| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Sharon's Illusion |
| 2006-01-16 |
| When Ariel Sharon suffered his stroke, most Western commentators mused that the world would never know his exact plans for bringing peace to Israel/Palestine, and that no one else might be able to resolve the issue as he was about to do. This seems to me quite absurd. I know his plans, as he scarcely hid them. And these plans would not have resolved the issue, since they were based on a fundamental illusion. National security is the obsession of most Jewish Israelis. As well it might be, since the basic security of the state of Israel is quite precarious and has been for a long time. Ariel Sharon was all his life someone who wished to obtain full sovereignty for Israel over the entire territory of what had been the British Mandate, and in some areas (Golan) beyond it. He wanted this territory to constitute a Jewish state, with a clear Jewish majority of the population. In these views, he was in the direct line of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his Revisionist movement within Zionism. Jabotinsky, let us remember, had formed his party in protest against the British exclusion of Trans-Jordan (today's Jordan) from the Mandate. The Revisionists (of which today's Likud party is the descendant) always had the most expansionist vision of the territory of Israel. The Revisionists were also always insistent on the necessity for a militarily strong (and when they thought necessary aggressive) Israel, the policy of an "iron wall." Sharon was also a brilliant soldier. He played an increasingly important role in successive Arab-Israeli wars, and a notoriously repellent role in the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, for which the Israelis themselves eventually formally sanctioned him. As a minister in various governments, he was a leader in pushing new settlements in the occupied territories after 1973, with the intent of creating faits accomplis that would be very difficult to undo in any future peace negotiations. So what gave him his current reputation as a peacemaker? Two things: One is Sharon's dose of realism. He came to realize that the full implementation of his program aroused too much opposition even in the U.S. government to be feasible. And he came to fear the impending demographic "catastrophe" - an Arab majority in Israel as a result of differential birth rates. And on the other side (that of centrist Israelis and pro-Israeli Westerners) the increasingly widely-held belief that only a notorious hawk would be politically able to make the necessary concessions to obtain a settlement. The examples of DeGaulle and Algerian independence, and Nixon's meeting Mao Zedong were regularly cited. What was Sharon's plan? He planned to evacuate those parts of the occupied territories that were densely populated by Arabs and thinly populated by Jews. Gaza was the first step, and various scattered zones of the West Bank would have been next. He planned simultaneously to incorporate zones that today have high Jewish settlement. This included East Jerusalem of course, but also three settlement blocs in the West Bank around which the wall is presently being built. He then planned to say to the Palestinians that you may set up a state in the remaining areas, provided that you have no serious military apparatus and provided that you recognize Israel and the permanence of these new boundaries. And since he knew that no Palestinian leaders would accept such terms, he intended to do this unilaterally, without consulting them. What was the illusion? He believed first of all that the Palestinians would have no choice but to live with this unilaterally-imposed reality. How he could think that is beyond me, since the most "moderate" of Palestinian leaders have already made it quite clear that this would be absolutely unacceptable. And of course the Palestinians are already about to vote in less "moderate" leaders. He believed second of all that time was on Israel's side. How he could think that is also beyond me. The Israelis have been losing international legitimacy steadily since 1973 at least. Arrogant unilateralism isn't working for George W. Bush. There's no hope it would work for Israel. Indeed, Sharon's plan would speed up the delegitimization of Israel, just as Bush's invasion of Iraq has speeded up the decline of American power. Abba Eban, Israel's famed diplomat, is supposed to have said, "the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Could this not be said even more forcefully of Israeli leadership over the past 50 years? Sharon may have been the last gasp of illusionary politics for Israel. Peace is always a political, not a military, arrangement. by Immanuel Wallerstein [Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.] |
| Posted by:Omomong Jolusing4312 |
| #6 What an armchair self-hating wanker.... was my first thought. The scribbler (I don't dare to say writer) has only vague, shallow comprehension of the Israel's reality. Bah! This entire article is sneer-worthy. Couldn't have said it better! ;-) |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-01-16 20:59 |
| #5 Sharon was/is a true Israeli visionary. He deserves praise, even from the Paleos, although they don't understand that yet. He's forced them to confront actually running a nation rather than seething about everyone else. Some day, maybe they'll get it...those that survive |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-16 20:48 |
| #4 National security is the obsession of most Jewish Israelis. I can't for the life of me figure out why the Israelis are always obsessing over security. I mean, it's not like they are surrounded by maniacs who have declared their intent to murder them all. Oh, wait! Never mind. Bah! This entire article is sneer-worthy. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-01-16 20:43 |
| #3 I think Sharon's vision was clearer. For years, the Israelis tried to negotiate with Arafat, who neither offered good faith, nor could enforce it if he did. Only with his death did Sharon, if only Sharon, realize that you cannot negotiate with what amounts to anarchy. You are cursing the darkness. There is no one to negotiate with. So what is left to do? Act unilaterally. But even that is misunderstood. Unilateral action is seen to be something in relation to somebody you could deal with, but aren't. A snub. But in this case, his actions are like those of someone resisting some unthinking thing. His wall is built with the same mood as a fire break or a tidal wall. It is to protect his people from some unthinking danger. Sharon even transcended the hate of the Paleos. Why worry if the fire or the sea hate you? You just don't want to get burned or drowned. No reason to be angry. But this creates a very different strategy in dealing with the problem. This realization freed up the Israelis to reach real and practical solutions to *their* problems. They no longer needed to waste time, effort and energy trying to deal with the Paleos. For their part, the Paleos have marginalized themselves; and until they have someone to lead them, even Hamas, they are a non-issue. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-16 20:18 |
| #2 the fact that th ePaleos are voting in Hamas leaders is a reudiation of Sharon? I think not. They are simply concluding their dance with death and harsh reality. Nobody gives a f*ck about the Paleos if they can't be used to aggravate the ME tensions by killing Joooos. The Soddies don't, the Syrians and Iranians don't and Saddam?...Who cares what that dead man walking thinks. The Paleos have a ground shift coming, and if they decide not to become extinct, they have soul-searching due. The Wall and reality demands it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-16 19:55 |
| #1 Peace is always a political, not a military, arrangement. One of whose. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-16 19:47 |