Israel's sweeping foray into Hebron, imposing yet another curfew which has already kept hundreds of thousands of Palestinians imprisoned in their own homes for days on end, will only perpetuate conflict; never will it resolve it. By constantly moving in on cities like Hebron, Ariel Sharon is deliberately instigating Palestinian suicide operations and, when an operation is conducted, he defends the right to such invasions. For Sharon, rolling into the Palestinian territories again is the only way he knows of ending the violence and forcing the Palestinians to relinquish their demands. The policy comes from an awareness that Palestinian society cannot take very much more of the collective punishments Israel is inflicting without falling into permanent collapse. Surveys show just how desperate life has become in the occupied territories with an economy in which over half of all Palestinians have to borrow money to purchase basic foods.
Sharon long ago decided that the use of massive military force will allow him to continue the occupation of Palestinian territories. But this gung-ho approach will not work. The use of military power, however sophisticated the weaponry, will never achieve the desired objectives. Every analysis of the Middle East conflict indicates that, far from resolving it, military force can only complicate it further, making the situation riskier and more volatile.
Washington backs the re-occupation in the name of Israel’s right to self-defense. Israel’s systematic and deliberate reign of terror against the Palestinians is viewed as self-defense while the desperate acts of deeply humiliated individuals are deemed terrorism. Washington seems perfectly happy to lecture anyone on the overriding need to fight terrorism except Israel. The Bush vision of June 24 saw the main problem to be the inefficiency of the Palestinian Authority, and not the Israeli occupation. Hence, reform of the PA, including a "regime change" was seen as the key to ending the current stalemate. Thus came America’s sudden love for the word "democracy" which appears somewhat disingenuous. It was never mentioned before in relation to the Palestinians. It is not to promote democracy for democracy’s sake but rather to create a system totally free of anti-Israeli resistance.
Bush’s vision of a Palestinian state is predicated on Palestinian leadership becoming so reformed as to be able to fight all resistance to occupation. The United States and Israel have a supreme interest in sinking the ship before it sets sail.
Some in the Arab world saw positive elements in Bush’s speech, including the clear rejection of Sharon’s notion that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed". Those on the Palestinian side who are opposed to Oslo either ideologically or because it has taken them nowhere are terrorists or playing spoilers role. What about the Likud party which has never made any secret of its opposition to the Oslo accords or have always tried to kill it? They all are "men of peace".
So is US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who derisively speaks of the "so-called occupied territories" and justifies settlement activities in Palestinian lands.
Is not Rumsfeld taking a stand on both occupation and settlements which is diametrically opposed to the known position of his boss and successive US administrations? Perish the thought. Rumsfeld knows his boss would not mind being displeased if it is for the larger good of pleasing Israel and its US supporters. He knows how the president reacts when there is retaliatory action by Palestinians and Israeli lives are lost. "I’m just as angry as Israel is right now — I am furious that innocent lives were lost," Bush would say. If Israel drops one-ton bombs on Palestinians neighborhoods and women and children are incinerated, all that he would say is: "Such actions don’t help peace." This means that Israel never had it so good. This also means the worst is yet to come for the Palestinians.
