Mustafa Barghouthi* questions the underlying intentions of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan in Gaza Returning from the failed Camp David summit in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak first coined the mantra that has become the cornerstone of Ariel Sharon's and other Israeli governments -- "We have no partner for peace." Citing this habitual mantra Israel's current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced in February that the Israeli state, with no credible negotiating partner, was now forced to take unilateral steps to break the bloody stalemate that gripped the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. In the months since February, however, the rhetoric surrounding Sharon's unilateral disengagement has changed noticeably. Initially announcing an immediate, unprecedented and bold unilateral withdrawal from all settlements and military installations in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli political cavalcade between then and 6 June has not only produced a reworked and sufficiently vague protracted plan of redeployment, it has also unravelled the packaging of a scheme which will see the implementation of an equally harsh system of control over Gaza as exists currently under occupation. Thus, while the language may have changed, the plan itself, one could argue, has never palpably altered. Once again, the most critical junctures of the conflict are being played out through a battle of narrative and Israel is fostering misunderstanding. "Withdrawal" is not only proving hard to juxtapose with continued events on the ground, it is contradicted by the very decisions coming out of the Israeli government -- yet to grant any authorisation to the slightest settlement evacuation. On the contrary, the various factions of the Israeli government are overwhelmingly preoccupied with sustaining strict Israeli control of Palestinian borders, territorial waters, airspace and international relations. What is more, all evidence suggests that in the event of any Israeli "pullout" the Palestinian residents of Gaza will undeniably remain under stringent siege. The existing system of tight restrictions on the movements of Palestinian goods and people will remain intact with the possibility of worsening should Israel also decide to cut labour flows or terminate electricity and water supplies. Should this be the case, the World Bank predicts that the disengagement plan can only further intensify the economic squeeze on the 1.3 million inhabitants driving poverty and unemployment to higher levels, seriously worsening Palestinian economic, humanitarian and social prospects. With internal closures only partly eased and with the external border regime unchanged, the disengagement plan cannot in any light be seen as a withdrawal from the Palestinian territory of Gaza. If indeed Sharon's intentions are not to withdraw from Gaza, his rhetoric has in any case proven an exceptional decoy to the media and international community, effectively distracting attention from Israel's rapid construction of the apartheid wall through the West Bank -- perhaps the more significant element of Sharon's plan. The continued construction of the wall, under the guise of Israeli security, is a notorious pretext for the creeping annexation of West Bank land and a unilateral determination of the border. The Israeli government has for the first time made unreservedly clear its intentions to annex further large parts of the West Bank, including large Israeli settlement blocks, openly declaring these intentions via a government resolution -- rashly described by international observers as an opening for peace. Israel is looking to find legitimacy for this further annexation of Palestinian land by dressing up its Gaza redeployment as a "painful concession". It is a one-off move on Sharon's part, intended to pacify the international community, rebuff additional territorial pressures for a long time and more importantly leave Israel in control of more than half of the West Bank. The disengagement from Gaza is far from a move in the direction of general peace and a fair compromise to the conflict. Sharon clearly intends the plan to facilitate a deeper and more irreversible Israeli consolidation of its occupation. Sharon appears to have hit the jackpot. His objective of creating facts on the ground, to then be recognised as such, has been enhanced to no end by the Bush government's support of these idiosyncratic Israeli designs to take 58 per cent of the West Bank. The letter of reassurances offered by the United States to Israel on 15 April made abundantly clear the US had made a massive about turn in policy. In a complete abandonment of international law and an appropriation by the US of the role of negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians, the American president cancelled UN resolutions that gave Palestinians the right of return, the right to establish a Palestinian state and the right to end the occupation, at the same time sanctioning further illegal Israeli settlement expansion over two thirds of the West Bank. Furthermore, unlike the progression of the planned settlement pullout from Gaza this is a no holds barred area. The construction of the wall and continued settlement expansion goes on day and night. The Gaza pullout will be a much lengthier process. The 6 June vote did not authorise any settlement evacuation. Differences in opinion within the Israeli cabinet have not been resolved, merely postponed. While the cabinet approved the reformed plan, which will now take the shape of redeployment in four phases, no final decisions were made to actually evacuate any settlements. After completing the preparations for withdrawal from the settlements, the cabinet will then reconvene to decide whether in fact to evacuate them, how many and at what pace. Implementation will be largely conditional on Palestinian performance with security issues. The sole judge of the progress of course will be Israel who gets to keep its cake and eat it too. While refusing to entertain the idea of negotiations with Palestinians, the Israeli government remains quite happy to still condition the implementation of their unilateral acts upon Palestinian behaviour. One could not be faulted for suspecting Sharon has an ace up his sleeve. Just as Ehud Barak had pinned a significant element of his "generous offer" to an Israeli referendum and ten months of political manoeuvring only to blame the system of Israeli domestic politics for any stalemate, Sharon too has now subjected his own plan to be stretched out over a period of time, with each stage subject to government approval. By which time the West Bank wall will be long past completion. Having pulled off such a heist and claiming an extra 58 per cent of the West Bank under the legitimacy of giving up the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians (without actually removing a single settlement), the only card left for Sharon to play is that which will save his own career. He may well succeed in annexing half the West Bank but his pullout plan will have been a political failure. What better way to bypass this than to heap the blame onto the shoulders of the Palestinians? This could very well be his next move. Seeming to pacify another element of his crumbling coalition by removing the unilateral element of the disengagement, Sharon needs now only present this redeployment, ghettoisation of Gaza and annexation of 58 per cent of the West Bank to the Palestinians as another "generous offer". The sure Palestinian rebuttal of an incongruous, diminutive and besieged Bantustan as a proxy state would play directly into the hands of Sharon in the ongoing Israeli propaganda battle to deny the existence of a Palestinian partner for peace. * The writer is secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative.
