Removing the Accidental Protection

[Violet_Crumble]

Withdrawal means more indiscriminate violence in Gaza

by Justin Podur
August 01, 2005

What is behind the Gaza ‘disengagement plan’? It has been spelled out clearly enough by Ariel Sharon’s own advisor, Dov Weisglass, in an often-quoted Ha’aretz interview about ‘freezing’ the peace process in ‘formaldehyde’. Palestinian activist and commentator Azmi Bishara stated it like this:

The plan is one package containing the dismantling of settlements in Gaza and four in the northern part of the West Bank, but in exchange for this, the plan: (1) is intended to freeze the peace process and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza; (2) stipulates the fortification of settlements in the West Bank; (3) includes a plan for annexing settlement blocs and large swaths of land from the West Bank into Israel; (4) secures the siege of the Gaza Strip by land, sea, and air, and preserves Israel’s right to continue invasions and attacks in Gaza; (5) includes the Bush-Sharon correspondence which negates the right of return, certifies that Israel will remain a Jewish state, and acknowledges that settlement blocs will be annexed to Israel.

There are several reasons Israeli planners feel able to do this at this moment. First, the ‘War on Terror’ and the occupation of Iraq by the United States have created a favorable political climate for aggressive moves against the Palestinians under the rhetorical cover of ‘terrorism’, and have done so for nearly four years. Criticism of Israel from the US, to say nothing about actual pressure, has always been feeble. But even feeble criticism is much less forthcoming under the circumstances. There has been some criticism from outside the US, but no international action has had much effect as Israel enjoys total US protection. Second, Israel’s brutal military campaigns against the Palestinian people, their organizations, and their infrastructure, have had a devastating effect on Palestinians’ ability to continue to resist. Palestinians, who would be happy to see the settlers leave, know the withdrawal plan holds no hope for them. But even if their will to resist is unbroken (as attested by the frequent demonstrations and nonviolent resistance to the Wall, in places like Bil’in, that go largely unreported except on Palestine activist listservs), their capacity for resistance has been devastated, as their society has been, by Israel’s killings, checkpoints, and siege. Third, the Israeli political spectrum has shifted strongly to the right, with the left and the peace movement more marginal than ever. All three of the possible sources of resistance: international, Palestinian, and Israeli, have been beaten down, making the debate one between different factions in the extreme right.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=8419

[Monkie]

1. the article is only missing the full Weisglass quote

and a link to the often-quoted Haaretz interview

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtDisengagement.jhtml?itemNo=485929&contrassID=23&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1

""The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.""

Straight from the horses mouth (sorry horsies!)

"All three of the possible sources of resistance: international, Palestinian, and Israeli, have been beaten down, making the debate one between different factions in the extreme right."

Thats pretty much how i see it..

[eyl]

2. Then you might want to include the problem

he was trying to "place into formaldehyde" (from teh same article):

"The concern was the fact that President Bush's formula was stuck and this would lead to its ruin. That the international community would say: You wanted the president's formula and you got it; you wanted to try Abu Mazen and you tried. It didn't work. And when a formula doesn't work in reality, you don't change reality, you change the formula. Therefore, Arik's realistic viewpoint said that it was possible that the principle that was our historic policy achievement would be annulled - the principle that eradication of terrorism precedes a political process. And with the annulment of that principle, Israel would find itself negotiating with terrorism. And because once such negotiations start it's very difficult to stop them, the result would be a Palestinian state with terrorism. And all this within quite a short time. Not decades or even years, but a few months."

IOW, his "formaldehyde" comment refers (as he explains further down) to "transferring" the political pressure on Israel to the Palestinians; IOW, passing the ball to their court.

The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation. The decision is proving itself. It is making it possible for the Americans to go to the seething and simmering international community and say to them, `What do you want.' It also transfers the initiative to our hands. It compels the world to deal with our idea, with the scenario we wrote. It places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. It forces them into a corner that they hate to be in. It thrusts them into a situation in which they have to prove their seriousness. There are no more excuses. There are no more Israeli soldiers spoiling their day. And for the first time they have a slice of land with total continuity on which they can race from one end to the other in their Ferrari. And the whole world is watching them - them, not us. The whole world is asking what they intend to do with this slice of land."

[Monkie]

3. to my reading that just digs him deeper in the hole

Its a pretty sickening interview and he comes across as a enemy of peace and a rather nasty man, i didnt feel i needed to post more as i linked to the original.The sheer hubris of the man discussing his Machiavellian politics still doesnt cease to amaze me.
I dont think the jewish people will ever know peace with men like that in positions of power.

[eyl]

4. In what way?

The logic of the disengagment is (or was, until Arafat's death*) simple, and in line with the views expressed in the article. Under Arafat, the Palestinians are not effectively a partner for peace. However, Israel will still be under major international pressure to make more and more concessions, regardless of whether or not there are reciprocating steps on the Palestinian side. A unilateral pullout, however, is a major Israeli concession, and since it transfers a significant area wholly to the Palestinians, it places the onus on them instead; thus hopefully pressuring them to stop or at least fight terrorism.

*And while I'm not completely certain (due to Ha'aretz's irritating habit of not dating their articles), AFAIR this interview took place before that.