Reading this morning’s New York Times, and several articles about Israel, made me check the date on the paper. Yes it was December, 2004. But it sure felt like December, 2001 to me.
First off, there was an article about how Shimon Peres intervened to cut a coalition deal. Now Labor can crawl back into the comfortable warmth of government ministry seats, after two years being in the cold, hard opposition benches. Just like Peres did way back in March 2001.
Ah, the return to those joyous days of hot burekas at cabinet meetings. And all those state dinners in world capitals, where jet-setter Peres goes from country to country, peddling Sharon’s lies in silver tinfoil wrappings.
So here it is, December, 2001. Shimon Peres has negotiated a deal with Abu Ala known as the “Gaza First” plan. The Palestinians will reign in the militants and Israel will totally withdraw from Gaza. Of course, in the back of some people’s minds there is this feeling of Deja Vu: didn’t Israel already agree to do that in the Oslo accords eight years earlier? Never mind.
So consiglieri Peres hands the deal over to his capo Sharon. And the boss of bosses says no. No one, certainly not Peres, should have been surprised. After all, in an interview with Ari Shavit of Haaretz, in April of that year, Sharon had this to say:
Would you be ready to evacuate settlements as part of a non-belligerency agreement?
“No. Absolutely not.”
Not even isolated settlements like Netzarim in the Gaza Strip?
“No. Not at any price. Why do we have to evacuate Netzarim? For what?”
Do you believe that isolated settlements in the Gaza Strip have security value?
“First of all, they have Zionist importance. People say to me, why not evacuate Kfar Darom [in the Gaza Strip]? But Kfar Darom is a settlement that was established in 1946 and it held out and delayed the Egyptian army for a few critical days in 1948, even though it was no larger than 100 meters by 100 meters. So why does it have to be evacuated? I don’t see any reason to evacuate.
“But if you are asking about Netzarim, Netzarim has strategic importance. It was established as part of a conception that a buffer should be created between Khan Yunis and Gaza City and that we should have access from the Green Line to the coast. In the future Netzarim will enable us to ensure that no heavy war equipment is being unloaded at the port of Gaza. After all, it is no coincidence that the port of Gaza is being built next to Netzarim. So Netzarim has tremendous security importance. It is vital.”
[I strongly recommend reading the entire interview - it gives a strikingly clear portrait of Arik "Man of Peace" Sharon's world view.]
Just to erase any doubts, a year later, addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Sharon reiterated his refusal to dismantle a single settlement. “The fate of Netzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv,” he said.
Well time marches on, even though nothing changes in this region. The “Gaza First” plan is revived once again in the summer of 2002, this time by Defense Minister ‘Fuad’ ben Eliezer, Tweedeldum, to Peres’ Tweedledee. How many people remember that the Palestinian National Authority actually voted to accept Fuad’s plan? Fuad actually began implementing it, by co-ordination with the Palestinian security forces in Gaza. But capo Sharon called the Palestinians acceptance of the plan “a trick” and squashed it.
In early 2003, Abu Mazen replaces Abu Ala as the Palestinian front man, and once again the “Gaza First” plan is being talked about. Abu Mazen even negotiates a cease fire with the most militant of Palestinian resistance groups. But Sharon does everything he can to undrmine the cease fire and succeeds in blowing it apart.
Then Abu Ala is put back on the stage. Surprise! So is “Gaza First.” But Sharon manages to undermine that as well.
Lest one think there are only a limited number of ways to repeat the same thing over and over again, a year ago Sharon himself puts “Gaza First” on the table. Now he is helping Abu Mazen come back to replace Abu Ala. And Shimon Peres is back in the government as Foreign Minister. Plus ca change…
Of course, there are those who believe that something really has changed, and Sharon no longer believes “The fate of Netzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv.” For those innocents, they need to just flip through the pages of today’s New York Times. Read the article about Israel killing eight Palestinians and wounding scores more as it retakes Khan Yunis for the ???th time:
“The local army commander, Lt. Col. Ofer Winter, told Israeli radio that the army would stay in Khan Yunis ‘for as long as it takes to secure quiet in the Israeli communities.’ In the last week, Palestinians have fired about 50 mortar shells at Israeli military posts and settlements, killing a Thai worker and wounding 15 soldiers and one civilian.’”
“Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel was reported to have instructed the army on Monday to be more aggressive against militants in Gaza while still trying to avoid large operations that could embarrass the new, more moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas.”
New? More moderate? More like the same old, same old. In fact, if any of you readers are confused by the jumble of names and dates, here is a simple game you can play: Take some scraps of paper and write on them the names “Sharon,” “Peres,” “Abu Mazen,” “Abu Ala,” “Gaza First.” Shake well and randomly rearrange the scraps on a table. Repeat every few months. Watch as nothing changes and more innocent people die.
[Pop quiz that goes along with the game: what percentage of US citizens, whose tax dollars fund both Sharon's war machine and the corrupt PA, know that Abu Amar, Abu Ala and Abu Mazen are different people and who those people are?]
I can’t leave today’s New York Times just yet. The deja vu feeling is found elsewhere in the paper. There is an op-ed piece by one Scott Atran, with a breathless account of how Sheik Hassan Yussef has “announced” Hamas is willing to reach a “hudna” with Israel. Sheikh Yussef himself notes there is nothing new here. He is merely repeating the offer made by Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas founder who was assassinated by Israel in March.
Atran, however, dismisses this as “semantic sleight of hand” and stresses how “new” this declaration is. Yet anyone who has the slightest inkling of what the Hamas has been saying for years, knows that even Yassin’s statement was nothing new. So why is Atran so kean on portraying old news as “new” news.?
The answer comes later in his piece where he says:
“Isaac Ben Israel, an Israeli Air Force general and leading military strategist, told me that he thinks Mr. Yussef may be signaling a sincere shift in Hamas that Israel could live with. Of course, he stressed that Hamas first had to be severely weakened by the targeted assassinations of its leaders, which has helped bring suicide bombings down to pre-intifada levels. ‘Paradoxical as it sounds,’ he said, ‘attacking Hamas has helped the moderate Palestinian forces.’”
“In the end, it seems clear that Hamas is worn out and so perhaps ready to stop fighting – just like most Palestinians. According to Palestinian Authority figures, 63 percent of households saw their income cut at least in half during the intifada, and 58 percent now live in poverty.”
Everything is clear as day now: Israel had to assassinate Ahmed Yassin, the revered founder of Hamas and probably it’s most influential leader, who publicly supported a hudna with Israel, so that, months later a far less influential Hamas leader can make the exact same statement as well.
Once again an Israeli army leader declares Israel’s “victory.” And the proof of this “victory”? Some second-rate Hamas official repeating what his revered leader had said and “Gaza First” being recycled for the umpteenth time.
Ben Israel’s [is that really his name or some ironic joke?] statement re: suicide bombing is an out and out lie. Yes, it is true there will be less Israeli deaths due to suicide bombings in 2004 than in 2003. But prior to the second intifada, during Barak’s reign, and in fact even during the first few months of the intifada until Sharon was elected, there were virtually no suicide attacks in Israel. The Israeli economy was booming and most Israelis lived a relatively prosperous and peaceful life.
And putting aside the fact that the suicide attacks continue, the cost to the Israeli economy has been no less devestating than to the Palestinians. More and more middle class Israelis are slipping into poverty. Practically the only jobs available are for security guards. Many Israelis who can, are leaving the country. Others are applying for second citizenship in Europe so their children can get out. What level of “security ” there is has been accomplished by turning the country into one big armed camp. The only Jewish immigration to Israel is by fanatical Orthodox Jews whose ideology is the Jewish equivalent of bin Laden’s. Many of these are studying in Yeshiva, supported by their American parents. Neither side has been victorious in this long and useless battle.
For years Israelis ignored the plight of the Palestinians and the result has been endless war. Rabin was the first Israeli Prime Minister to choose a new path, to try to break new ground, no matter how hesitant and ambivalent his choice was. He was killed by a political fanatic. Since then Israel and its leaders have returned to the time worn path. Sharon and his cohorts have stated over and over again that their strategy is to make the life of the Palestinians even more miserable, and in that way defeat them. It all goes back to Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall. Deja vu.
Until Israelis move away from the Jabotinskian mind-set, and take a new path, nothing will change for the better.
