Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

The perspective of a British Jew

None of the prophets of the Old Testament were, as far as I can recall, actually stupid; a bit unbearable perhaps, but wise with it. Now, however, straight from the recently discovered Book of Doh, comes Ariel Sharon, originator of a new political doctrine. Sharonism can be defined as an anti-strategy based on the repetition of ultimately self-destructive physical acts. The invasion of Lebanon in 1982 can be seen as its apotheosis, though the events of the past few weeks – and what is yet to come – may well eclipse even that spectacular own-goal. It is as though Ian Paisley had been elected First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I say "anti-strategy" because I cannot see what Sharon's way forward is. I presume that he is sincere in wanting Jews in Israel to live in peace and security, so how does he plan to bring such a state about? Who will he talk to? What will he offer them and what will he ask for? What, Ariel, is the plan?

Sharonists will surely savour the decision not to have any more dealings with the man recognised (for all his faults) both internationally and by the Palestinians as their leader, Yasser Arafat. According to Sharon's office Arafat manages simultaneously to be "no longer relevant to the state of Israel", someone with whom "there will be no more contact", and yet is also "directly responsible" for terrorist attacks on Israel and on settlers in the West Bank. You'd think it must be one or the other; but surely not both. And who will the Israelis now have contact with? Ahmed al-Bloggs at number 47 Stone-thrower's Street? Or no one? Presumably no one.

As I write this, Israeli tanks have occupied much of Ramallah, trapping Arafat in his own HQ to some purpose that I cannot guess at. Earlier, rockets landed 20 metres from his window. Again, I cannot fathom the reason there either, just as I wonder at the destruction of much of Gaza airport. Israeli spokespersons have told journalists this week that Israel will now do what Arafat failed to do, so we must presume that the Israel Defence Force will round up suspects, put them in prisons, bull-doze their homes and shut down the offices and operations of anyone deemed to be a sympathiser with terror or with the intifada.

And then what? Go home, shut the borders, man the checkpoints, maintain the curfews and wait for it all to start again? Or stay there and sustain a full-time army of occupation? Set up an administration like the one that existed before 1993? There is no answer to any of this. There is no "what next". There is an armour-coated, tungsten-tipped void where there ought to be a policy.

This is Sharonism. And it almost goes without saying that nothing could be sweeter in the ears of Hamas and Islamic Jihad than the squeaking of the tank-tracks in Ramallah, just as their eyes were refreshed by the sight of Sharon on the Mount on 28 September 2000. Soon the American special envoy, Anthony Zinni, will be forced to give up the latest attempt to get talks going again. Already the Israeli justice minister, one Meir Sheetrit, has said that Israeli meetings with Palestinian security commanders, arranged by Mr Zinni, will now cease. And in their place... nothing.

Nothing. "The aims of the (military) move were not to personally harm Arafat or bring about the Palestinian Authority's collapse, but rather to end Arafat's reign, ministers said," according to one report of the last Israeli cabinet meeting. And to usher in whose reign? No one's.

The nothing and no one policy. Again, precisely what organisations such as Hamas want. It is hugely depressing to see what the latest terror attacks have done to debate within Israel. The once-respected Jerusalem Post has become a kind of ideological drill-sergeant for Sharonism. An article appeared yesterday under the byline of Uri Dan, the clear object of which was to silence any Israeli who believes in dialogue. Israeli television journalists who broadcast an interview with Yasser Arafat (the "despicable creature" and "incorrigible liar") were described as "idiots and/or hypocrites" and egotists.

On both sides we see Manichaeism, the ascribing to the other of all the qualities of darkness and malice and to your own side all the virtues of light and good-intent. But what would Sharon, with his mentality, be doing if he were a Palestinian? And what would the leaders of Hamas be up to if they were rabbis and not imams?

To too many people, peace seemed a poor substitute for their own favoured and impossible solutions. The opponents of the Oslo peace accords on either side still argue that it was a fraudulent process. The respected academic Edward Said has persuaded many liberal observers in the West that the whole process was designed to gull the Palestinians into Bantustans. In Israel there are many who contend it was exactly the reverse, the victory of a bullying international community over a beleaguered Jewish people, a victory that would compromise their hard-won security.

Edward Said asked himself back in November 2000: "What of this vaunted peace process? What has it achieved and why, if indeed it was a peace process, has the miserable condition of the Palestinians and the loss of life become so much worse than before the Oslo accords were signed in September 1993?" There's been no peace process since the spring of 2001, and what is happening now is far, far worse than in 1993.

Careless. Stupid. Like the Israeli failure to carry through the spirit and provisions of Oslo, and the criminally stupid permitting of the growth of settlements on the West Bank. Like the instrumental ambivalence of Arafat towards the new intifada, whose stone-throwing kids were the almost inevitable hors d'oeuvre to the terrorist main dish to follow. Sometimes brinkmanship takes you over the brink. One British journalist this week described the process in this way: "Unprotected by international law, unable to negotiate a political settlement and unwilling to be subdued without resistance, Palestinians are forced into ever more desperate and arbitrary acts of violence." But they aren't. They are no more "forced" into it than Sharon is. They could choose peace.

Both Sharon and critics of America claim that he is only acting in the spirit of the coalition against terror. But nothing could be more inappropriate. Following 11 September, the coalition sat down and carefully, slowly worked out what it wanted to achieve and how to go about it. So far it has succeeded. Sharonism, as we have seen this week, is the opposite of this.

On Monday, two of the former peace negotiators met at the new Israeli army checkpoint on the main Jerusalem-to-Ramallah road. Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo had got together to reaffirm their commitment to peace. Meanwhile, in Hebron, an Israeli rocket killed two children and an operation was being planned that would leave a 14-year-old Jewish settler and nine of his companions dead. Beilin and Rabbo, or more dead children?

David.Aaronovitch@btinternet.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

This is along the same lines as a question that I asked in another thread, ie, what is the benefit of these actions, long-term. What is the big plan? Or is it just short-termism, possibly to thrust the whole place back into the endless cycle of violence. You only ever try to remove someone from power if you have a replacement in mind. Who is that going to be? The Israeli government again?

Surely one day the supporters of Israel in the West are going to get tired of all this. It looked as if that had happened, but we might be back at square one again. Ignoring the political realities of the Palestinian situation in insisting that Arafat do what is clearly not possible seems stupid to me. And the Israeli 'policy of assassination' that involves firing rockets from a helicopter gunship at a car in a traffic jam and killing two innocent children? (happened last week).

I am not anti-israel and I understand the precariousness of their position, but there is insufficient drive to find the most equitable solution, both from inside and outside of the country.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 17206

Sharon in office in unproductive, but it was the Israelis people's answer to Arafat. Both were democratically elected so our judgments are irrelevant but imo neither should be in office and I think inflame the situation, and until both are gone it will be counter productive.
They are both extremes and exist because of one another.


I understand what he means when he says Arafat is irrelevant though since he has no power to control his own people, and why it may be necessary for Israel to take the recent actions it has, actions Arafat should have taken himself (with out the bombing of course).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7117

I say send in some US troops, and take over both joints.

Introduce more capitalism, and things are bound to fix themselves.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: salmon city
Posts: 1409

The way i see it, Sharon is really trying to do the same thing he tried to do in 83. force the palastinians into another "migration" into Jordan. which will cause the establishment of a palastinian nation inside jordan instead of the west bank.

thats just his own personal twisted idea, i guess. but Israel goes along with it because deep down they believe that total war is the only way out.

complete and total destruction of the enemy. its home, its land and everything it believes in. crush the little bastards with an iron fist of DEATH.

thats what politics are about.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 17206

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caffeine
I say send in some US troops, and take over both joints.

Introduce more capitalism, and things are bound to fix themselves.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

Hearing Sharon speak makes me think of Dr Ian Paisley.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky

Edward Said asked himself back in November 2000: "What of this vaunted peace process? What has it achieved and why, if indeed it was a peace process, has the miserable condition of the Palestinians and the loss of life become so much worse than before the Oslo accords were signed in September 1993?" There's been no peace process since the spring of 2001, and what is happening now is far, far worse than in 1993.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr


*snip*

---

Last edited by Smug Git on 12-15-2001 at 09:37 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
The best chance for peace was Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and he was assasinated by a jewish extremist.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10433

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git


I think that the difference is, Jr, that the terrorists are not arms of the palestianian state

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr


Defend this statement, please. What could Rabin have offered that Shamir didn't, and what makes you think the Palestinians would have been any more likely to accept it?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingle


it is claimed the terrorists are working under Arafat... now i know this can't be taken as fact but there is the possibity of a direct link between pakistans leadership and terrorist attacks on israeli civilians.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10433

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git

I don't fully understand the support that the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK) has offered Israel for so long. We certainly bear a lot of the responsibility for the problems that arose from the creation of Israel, but our actions don't seem to be leading in the direction of a solution.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Hoboken, NJ: USA
Posts: 96

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git

*snip*
There are certainly links, but I haven't heard anyone (EDIT: apart from the Israeli right) suggest that Arafat can go to Hamas and say ... 'stop fucking killing people'; he has no power over them and they have enough support that he daren't arrest them.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by PseudonymX


You sir, just explained perfectly why Arafat is completely and utterly irrelevant. The Palestinians should stop trying to claim the moral highground that neither side deserves, and just appoint a high leader of Hamas as their public advocate, or "leader" or what have you.

Israel has negotiated for peace in the past with Arafat. Yet the fact remains that should a deal be struck, Arafat has no authority to actually stop the attacks. Thats why What Israel is doing is military strikes, and not terrorism. Because if Sharon makes a deal with the Palestinian people, he can tell the military to stop.

Arafat cant.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Hoboken, NJ: USA
Posts: 96

Okay, Arafat is relevent, but not relevent enough.

How do you negotiate peace with someone who will not be able to enforce the peace?


Sharon could give up all of israel and take all of his people into jerusalem. Let the Palestinians have EVERYTHING ELSE. And I garuntee that the suicide bombings would not stop. They would intensify because the israelis showed weakness.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by PseudonymX

Sharon could give up all of israel and take all of his people into jerusalem. Let the Palestinians have EVERYTHING ELSE. And I garuntee that the suicide bombings would not stop. They would intensify because the israelis showed weakness.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Hoboken, NJ: USA
Posts: 96

never said it would work.
however there is a thing called justice.

I agree, despite the fact that it is the Palestinians turn to show good faith and make an offer or two, Israel being the organized side must do so.

Israel must respond to terror with peace and good will. They must pull out of the occupied territories and perhaps make a program to exchange weapons for water, as it is needed in the area.

The problem is, as you've agreed, they can do all of this and still Hamas and the Islamic Jihad would continue to terrorize citizens of Israel. The Israelis will continue to catch heat from Egypt, Jordan, and the other Islamic nations. The true beef those people and nations have with Israel is its existance, and jealousy.

Would the United States have accepted negotiations for peace with Bin Laden? No. That would not be justice. How can it be different with Arafat.

But "trust" is in order, because without it, nothing good can happen.

So the next step is for israel to back off, and try once again to make peace with a people that refuses to make peace and even should peace be made, the people will not follow it.

Israel is to accept the deaths of their children for years, perhaps decades to come without so much as arresting a palestinian, because they are of a "different nation"... despite the inability and refusal of its own forces to police themselves.

Perhaps in a decade or two after thousands more die, the Hamas will lose the peoples favor (not going to happen, given that the goal of the Hamas and the people is the destruction of israel) and the Palestinian authority will gain the power to fight its own terror networks...

whatever, it doesnt even look good on paper.


What was the underlying cause of the IRA's bombings?
Did they want to stop the UK from existing as a distinct entity, or did they want to send the english home, and govern themselves.

Israel is the Israelis home. They have nowhere to go. And therefore, it is a completely different can of worms to negotiate a peace.

What prime minister will knowingly sign a treaty in which his state ceases to be?

Sorry for the discontinuity and garbled thoughts. My brain isnt always under my control.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by PseudonymX
Perhaps in a decade or two after thousands more die, the Hamas will lose the peoples favor (not going to happen, given that the goal of the Hamas and the people is the destruction of israel) and the Palestinian authority will gain the power to fight its own terror networks...

---