Even I am surprised. The ink was barely dry on my commentary that nothing has really changed, and Arik Sharon is back to his old tricks. Even I thought he would wait a “seemly” few months, before cutting off ties with Abbas. But he jumped on the first excuse without any hesitation.
The explanation is relatively simple. He needed to act “moderate” to convince Labor hold-outs to join his government. Now that the new government is in, he can drop the pretense. He knows Shimon Peres and Labor, once seated at the table, will leave only under extreme circumstances. As for Bush & Co, no worries on that front. Colin Powell’s reaction to Sharon’s actions, was expressing “understanding” of Israel’s reaction and saying ” “[Abbas has] got to get those terrorists under control.”
Here is how the New York Times reacted:
“The honeymoon didn’t last very long. Less than a week after Palestinians elected Mahmoud Abbas as Yasir Arafat’s successor and the relatively dovish Labor Party joined Israel’s cabinet, hopes for an early return to diplomatic dialogue have been abruptly crushed by the familiar one-two combination of a deadly Palestinian terrorist attack and a precipitous Israeli overreaction.”
Commentary: give them credit for noting Israel over-reacted, although that is somewhat of an understatement. And of course it totally ignores the Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians that have been continuing unabated since Abbas’ election.
“Nobody expected Israel to simply ignore Thursday’s attack by armed militants in Gaza, who used explosives, grenades and automatic weapons to kill six Israelis and wound five others.”
Commentary: But why does every body expect Palestinian leaders to simply ignore the Israeli army’s far more brutal attacks against Palestinian civilians. By the way, the attack in question was against an Israeli military facility. While certainly an act of war, it can not be characterized as a “terrorist” attack by any definition of that term.
“Nor can it be expected to negotiate with Palestinian leaders who equivocate in word or deed about terrorism.”
Commentary: Again, why do the Palestinians have to negotiate with Arik Sharon’s government which has explicitely said the Gaza withdrawel is the end, not the beginning of Israel’s concessions, and its purpose is to freeze any future Palestinian demands.
“But that is not the situation Israel faces, as someone as canny and experienced in these matters as Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, must surely recognize. Yet yesterday Mr. Sharon ordered all Israeli officials to cut off contacts with the Palestinian Authority until it acts to curb such terrorist violence.”
Commentary: Since the New York Times understands that Sharon is “canny and experienced” why does it assume that he is somehow acting irrationally? The simpler explanation is that Sharon never had any sincere intentions to deal with Abbas, and just looked for the first excuse to cut off ties.
“In sharp contrast with Mr. Arafat, Mr. Abbas has been clear and unwavering in his view that anti-Israeli violence has been and continues to be extremely harmful to the Palestinian cause. For that reason, the Gaza militants behind Thursday’s attack struck not only at their Israeli victims, but also at Mr. Abbas’s new and not yet fully consolidated political leadership. In choosing to respond by cutting off all Israeli contacts with the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Sharon has become their unwitting ally.”
Commentary: “Unwitting?” Again, it should be obvious that Arik Sharon would like nothing better for Abbas to fail and be de-legitamized. The Palestinian “election” put a momentary spotlight on Sharon, and he is thrilled to dump the ball back in the Palestinian court.
“Getting a grip on Palestinian terrorism requires action in at least two areas. One of these, rebuilding the shattered Palestinian police forces, has barely begun. The other, demonstrating to skeptical Palestinians that nothing can be gained through terrorism but a great deal through peaceful negotiations, will now have to wait until diplomatic contacts are resumed.”
Commentary: The lesson to the Palestinians has been violence pays. Before the first intifada, Israel never dreamed of making any concessions to the Palestinians. The first intifada caused the Labor party to at least accept the idea of a Palestinian state as a solution to the conflict. The second intifada has done the same to the Likud. Of course, Arik Sharon is dragging his feet and offering less than the minimum for any reasonable compromise. So many Palestinians can only conclude that more violence is necessary to bring Israel around.
“We hope that at least some of the good will that was in the air earlier this week can survive that wait.”
Commentary: The “good will in the air” was imaginary and fabricated. Only a fundamental shift in Israeli thinking away from the idea of land ownership and occupation, can lead to a true end to the conflict.
