Alternative Insight

Why Sharon?
A world of innocence

Winston S. Churchill III in 1973 asked Ariel Sharon, "What is to become of the Palestinians?" Sharon's answer: "We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We'll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart. " That is what Labor and Likud administrations have done during the last three decades. Israel told the world of its intentions and the world ignored the direct testimony. The final clue to Israel's intentions occurred with the election of Sharon to Prime Minister--a challenge to a world of innocence.

First, a very quick review of Israel's trajectory that seems to be resulting in the incorporation of all of post-WWI Palestine into a greater Israel. This review will not discuss the charges and counter-charges that prompted Israel's expansion. It will only detail in a one-sided manner the essential facts of the expansion.

The 1947 UN Proclamation 181 created a state of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs, which was essentially a bi-national state.
Israel used the 1948-49 war to greatly expand its territory and contain its Jewish population in one contiguous area. Its military actions stimulated 750,000 Palestinians from a total Arab population of 910,000 (UN statistics) to temporarily re-locate. During the next decades Israel destroyed 400 Arab villages and never permitted the dispossessed Arabs to return to their ancestral homes.
Israel claimed a preemptive strike for the 1967 war, . Israel conquered the Sinai and Gaza and responded to Jordanian and Syrian entry into the war by seizing the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem. It immediately destroyed almost all Syrian villages in the Golan and established military control in all conquered areas.
In 1970 the Labor government established the first settlements in the conquered territories and continued establishing settlements until losing power to the Likud in 1977. The settlement population grew to about 225,000 in the West Bank and Gaza and another 175,000 in East Jerusalem (2002 statistics). The settlement activity followed the guidelines detailed by Sharon in his 1973 proclamation.
In 1978, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and dismantled the settlements in the Sinai peninsula.
Present Israeli maps show that the Israeli government has already annexed the Golan. Although Sharon claims he favors a Palestinian state, the Likud party has voted against establishment of a Palestinian state and Sharon has declared that Israel will not return to the 1967 borders.

Why Sharon?
Israel has achieved objectives that it signaled from the date of its inception. The lengthy, rambling and awkward "peace process," that proceeded to nowhere while settlements expanded, provided additional clues to Israel's intentions. The elevation of Sharon to Prime Minister provide the final clues to Israel's objectives to completely dominate the West Bank and Gaza as part of a greater Israel.

Sharon's "walk" on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif occurred on September 29, 2000. At that time peace negotiations were still in progress and the Labor Party's Barak was still prime minister. As defense leader, Barak could have denied permission to Sharon's provocative excursion. Rather than doing that, Barak provided military protection and Barak's military killed 12 Palestinians. Barak became a deliberate accomplice to Sharon's actions. During the Labor party's reign, the military did not stop provocative actions against the Palestinians.

The table below, which contains statistics compiled by B'Tselem, an Israel Human rights organization, shows that from the date of the Israeli excursion on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif in September 29, 2000 until the beginning of the year 2001, Israeli forces killed 237 Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. More than 100 Palestinian civilians, of which about 1/2 were minors under 18 years of age, had already been killed before two terrorist bombings killed four civilians in Israel.

?  WITHIN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
 WITHIN ISRAEL?
Month? Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli
forces ?		 Of them: Minors under age 18?? Israeli
civilians
killed by Palestinians ?		 Of them: Minors under age 18 ?? Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians ? Of them: Minors under age 18 ??
Sept. (from Sep. 29)? 12? ? 4 ?-- ?-- --? --
October? ? 89 ?28 6? --? -- ? --?
November? 101? ?39 ?7 --? 4? -- ?
December? ? 41 10? ?5 --? --? --?
?Total 243 81? 18 --? 4? -- ?

The table clearly shows that the election of Sharon in February 2001 did not occur after massive Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. On the contrary, his election occurred after massive attacks by the Barak Labor government against Palestinian civilians.

Why was Ariel Sharon, whose past identified him as provocative, bigoted, mendacious and brutal, elected to Prime Minister by the Israeli electorate? The Labor Party must have realized that the mounting toll of Palestinian deaths, especially youths, would soon provoke Palestinian extremists against the Israeli populace. A more intelligent response to this threat would have been to prevent attacks on Palestinian civilians; otherwise, Israel could be on a path to war and increased violence. Israel took a more aggressive role and initiated the selection of an Israeli politician willing to undertake a war, someone whose reputation had already been sullied, someone who would be perceived as being provocative and brutal. Circumstances dictated the elevation of Ariel Sharon to Prime Minister (PM) of Israel. If the Israel populace and the Labor party didn't want to provoke the Palestinians and wanted a peaceful resolution with justice would they have brought about the election of Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister? By electing Sharon as PM, the Israel nation assured itself of a more violent struggle.

With a militant Sharon as Prime Minister, Israeli military assaults on the Palestinian people provoked Palestinian terror responses. Israeli counter-responses to terrorist attacks provided more deadly attacks on the Palestinians. These assaults used heavy weapons; tanks helicopter gunships and F-15 fighter bombers. The strikes favored targeted assassinations of militants and destruction of the more rebellious communities.

The death toll grew on of both sides, and Israel and its supporters unleashed several media campaigns designed to influence the world community and stifle negotiations. Israel media sympathizers tried to show that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) had refused a "generous" plan at the end of Camp David talks that guaranteed them almost all the West Bank, that the PNA wanted to destroy Israel and that it had prepared an Intifada to accomplish the task.

These suppositions are false:

All of these suppositions have a common objective--to place the Middle East struggle into an "all or "nothing" proposition and solicit support for Israel in enabling it to achieve the "all."

Israel continued its misinformation. Sharon proclaimed that Arafat is at fault for the violence and therefore cannot be trusted as a negotiating partner. If Sharon truly wanted to eliminate Arafat as a leader of the PNA he would not boldly state his objective. He would quietly contact PNA and world leaders to gather their opinions and try to cajole them into a preferred negotiating position without Arafat. By loudly voicing opposition to Arafat, Israel assured that the Palestinian people and its authorities would not publicly yield to the Israeli leader's demand and Arafat would remain in his position. By having Barak forcefully support Sharon with scathing attacks on Arafat, the PNA President's position with the Palestinians became more secure. Attacking a statesman (Arafat) with whom someone (Barak) engaged in secret negotiations is offensive to the diplomatic community and rallies that community to the attacked person. Arafat did not have the inclination or sufficient power to stop terrorism, had proved incapable of settling the disputed issues, had not gained the necessary support for halting Israel's trajectory towards total incorporation of the West Bank and had not prevented much of the corruption that inflicts the PNA, all of which served Israel well. Who wouldn't want an adversary who demonstrated a lack of success and permitted Israel to daily fortify its own position?

The next step in Israel's campaign readied the world for complete military domination of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel sources, such as previous Ambassador to the United States, Zalman Shoval, blithely stated to audiences that the West Bank historically and legally belonged to the Jewish people, and that some minor form of Palestinian governing might be allowed. Israel supporters published op-ed articles that stated that negotiations are not possible at this time and only interim talks can be held. The Likud party voted that a Palestinian state will not be allowed. To soothe this extreme view, Sharon pretended disagreement with the vote and voiced approval for a "Palestinian state." Nevertheless, Sharon stated that Israel will not return to its 1967 borders and all settlements will be maintained. By maintaining, "We will not negotiate with Arafat or while terrorism exists," and gaining U.S. support by linking terrorism against Israel to that against America, Sharon effectively silenced negotiations. After all, the terrorists are against negotiations and won't stop even if there are no negotiations.

Sharon's deceit has not been adequately challenged. He knew that Arafat will remain the leader of the PNA until demise. He knew the roots of the terrorisms in Israel and the United States are different. Israel's terrorism is due to its being an occupying power, committing local injustices and oppressing an indigenous people. The United States terrorism is not due to it being an occupying power, committing local injustices and oppressing an indigenous people. Terrorism in the U.S. is due to global socio-economics that have adversely affected foreign peoples and perception of its support of Israel.

Israel's revealed its campaign to deter negotiations and continue its takeover of the West Bank in the discussions of the Palestinian refugee problem. Israel insists that the PNA wants a "right of return" of the refugees and this cannot be permitted - a return of refugees will upset the demographics of a Jewish state. Israel's argument is another convenient method to freeze negotiations. Neither supposition is true.

The PNA has not unequivocally declared the solution to the refugee problem is by "right of return." The number of refugees who might want to return to their properties in Israel cannot be a great amount, possibly no more than 100,000. Actually, the refugee problem is unrelated to the demographics of Israel.

The state created by UN proclamation 181, and which became Israel, consisted of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs. The proclamation stated that the rights of all minority communities should be protected without prejudice. The 1948-49 war resulted in an estimated 750,000 Arab refugees from a total population in the area of about 910,000 Arabs (UN estimate). Zionist authorities appropriated the refugees' land, personal property, businesses and bank accounts. An accounting of all these properties is still available. Many of the refugees were legal occupants of the original Israel State created by the UN. These families can argue that they have property rights equal to those of the Zionists who were a slim majority in that State. Other refugees were occupants of the land that Israel captured during the 1948-49 war. Their families can argue that they have prior rights to the properties then the foreigners who decades later entered their lands. The Israeli governments defined the semantics, physical aspects and legal aspects of the refugee situation in their own terms and obfuscated the refugee problem. The Palestinian refugee problem has no relation to demographics. It is only related to legality and justice. It has the same legal implications as the return of the displaced Kosovar refugees to their lands and houses after the termination of the Kosovo war.

Israel's vocal campaigns occurred simultaneously with major Israel military incursions into Palestinian cities and villages. Those who are considered most capable of militantly opposing the oppression are being interned or killed. Palestinian infrastructure has been destroyed, including computer records, physical structures, institutions and infrastructure--preparatory to possibly erasing from history the ancient sites, institutions, architecture, monuments and memories of Palestinian presence in the Holyland. Although Israel had the right to take measures against terrorism, its own actions have been more deadly. Wanton killings and destruction, bull dozing of houses, blasting through walls, and burying people alive have been acts committed by Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza. During March 2002, the highest month of terrorism against Israel, in which 51 Israelis were killed by terrorist actions, a far greater toll of 173 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces. Sharon obtained the reins of the Israel government with a promise to stop the violence. In his first 18 months of leadership, Israel suffered its greatest violence and the Palestinians have been pulverized. Despite his contradictory and punishing record Sharon remains unchallenged as head of the Israel government. How can this be? It is a world of innocence.

A world of innocence
Throughout history oppression has been followed by terrorism. The terrorism is not unique to Israel. The oppression of the Palestinian people has been an ongoing performance and is unique. This oppression is independent of the terrorism and must be approached from that view. If there were no oppression would there still be terrorism? Probably, since the memory of all injustices cannot be easily expunged from terrorist minds. However, the terrorism would be greatly diminished and might be more easily contained. If there were no terrorism would the oppression cease? The past history indicates it would not. The oppression of the Palestinian people has existed during months and years of no terrorism.

Israel's domination of the area previously called Palestine will deny a national life to the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. Similar to the Arab citizens in Israel, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza will be second class, only the latter Arabs will be second class non-citizens rather than second class citizens. Denial of scholarships for higher education, prevention of land purchases, denial of loans for purchase of suitable housing and denial of entry into all aspects of national life are the most pernicious racism and discrimination. The denial of opportunity propels the more skilled, intelligent and those of leadership quality to migrate to lands where they can better provide for themselves and their families. Most Palestinian Christians, especially those in Bethlehem, have already left to Western countries where they have family contacts. Palestinian Muslims have scattered throughout the Arab and Western countries to escape from the oppression and discrimination. The emigration constantly decreases the skill, leadership and support for Palestinians still living in Israel and the occupied lands. As the downward spiral continues, the control of the remaining disheartened and disillusioned persons will become simpler and more harsh. The Palestinian community will lose its intra-connections, its poetry, its art, its history. Conflicts will begin within the community as extremists plead for decisive action. As radical Moslems assume more control of the Palestinian community, Israel will be forced into more fierce and decisive punishment against the entire Palestinian people.

Ariel Sharon didn't stumble into becoming Prime Minister of Israel. Israelis and Israel politics, which includes a deceptive "opposition," selected him as the leader to complete the task of dominating all of Palestine. Evidently to them Sharon's brutal methods in accomplishing the task don't matter. The final denouements of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples also don't matter. The world of innocence takes no action and silently observes the final denouements--a potential genocide of the Palestinians and generations of violence against the Israeli people.

alternativeinsight
june 16, 2002

 MAIN PAGE

contact alternativeinsight