Israel claims that either a military or political response to Friday’s suicide beachside attack in Tel Aviv will depend on whether Yasser Arafat is willing to work for a cease-fire, which he has called for.
Sharon’s hunch and perhaps secret wish may be that Arafat no longer has the authority or the means to implement an immediate, unconditional truce required of him. Sharon’s Cabinet has suggested that if there is another attack and should as much as an Israeli hair be harmed, that would produce sufficient justification to put Palestinians through a meat grinder. Since hardly a day has gone by in this eight-month-old conflict without somebody getting hurt, the chances of further attacks on Israelis cannot be ruled out, with all the implications for the Palestinians such an assault would hold. A military reprisal would also have met the demands of those Israelis who have always been for subjecting the Palestinians to the Jewish state’s full wrath.
At the same time, should Arafat indeed persuade his people to abide by a cease-fire, Sharon would have stopped, at least temporarily, violence inside Israel, making him boast that he has honored his election pledge to bring security to Israelis.
In all events, Arafat cannot lower the temperature without at least some guarantee of tangible political achievements. But from where and from whom? Sharon’s hard-line approach reveals his disdain for the notion of peace and his refusal to treat Arafat as a partner in a peace process. His political vision is formed exclusively by what he calls Israel’s security and from that narrow perspective he is still managing the situation with an occupier’s mentality, the idea that a settlement can be reached that grants all or most of Israel’s demands is unrealistic. Only a balanced settlement can pave the way for peace in the region. In other words, a settlement must be sought within the framework of international law as embodied in Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
Israel will never eliminate the Palestinians. Nor will it achieve a decisive and permanent military or political victory over them. The best option for it, therefore, is to pursue a peace settlement. Sharon and his government must realize that the only way to a settlement runs through an understanding of the conflict’s nature as well as the other states and communities involved. Peace implies the elimination of the causes of war. Attempts to make peace by falsifying facts, abandoning previous frames of reference and reneging on signed agreements can only end in disaster or at best in suppression so excessive it cannot be sustained. Israeli public opinion must finally grasp the fundamental reality and essential truth that complying with international law and relevant UN resolutions and ending the occupation is in Israel’s own self-interest.
Sharon’s methods in attempting to crush the intifada have created such a reservoir of hatred that it is unrealistic to expect normal relations to resume in any foreseeable future. The requirement for peace must now be to make Sharon and all he represents appear, in Israeli eyes, a worse disaster than Ehud Barak, so that the Israelis will produce a successor willing to get serious about actually achieving peace, not simply keeping a never-ending peace process twitching with faint signs of life.
Sharon was elected because people thought he could bring peace and security to Israel. He is never tired of trumpeting that he knows the Arabs, and can force a peace treaty down their throats as he pleases. The Israelis may have been lured into believing in a quick victory and may have thought Sharon was the man to clinch it at this critical juncture. But Israelis are beginning to realize that what is happening to them is their own doing. They put Sharon in power and they must bear the consequences.
