|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|