It is in the nature of a quarterly that while it is impossible to
analyze crucial developments immediately it is equally out of the
question to ignore them completely. Thus we feel the need to
address, if only in brief, the impact of recent events as they
affect our lives and the geo-politics of the region today.
On September 11, 2001 a group of extremist commandos, apparently
affiliated with Ossama Bin Laden, hijacked four civilian American
planes and used them to destroy the Twin Towers in New York and
part of the Pentagon in Washington, killing thousands of innocent
people in the process. This heinous attack induced President Bush
to proclaim all-out war against terrorism, starting with the
massive bombing of Taliban forces in Afghanistan, with the aim of
flushing out, and eventually capturing or killing, Bin Laden and
his followers.
Meanwhile, the hardening of the armed confrontation between
Israelis and Palestinians is making a mockery of successive
cease-fire proclamations and seems to be eliminating prospects of
renewed peace talks between leaders of the two nations.
How is the international war against terrorism affecting the
Israeli¬Palestinian dispute? The Sharon government is trying
to convince other governments and the public that all forms of
Palestinian resistance are terrorism (Bin Laden style), and that
the Arafat-Ied Palestinian Authority is no partner for peace
negotiations.
This attitude by the Sharon government is also reflected in a local
development. The co-founder and co-editor of this journal, Ziad
Abu¬Zayyad, who lives in the Jerusalem suburb of El Azariya,
has been forbidden by the Israeli authorities to enter Jerusalem.
He is thus prevented from reaching our editorial offices in East
Jerusalem. This act of intimidation aims, among other things, to
disrupt the normal work of the Palestine-Israel Journal. But we are
continuing publication despite the difficulties caused by Ziad
Abu-Ziyyad's enforced absence. A statement issued by us called
"Harassment," protesting against this treatment, was published in
English and in Hebrew by the Israeli daily Ha'aretz (see page
6). The statement evoked wide public support and
identification. Yael Oayan, Labor Knesset member, and prominent
Hebrew novelist Oavid Grossman jointly wrote to the Israeli
government to seek redress. Moreover, several international human
rights organizations such as Reporters sans Frontieres Qournalists
without Frontiers, based in Paris) have shown interest in the case
of Ziad Abu-Zayyad, and Human Rights Watch, based in New York, has
been provided with relevant information.
It is not accidental that the Sharon government has targeted Ziad
Abu¬Zayyad. An elected member of the Palestinian Legislative
Assembly and a minister in Arafat's cabinet, a man of principle and
of dialogue, Abu-Zayyad has refused to be deterred by the collapse
of the peace process. The patient search for mutually acceptable
compromise solutions in the protracted Palestinian-Israeli dispute
remains high on his agenda. Is this Ziad Abu¬Zayyad's capital
sin in the eyes of Israel's present government? Does this make him
so "dangerous"?
Sharon is adamant about not resuming Israeli-Palestinian political
discussions until he gets his "total quiet." Such an attitude
clearly renders peace negotiations hostage not only to terrorist
attacks but also to a single bullet fired by any Palestinian. And
this is precisely Sharon's goal: to prevent at all costs the
possibility of re-launching Israeli-Palestinian talks, to destroy
what is left of both people's faith in the peace process, as well
as to delegitimize and demonize Yasser Arafat. What will happen if
a discredited Arafat, incapable of protecting his people against
Sharon's brutal military onslaught i:md of rekindling negotiations
leading to the emergence of an independent Palestinian state
alongside Israel, is forced to resign or leave the country
altogether? In this case, an impoverished, frustrated and
embittered Palestinian population, having lost all hope for a
better life in a fair peace settlement with Israel, might well
favor the choice of an extremist Islamic leader.
Such a scenario would be welcome relief to Ariel Sharon. On
principle, Islamic or other extremists oppose the very existence of
the state of Israel. With them there is no "danger" of entering
into political discussions. Sharon's purpose would thus be met,
since he has no intention of ending the occupation of Palestinian
territory, or of dismantling Jewish settlements, which are the
major obstacle to creating normal borders between a Palestinian
state and Israel. According to Sharon's strategy, the replacement
of Arafat (say by a Hamas leader) is a perfect solution: there will
no longer be any U.s. pressure on Israel to be more flexible in the
face of Palestinian demands for withdrawal, no more room for
Peres's peace posturing. Such a development would offer an ideal
opportunity to finalize Israel's territorial expansion at the
expense of the Palestinians.
Sharon may be miscalculating, though. President Bush wants his
anti¬terrorist coalition against the Taliban to remain united.
It has wider implications. He needs the goodwill of Arab and
Islamic nations. Bush will therefore continue to push for reducing
Israeli-Palestinian tensions. What seems impossible today, namely
UN-sponsored military intervention, may well become the reality of
tomorrow. A U.N. Security Council resolution, backed by a U.S.
angered at Israeli policy, would grant the Palestinians
international protection against Israel's excessive military might
and would impose on the two warring parties if not peace then at
least a cease-fire.
Sharon may realize that the Americans are losing patience with
Israel. But he remains optimistic in the belief that time may work
to his advantage. He expects the Bush administration to become
disillusioned with reluctant support for the campaign in
Afghanistan from Arab and Muslim states. Sharon hopes that very
soon, an angry and impatient Bush may decide to drop these
unreliable allies. Israel will then regain its place in the US-led
anti¬terrorist coalition (or so the thinking goes), and US
pressure on Israel for a peace settlement based on the creation of
a Palestinian state will become a thing of the past.
This scenario is not necessarily completely far-fetched. However,
Sharon's error lies elsewhere. He overlooks the fact that though US
pressure on Israel may temporarily abate, the Palestinian problem
will not. Even if Sharon intensifies his brutal strikes against
Palestinian towns and villages, and if the number of Palestinians
killed increases to many thousands, the 3.6 million¬strong
Palestinian people in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem will not
fade away. The frustrated Palestinian hopes for freedom and
independence will more than ever find expression in an implacable
struggle against occupation, conducted with all available means.
This will bring neither peace nor security to the Israeli
people.
Thus wherever one turns, as long as Sharon's policies are
maintained, with or without Shimon Peres's blessings, the future
for both nations, Palestinians and Israelis alike, looks bleak
indeed.