hilltop, he [Sharon] would hang a map on a
fence and show to visitors...his concept of a defensible Israel next
to a contiguous state including virtually all the Palestinians on
about half the West Bank. Sharon's potential proposal is not as
dreamily self-defeating as the Clinton-Barak bridge to nowhere, but
has this practical advantage the other never did: Sharon in power can
now deliver what he promises."
This is splendid news. The Palestinians are to be stripped of half of
the land that international law holds to be entirely theirs. The 1967
UN Security Council Resolution 242-adherence to which is still
allegedly official U.S. policy-is unambiguous: "the fulfillment of
Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East which should include... [w]ithdrawal of
Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict." Not withdrawal from 50 percent, or 75 percent or 90
percent. And the resolution does not say: "from all territories
occupied in the recent conflict with the exception of East Jerusalem
because it is universally accepted that Jerusalem is the eternal and
indivisible capital of Israel."
Sharon's and Safire's "Palestine" would occupy around 42 percent of
the West Bank. It would have no territorial contiguity, since Israeli
settlements, bypass roads and military checkpoints would run through
it. It would have no borders, being completely encircled by Israel,
and no control of border crossings. Its inhabitants would be little
more than a source of cheap labor for the Israeli economy. Clearly
this is what Sharon is seeking to achieve. Even before the launch of
the attacks on the Syrian radar station in Lebanon and the tank and
bulldozer invasion of the Gaza Strip, Sharon had been intensifying his
military campaign against the Palestinians. He has accelerated the
building of settlements. A little while ago his government issued
tenders for 700 new housing units in the West Bank. He recently told
Ha'aretz that there was no question of withdrawing the settlements.
Sharon has also said that he would never give up any of the Golan
Heights to Syria or share sovereignty in Jerusalem. He has sabotaged
the perfectly reasonable peace plan put forward jointly by Egypt and
Jordan. This required Israel to withdraw its military forces from
Palestinian civilian areas, lift its siege of the West Bank and Gaza
and transfer the $54 million it owes the Palestinians in tax revenue.
In return, the Palestinian Authority would seek to end the Palestinian
armed resistance. Negotiations would resume on final status issues
such as the future of Jerusalem. Needless to say, there would have to
be a freeze on any further Israeli settlements.
Sharon dismissed this plan as a trick to "get Israel to negotiate
under fire." Foreign Minister Shimon Peres demanded an immediate end
to the Palestinian "violence and terror." In return, Israel would
alleviate some of its repressive policies in the occupied territories.
Only then would negotiations resume.
The Bush administration is going through a routine made familiar by
previous administrations. It pretends to be upset at some fresh
instance of Israeli violation of international law. A statement of
mild criticism is issued. This, however, is immediately supplemented
by far harsher criticism of the Palestinians. In fact, Secretary of
State Colin Powell's alleged "rebuke" of Israel was largely an attack
on the Palestinians. "The hostilities last night in Gaza were
precipitated by the provocative Palestinian mortar attacks on Israel.
The Israeli response was excessive and disproportionate. We call upon
both sides to respect the agreements they've signed." This is
consistent with the Bush administration's position that Palestinian
resistance to Israeli military occupation is "terrorism" while Israeli
violence is a "response to terrorism." Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers
continue to pound away, using U.S. guns and helicopters. The
assassination of Palestinian leaders goes on, as do the house
demolition orders and the land expropriation measures. The
administration would not dream of blocking sales of helicopter
gunships and missiles. The $3 billion in foreign aid remains
sacrosanct.
As for Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza following the Powell Statement
this was no tail-between-his-legs flight. At the United Nations, as
always, the United States acts as Israel's enabler. Recently, it
vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have dispatched
unarmed observers to the areas of conflict. Apparently, no one is to
be allowed to take a look at Israel's entirely defensive "responses to
terrorism."
