Palestine Media Watch
HOME  |  ACT  |  MENTIONS  |  DONATE |  VOLUNTEER |   DEBATE | ADVISORY BOARD |  ABOUT   |  CONTACT | 
 
 
Re-occupation of Palestinian land is no mere "retaliation"

PMWATCH -- June 19, 2002 -- Only those who choose to ignore very recent and not so recent history, who elect to trump common sense, who insist on turning their eyes away from the obvious, can pretend that the decision by the government of Israel to re-occupy Palestinian land was a mere "reaction", a "retaliation", a "response" -- to use the favorite words of AP and other news outlets here in the United States -- and was motivated only by a desire to stop violence.

To begin with, if indeed the intent of Ariel Sharon's violent policies against Palestinians -- from assassination to land confiscation, to shelling civilian areas, to flattening refugee camps -- has been to stem violence against Israeli civilians, as he claims, one can only characterize the results of this policy as nothing short of a total disaster: since Mr. Sharon took office, in March 2001, 65 suicide bombings have hit Israel -- causing 238 Israeli deaths. (read more >>>) -- compared to ZERO deaths under Barak between the time he took office and September 28, 2000 (and 5 deaths between September, 2000, and the time he left office, with the first Israeli death from a suicide bombing taking place on March 1, 2001).

The real reason why Mr. Sharon insists on dealing with Palestinians only through violence and desruction can be easily gleaned if only one were to bother and check the plentiful record. Indeed, "Sharon is Sharon is Sharon", as an April 13, 2001 Haaretz article spelled out to those willing to look at reality full face. Here is an informative excerpt from that article:

Sharon is the same Sharon and for him the War of Independence hasn't yet ended. In a comprehensive interview, the prime minister describes the main points of his plan: Jerusalem, the Jordan Rift Valley and the Golan Heights are ours. Not even one of the settlements will be evacuated because they all have strategic and Zionist value. It is impossible at this time to bring about the end of the conflict, nor is separation from the Palestinians a viable concept. What then? Time is on our side. (April 13, 2001) read more >>

So, let the media know that their reporters may choose to write about Israeli actions as if they were mere reactions rather than part of a fully conscious game plan to keep Palestinian lands under Israeli control, but that the rest of us who keep track of history know that Israel is not, and never is, merely reacting out of "self-defense".

For more insight on the broader context, read the article below by Prof. Tanya Reinhart from Tel Aviv University.

Palestine Media Watch -- http://www.pmwatch.org -- (610) 993 - 0608


Your email address
Your first name
Your last name
City
State
Country
Subject

Your letter

 


THE SHARON-YA'ALON PLAN

June 20, 2001 -- Tanya Reinhart

Official declarations and many reports in the Israeli media indicate that the Israeli military and political leadership are aiming, eventually, at a total destruction of the Palestinian authority, and, with it, the process of Oslo, which is now dominantly considered by them a 'historical mistake'. Let us trace some of the background for this development.

Ever since the 1967 occupation, the military and political elites (which have been always closely intertwined in Israel) deliberated over the question of how to keep maximum land with minimum Palestinian population. The leaders of the '1948 generation' - Alon, Sharon, Dayan, Rabin and Peres - were raised on the myth of redemption of land. But a simple solution of annexation of the occupied territories would have turned the occupied Palestinians into Israeli citizens, and this would have caused what has been labeled the "demographic problem" - the fear that the Jewish majority could not be preserved. Therefore, two basic conceptions were developed.

The Alon plan consisted of annexation of 35-40% of the territories to Israel, and self-rule or partnership in a confederation of the rest, the land on which the Palestinians actually live. This plan originated with those who thought that it is impossible to repeat the 1948 'solution' of mass expulsion, for moral as well as world public opinion considerations. The second view, whose primary spokesman was Sharon, assumed that it is possible to find more acceptable and sophisticated ways to achieve a 1948 style 'solution' - it is only necessary to find another country for the Palestinians, such as Jordan, and to make sure that as many as possible of them will move there. This was a part of Sharon's global worldview by which Israel can establish "new orders" in the region (see the Lebanon war).

In Oslo, the Alon plan route triumphed, where gradually it became apparent that it is even possible to extend the "Arab-free" areas. In practice, the Palestinians have already been dispossessed of half of their lands, which are now state lands, security zones and "land reserves for the settlements". However, it appeared that Israel will be satisfied with that, and will allow the PA to run the enclaves in which the Palestinians still reside. The security establishment expressed full confidence in the ability of the Palestinian security forces - which were created and trained in cooperation with the Israeli ones - to control the frustration of the Palestinians and protect the security of the settlers and the Israeli home front.

But the victory of the Alon plan wasn't complete. Even the little that the Palestinians did get, seemed too much to some in the military circles, whose most vocal spokesman in the early years of Oslo was then chief of staff, Ehud Barak. Another consistent voice which has emerged is that of Brigadier Moshe (Bugi) Ya'alon, who is also known for his connections with the settlers. As head of the military intelligence -Ama"n- (1995-1998), Ya'alon confronted the subsequent chief of staff, Amnon Shahak, an Oslo supporter, and has consolidated the anti-Oslo line which now dominates the military intelligence view. Contradicting the Shin Bet position and the many media reports about security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian authority, Ya'alon claimed in a cabinet meeting in September 1997, and later, that "Arafat is giving a green light to terror".

The objection to the Oslo conception in the military circles was based on the view that it will be impossible to maintain such an arrangement in the long term. If the Palestinians have a political infrastructure and armed forces, they will eventually try to rebel. Therefore, the only way is to overthrow the Palestinian authority, and the whole Oslo conception. The first step on this route is to convince the public that Arafat is still a terrorist and is personally responsible for the acts of all groups from the Islamic Jihad to Hizbollah.

During Barak's days in office, Ya'alon became one of his closets confidants in the restricted military team which Barak has assembled to work with (Amir Oren, Ha'aretz, Nov 17, 00). The same team was prepared already at the beginning of the Intifada for a total attack on the Palestinian authority, on both the military and the propaganda levels. On the later, this included the "White book" on the crimes of Arafat and the PA. This is the same team which is now briefing the political level, as well as US representatives, and is responsible for the dominance of the call for toppling the PA.

In modern times, wars aren't openly started over land and water. In order to attack, you first need to prove that the enemy isn't willing to live in peace and is threatening our mere existence. Barak managed to do that. Now conditions are ripe for executing Sharon's plan, or as Ya'alon put it in November 2000, for "the second half of 1948". Before we reach that black line, there is one option which was never tried before: to leave the occupied territories now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Reinhart is professor of linguistics at Tel Aviv University and member of the Palestine Media Watch advisory board. This article was published on June 10, 2001, in Hebrew by Yediot Aharonot.

 
   
HOME |  ACT  |  MENTIONS  |  DONATE |  VOLUNTEER |   DEBATE | ADVISORY BOARD |  ABOUT  |  CONTACT |