Sharon's disengagement plan opens Israeli discourse to wider debates, argues Emad Gad Controversy is currently raging in Israel over Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, which involves full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of four settlements on the West Bank. The debate focusses on Sharon's ability to implement the plan given his current efforts to expand the government coalition, and whether he will succeed in bringing in either the Labour Party or a religious party, such as Shas or Yahadut Hatorah, to the ruling coalition. Observers in the Israeli media are discussing the anticipated reaction of the Israeli right to Sharon's plan -- some have even spoken of renewed attempts by extremist Jewish groups to assassinate Sharon for "forsaking part of the land of Israel". There has also been much talk lately of serious plans by right-wing extremists to demolish the Al- Aqsa Mosque, using planes or a hand-held missile; methods similar to those used by Al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks and in its attempt to bring down an Israeli civilian jet in Kenya. In fact the Israeli security establishment last week began to deal seriously with both of these threats, the possibility of an assassination attempt on the prime minister or a terrorist attack on Al- Aqsa Mosque. While some are focussing on heightened security procedures to deal with these threats, other Israeli commentaries took the opportunity to broaden the debate and examine the root of the issue: the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. As long as the root of the problem is not seriously addressed, they maintain, all other efforts are destined to fail. The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Shimon Peres, leaked news that he had informed Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei of his intentions to resume "secret" negotiations as soon as Labour joins the government coalition and he, Peres, becomes foreign minister. This is clearly counter to Sharon's insistence that there is currently no Palestinian partner for dialogue or peace. Peres's line of thinking would entail a return to political negotiations and would supplant the "no partner theory" that Sharon has disseminated to justify his unilateral disengagement plan. At the same time, several Israeli writers have re- assessed the official Israeli view of the Palestinian resistance, which lumps various Palestinian groups together as "terrorists" without considering the larger context of their struggle to liberate lands occupied by Israel in June 1967. Some have publicly stated that the conflict cannot be resolved through military means arguing that no matter what weapons Israel uses, it cannot completely defeat the Palestinians. These authors have once more raised a fundamental issue: to what degree can the Arab- Israeli conflict, particularly on the Palestinian front, be resolved militarily? In an article entitled "The Disagreement over the Bottom of the Barrel" in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on 5 August, Yehuda Litani argued that "Palestinian terrorism, which began immediately following the Six-Day War and continues until this day, will not stop even if we use our most developed military weapons." "It will not stop if the prime minister succeeds in his plan to disengage from Gaza. The fires of terrorism will not abate even if material support, guidance, and arms shipments stop flowing to Palestinians from Arab nations and Islamist organisations. The fires will still blaze because many Palestinians believe that terrorist operations are in fact defensive operations necessary to confront Israeli aggression," the writer explained. "At this stage, both parties have given up hope of reaching an agreement. Palestinians dream of international parties forcing Israel to withdraw from most of the territories, while Israelis are prepared to continue to force most Palestinians into closed, isolated enclaves. In such a situation, terrorism will flourish and grow. It will continue as long as they are forced to pass through checkpoints on their way from one area to another, from Ramallah to Nablus for example, as long as they must obtain Israeli permits, and as long as they are beaten and humiliated by soldiers. "The security wall has led to long-term unemployment for tens of thousands of Palestinian youth from the West Bank and Jerusalem experienced in all sorts of manual labour in Israel. Given the lack of job opportunities where they live, some of them join various Palestinian organisations, from Hamas to Islamic Jihad, and even Fatah. In addition to the wages they receive from these organisations (which, despite their meagerness, are better than unemployment), they also earn respect and the status of heroes among their people. After the wall is completed, in a little more than a year, the situation will only grow direr, as thousands more young men join the circle of terrorism. In fact, they have no other choice. They will replace the dozens of wanted men killed by security forces day and night. "The dispute between [Avi] Dichter and [Aharon] Zeevi-Farkash does not touch on the fundamental issue. The question is not whether military methods are enough to cut off terrorism or whether a political initiative is also necessary. A semi- political initiative was announced -- the disengagement plan -- but it does not respond to the most basic problem: an admission by both peoples that an agreement can only be reached by compulsion. For their part, the Palestinians say that if we pursue agreements that are unacceptable to them, they will respond with all available means, particularly terrorism. "Several people in Israel, among them the head of military intelligence, have admitted that force is not an answer to everything. But this admission is not enough. Sharon has talked about 'long-term concessions,' but what he and his supporters are prepared to concede is nothing compared to the concessions necessary to end the conflict. If we were prepared to offer concessions like this in the West Bank and parts of Eastern Jerusalem, we could reach a real agreement. Only then, when Palestinians can live within a united political entity, without the intervention of a foreign power, will we be able to talk about the end of the era of terrorism. Otherwise, this will not happen," Litani concluded. The emergence of voices, such as Litani, who question the efficacy of a military solution to the conflict with the Palestinians and the recognition that the Palestinian Authority must be negotiated with, represents the beginnings of a new stage in the Arab-Israeli conflict that may in fact lead to a political settlement, one based on the principle of reciprocity, both in concessions and obligations. To read more about this and other debates in Israel, please visit the Web site of Arabs Against Discrimination www.aad-online.org.
