ISRAELI Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his right wing government could not have possibly envisioned a more gratifying scenario to the post-disengagement period than the one effectively advancing in the Gaza Strip. Events on the ground all point to the disquieting conclusion that internal Palestinian strife in Gaza is imminent and that Israel will continue to determine the future of the Occupied Territories, unabated and aided by the US government, along with the total marginalization of the rest of the international community.
Moreover, Sharon has intensified his forceful rhetoric, warning that Israel will ruthlessly respond to any supposed Palestinian provocation after the pullout.
It is obvious that Israel’s military strategists are very concerned that the Israeli move might be interpreted as an indication of military failure, following the same line of thinking that accompanied the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon in May 2000.
The Sharon government is determined to closely monitor and control the narrative surrounding its pullout from Gaza. On one hand, it wants to convey to its right wing constituency that the move is merely tactical and aimed at strengthening Israel’s control over the more strategic settlements of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On the other hand, it is promoting the pullout internationally as a painful concession for the sake of peace with its ever-ungrateful Palestinian neighbors.
TV images of weeping settlers being “uprooted” from their homes in the Gaza settlements evoked untold emotions, and yet they have failed to honestly address the unspeakable injustices done to the Palestinians through the illegal presence of those same settlers: The uncompensated financial loss, the virtual and perpetual imprisonment within Gaza, the daily murders committed in the name of protecting the settlements and so forth. The Israeli narrative has successfully crossed out much of this relevant context, under which the entire Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories continues to be subjugated.
Palestinians, who have ultimately conceded to the much-resisted unilateral Israeli action, have attempted to deal with the Israeli move in a way that might prove politically and strategically beneficial. According to a media plan drafted by the Palestinian Authority’s Interior Ministry, the withdrawal was “a political victory” for “the peace and moderation camp.” The Palestinian Authority was obliged, understandably so, to construct its own reading of the Israeli move, of which itself was, in fact, the least relevant factor.
Hamas on the other hand, joined to a lesser extent by other factions, has celebrated the withdrawal as a victory for armed resistance, one that was comparable in meaning and magnitude to that of Hizbollah in Lebanon. Among the poor and destitute refugees throughout the Occupied Territories and in Diaspora, the Hamas narrative is the most prevailing.
Almost immediately after the Gaza pullout, repeated violent Israeli assaults have taken place. Frequent deadly raids and bombardments, joined with Israeli air force jets breaking sound barriers over the Gaza sky several times a day triggering sonic booms are meant as a cruel reminder of Israel’s sheer military advantage over the incarcerated population of the Gaza Strip. Concurrently, Israel’s illegal settlement project in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has received an historic boost, with the allocation of more funds toward settlement expansion, coupled with American assurances by outgoing US ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer that the “United States will support the retention by Israel of areas with a high concentration of Israelis.”
Kurtzer, speaking to Israeli Radio on Sept. 18 — less than a week following the pullout from Gaza — read a passage to listeners from a letter by the US president sent to Sharon in April 2004, where Bush declared that it was “unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” and where he also bluntly rejected the Palestinian refugees right to return in accordance with UN Resolution 194.
The former head of Israel’s National Security Council, Uzi Dayan (who, in 2002, recommended a one-sided withdrawal from Gaza), has offered further insight and a more candid translation of Kurtzer’s comments. In a press conference in Tel Aviv on Sept. 20, Dayan proposed an Israeli withdrawal from minor settlements in the West Bank and the creation of a de-facto border that would claim much Palestinian land as Israeli territory. This new territory would envelope the lands hosting the illegal Jewish settlements of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Kiryat Arba and Bet El, among others, and along with them nearly 200,000 Jewish settlers.
According to Dayan’s computation, 28 Palestinian towns would be divorced from their Palestinian space to become part of “Israel proper.” Considering the atrocious affects created by the Israeli Separation Wall and the integrated land theft, Israel’s future plans for the West Bank and Jerusalem constitute new and horrendous injustices with painfully lasting consequences.
While Israel is actively and openly pursuing its own designs, altering the geopolitical nature of its conflict with the Palestinians for years to come, there is no political process of which to speak. Abbas’ announcement on Sept. 13, regarding his readiness to “immediately engage” in peace talks with Israel was purposely undermined by Sharon’s terror campaign in the Occupied Territories.
Israel’s pre-determined role for the PA is no different than the one envisaged by past Israeli governments following the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993: That of the prison guard, not the peace partner. Little has changed, despite five arduous years of Palestinian revolt.
The PA’s adherence to its assigned role will once again determine the nature of the relationship between the Israeli government and the PA, and naturally thereafter between the latter and the US administration. The Abbas government’s failure to disarm Palestinian factions and to crack down on “this and that” will eventually be understood as a faltering on its commitment to Israel’s security, which will invite more Israeli wrath, murder and mayhem, as we have already seen in past weeks.
Israel’s conduct following its pullout from Gaza confirms that its ultimate objective is to maintain an elevated level of chaos among Palestinians. Such insecurity will affirm the claim that Palestinians are innately lawless and irresponsible, rationalizing Israel’s unwarranted attacks on Gaza.
