Click
an area of the map for world news.
:
|
From the
January 2002 issue of
World Press Review
(VOL. 49, No. 1)
Mideast:
No Peace, No Process
Good Terror, Bad Terror
Gisela
Dachs, Die Zeit (liberal weekly), Hamburg, Germany, Oct.
25, 2001
A new word just
entered the Hebrew vocabulary: escapism, meaning the flight
from reality. The Israelis, traditionally addicted to the news,
are now tuning in to Spanish soap operas. Politics no longer
dominates every conversation. The retreat into the private world
does not stem from indifference, but from the realization that
there will be no easy way out of the dead-end street of violence.
Options, in fact, are limited. For the first time in the country’s
53-year history, a cabinet minister has fallen victim to a Palestinian
attack. [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon adroitly took
advantage of the American president’s words. He compared
[President] Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA)
with the Taliban regime, which has offered terrorists a “refuge.”
In their largest military offensive since the signing of the
Oslo accords in 1993, Israeli tanks pushed deep into the West
Bank and into Palestinian cities. But it still looks very unlikely
that this wide operation aimed at the killers of [former Tourism
Minister] Rehavam Ze'evi will result in a lasting occupation
of the so-called territory A, much less in driving out the Palestinian
political leadership. “If we depose the PA, there will
be a bloodbath in the Palestinian areas,” warns Israeli
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. It is not in Israel’s interest
to recapture the territories now controlled by Arafat. No one
here has forgotten the war in Lebanon, which resulted in the
army getting stuck there for almost 20 years. Sharon, who led
the troops right into Beirut in 1982—at that time to kick
the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader out—knows
this best of all. And Washington would scarcely permit the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict to go into full escalation right now.
After Sept. 11, the immediate hope in Israel was that the offensive
against Afghanistan would give them more maneuvering room in
their own fight against terrorism. But now the coalition opposing
Bin Laden is the reason that Sharon cannot get rid of his archenemy
Arafat. If that happened, the Arab world would deny the Americans
any kind of support.
For now Washington is embracing Syria and Iran, while European
politicians have explained to the Israelis that there is good
terrorism and bad terrorism, and that as a result the attacks
in Tel Aviv and New York cannot be compared. To translate: Those
who are fighting against the Israeli occupation are the good
terrorists. Quite a few Israelis would go along with that. Even
[former Prime Minister] Ehud Barak once said that, if he had
been born Palestinian, he would have joined a militant liberation
group. Last year, Barak risked his position as prime minister
in order to end the occupation of the Palestinian territory
once and for all. The Camp David Summit failed, and Arafat returned,
not to new negotiations, but to the Intifada instead. Following
the change of government, the Israelis wrote off the PLO chief
as a negotiating partner. From then on, Arafat was no longer
a part of the solution—he was a part of the problem.
Many people have been thinking about a world without the PLO
leader. But who might take his place? Hamas’ Sheik Ahmad
Yassin from the Gaza Strip or some other Islamic fundamentalist?
Security experts caution that if Israel interferes, it could
be held responsible for a new political order in the occupied
territories. “The Palestinians have to realize for themselves
that they will not be able to construct a state with Arafat,”
says one expert. He recalls the boomerang effect when Israel,
in the 1980s, used its influence to play power politics in Lebanon.
The result was the rise of Hezbollah.
So, there is the Arafat option. Internationally, the PLO leader
was rehabilitated by the events of Sept. 11. Unlike the situation
in the Gulf War, when he embraced [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein,
this time Arafat chose the “right side.” Subsequently,
[British Prime Minister] Tony Blair received him in London and
President Bush repeatedly mentioned the idea of a Palestinian
state. With that, Arafat may be able to bolster his wobbly internal
stature. Opinion pollster Khalil Shkaki in Ramallah says that
Arafat’s Fatah party is no longer the strongest political
force. A year into the Intifada, Hamas and the other opposition
groups have been able to take over the leadership role. Given
that these extremists are regarded heroes, it is hard to oppose
them.
Arafat continues to rely on his games: He promises to make arrests,
and in fact he does put many suspects behind bars—only
to allow them to go free a few hours later. What the Israelis
call “revolving-door policies” are described by Yasser
Abed Rabbo, the Palestinian Minister of Information, as an “emergency
solution.” Arafat had to turn the leaders of various militias
loose, because their followers threatened to open fire on Israeli
settlements.
If that were to happen, it would undermine Arafat’s efforts
to maintain a cease-fire. Without any chance of success in his
efforts toward achieving a Palestinian state, Arafat will never
risk the outbreak of a civil war, say those who know him well.
The only success the Palestinians can point to one year into
the Intifada is the increasing isolation of Israel. It is not
the suicide bombers, the snipers, or their mortars that have
helped them, but instead the TV footage of tanks, and Sharon’s
bad reputation. His name, around the world, is bound up forever
with the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee
camps [in Lebanon]. And Ha’aretz, the Israeli daily, complained:
“The international pressure put on Arafat after the killing
of Ze’evi has, as expected, disappeared in light of the
pictures of Israeli tanks rolling into Bethlehem and Ramallah,
and the footage of the funerals. And, once again, Israel is
perceived to be the aggressor in the present spiral of violence.”
The Palestinians themselves are not that concerned about the
latest Israeli military moves. “We are suffering, but as
a result the Israelis will not achieve their goal. Our fight
against the occupation can not be stopped,” said Mustafa
Barguti of the [Ramallah-based Palestinian NGO] Palestine Monitor.
He asks provocatively: “What can the Israelis do next?”
Barguti is alluding to Prime Minister Sharon. For Sharon must
deal not only with Washington, but also ensure domestic political
support. Sharon’s position is not simple: His promises
to provide quiet and safety went unfulfilled. The right-wing
camp, above all Benjamin Netanyahu, who would certainly like
to be prime minister again and who promises to deal harshly
with Palestinian terror, says that Sharon’s hard-line course
is too moderate. And the Labor Party attacks the prime minister
from the other side: It threatens to leave the National Unity
Coalition if Sharon does not pull the tanks back soon.
The left, after a phase of crippling agony, seems to be slowly
waking up again. In fact, in the last few weeks, prominent members
of the Labor Party wanted to present the public their ideas
for a unilateral separation from the Palestinians. But then
came Ze’evi’s assassination. The plan calls for Israel
to withdraw from most of the West Bank, set up a security border,
and then offer the Palestinians negotiations over the remaining
points of disagreement—with one condition: that they abstain
from violence. That would not provide protection against terror,
but it would still be one way to preserve Israel as a Jewish
and democratic nation.
Geographer Arnon Sofer estimates that, even today, only 51 percent
of the people living between Jordan and the Mediterranean are
Jews. By 2020, that area will contain 15.2 million people, of
which just 6.4 million will be Jews. “If the Green Line
disappears,” says Shimon Peres, “then the future of
Israel will be like that of Lebanon, which was once a Christian
country in a Muslim region and disappeared. We, too, will disappear
if we do not move wisely.”
Sharon talked with Sofer not long ago. But he backs away from
a unilateral separation. The prime minister prefers to maintain
the uncertain status quo. For even if no new Jewish settlements
are built in the West Bank, the existing ones will continue
to grow. For the Palestinians, however, this is a reason to
continue with the Intifada. “We have time,” they like
to say. They point to their high birthrate and believe that
it is the Israelis who are under the most pressure to find a
solution soon.
Despite the killing of Ze’evi, more than half of the Israelis
still believe in pursuing negotiations. A clear majority, however,
supports the government’s “liquidation” policies
as well. People do not want to give up their hopes for an agreement
with the Palestinians. Nor do they want to give up their hopes
for a victory over terrorism. But right now it does not look
like either is possible. 
|
|
|
