The celebrations in Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal have been short-lived.
Hardly had excited youngsters a chance to relish their first close-up encounter with the ocean and the more senior poignant reunions with long-lost relatives in Egypt than the occupier made its bloody presence felt.
In the early hours of yesterday, Israeli missiles rained down on this tiny, heavily populated strip of land, home to 900,000 Palestinians, bursting their psychological security bubble. These followed an Israel round-up of 200 alleged Palestinian militants on Sunday and the targeted assassination of Mohammed Khalil, head of Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
Hamas has since called for a “hudna” or cease-fire promising not to target Israelis but Sharon, struggling to hold on to his leadership of the Likud amid a strong challenge from his hard-line rival Benjamin Netanyahu, is talking tough.
“There shall be no restrictions on the use of all means to hit the terrorists and the terror organizations, their equipment and their hideouts,” Sharon told his Cabinet.
Formerly optimistic politicians and commentators, who perceived the Israeli exit from Gaza as a first step toward implementation of the “road map” must surely be disappointed.
Gaza’s fragile autonomy has been breached, illuminating the hollowness of Israel’s promises for just as swiftly as its soldiers and colonists trooped out, they could just as easily return at any time of their choosing. Apart from security and moral issues, what message does this send to potential investors, urgently required to set Gaza on its feet?
By the time this column is published, Sharon may have been ousted as leader of his party following a scheduled vote yesterday, from which the even more hawkish Netanyahu is expected to benefit. In that event, predictions are that Sharon may quit the Likud so as to set up a new centrist party, designed to appeal to moderate voters. Either way, for Palestinians, there is little good news.
As Akiva Eldar writes in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, the ideological gap between Sharon and Netanyahu is minimal.
“Both support separation fences...both are committed to reinforcing settlements in the West Bank, and both oppose talks on Jerusalem or the resolution of the refugee problem”, she writes, adding, “both reveal the same lack of interest in strengthening the Palestinian Authority against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”
While reminding us of Sharon’s claim that his unilateral Gaza withdrawal was solely in Israel’s interests, she point out “the Israeli left is angry at the Palestinians for having ‘missed an opportunity to receive a state’ and for ‘playing into Netanyahu’s hands’.” But is it really Netanyahu’s hands they have been playing into or those of Sharon himself? Has this entire exercise been one giant con?
For instance, when every settler dwelling was demolished by the Israelis before their exit, why did they leave shells of buildings that were once synagogues standing?
They surely knew what would happen given the pent-up rage felt by so many Gazans after years of being deprived of water while Israelis filled their swimming pools and fountains or after being forced to queue for hours at checkpoints while the Israeli occupiers enjoyed unimpeded passage.
One wouldn’t have to be clairvoyant to foresee that those remnants of an almost four-decades-old occupation would be fired or torn down. Yet no sooner were they than the predictable finger-pointing and character assassinations began. Just look how much the Palestinians h
ate us, they said. How can they be trusted to be good neighbors if we concede more land?
Against this worrying general backdrop, a scheduled summit between the Israeli prime minister and his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas has been canceled.
This doesn’t bode well for Abbas whose grip on the Strip grows ever weaker in the face of the increasing popularity of Hamas.
In spite of the previous positive hoopla, there is little doubt that the Palestinians have once again been abandoned by Israel and the rest of the world.
While the Palestinian Authority calls out for US intervention, Bush’s Middle-East envoy Karen Hughes — charged with prettying-up America’s image in the region — has been talking the talk to persuade skeptical Egyptian students that her nation is a good guy after all while firmly keeping Palestine off the menu.
In the meantime, her boss is kept busy with Mesdames Katrina and Rita while Tony Blair — all his fine words and commitments toward a Palestinian state forgotten — is engaged in defending his position over Iraq and whipping up anti-Iranian sentiments over that country’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.
Blair did find time, though, to apologize to Sharon when one of the latter’s generals escaped a near arrest in Britain for war crimes and was anxious to assure the Israeli leader that were he invited to Britain he would be spared a similar embarrassment.
As for the Muslim world, it has been waving olive branches all over the place. Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf has been lauding Sharon as “a great soldier and courageous leader”, topping even Bush’s “man of peace”.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has been chatting up his Indonesian, Tunisian and Qatari counterparts at the United Nations, while Bahrain has repealed its anti-Israel economic boycott. It’s evident that Sharon has capitalized in no small way from his country’s superficial withdrawal from Gaza.
Frankly, my dears, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. What now for a Palestinian state? You tell me. In the meantime, as always, the Palestinian people will bravely soldier on in virtual isolation without ever relinquishing their dream. Shame on us all for throwing them to the wolves for the sake of self-centered national interests.
Surely the day will come when words like “dignity” and “honor” will be as obselete as “ye olde tea shoppe” and when that day comes the wellspring of humanity’s inherent goodness will be as endangered as the tiger.
