While demolitions and assassinations continue to be the methods preferred by Israel to subjugate Palestinians by force, the Israeli left has run out of ideas, writes Azmi Bishara For Israel, demolition is a way of life, a path it has chosen, building itself on the ruins of the Palestinian people. Rafah is not an aberration. As soon as Israel took East Jerusalem in June 1967, it proceeded to raze Amwas, Yalu, and Beit Nuba on the road to the Mediterranean, and Al-Magharba neighbourhood, near Al-Buraq (wailing) wall. Few would remember the news conference Moshe Dayan held on 3 June 1969 to commemorate the second anniversary of the 1967 War. In that conference, Dayan said that Israel has killed 750 "saboteurs" and demolished 250 houses. The demolition of homes is an Israeli trademark, so is the blasting out of holes in the side of buildings for soldiers to use as doors. This invention proved such a success that the Americans are copying it. In August 1971, Israel evacuated thousands from Jabalia to build "safe roads" as part of a clampdown on Palestinian resistance in the Gaza Strip. The man who gave the demolition order was none other than General Ariel Sharon, at that time commander of the southern sector. Much -- actually little -- water has run down the River Jordan since then. And thousands upon thousands of Palestinian homes have been demolished in a war fought primarily by bulldozers. Earth-moving equipment is at the heart of Zionism, as it has been since the 1948 War. Home demolition is Israel's favourite punishment for Palestinians resisting the occupation. While new flags are being designed elsewhere in the region, perhaps two blue lines with a bulldozer in the middle would make a fitting flag for a country that has, since its creation, placed itself in conflict with every roof under which a Palestinian lives. Sharon and Dayan are the uncontested pioneers of home demolition. Whenever occupation forces were shot at, these two men were quick to bring down entire neighbourhoods to "improve the field of vision" and "build safe roads". For these two men, a nation under occupation has two options: surrender or sleep under the stars. The Moguls would have been impressed. Israel is using the Gaza Strip to vindicate its wall theory. With the exception of the Ashdod operation, few or no operations have been mounted from Gaza inside Israel. And yet, Israel has never stopped bombarding Gaza. Apparently, no Palestinian attacks are needed to justify the bombardment. The Palestinian Human Rights Centre in Gaza has recorded the demolition of 803 entire houses (the figure does not include partially damaged structures) between April 2003 and April 2004. Since the beginning of the Intifada, 1,867 homes have been demolished in the Strip. Almost half the demolitions took place last year. That is, in the year Sharon disclosed his plan for disengagement. Half the demolitions were conducted close to the borders with Egypt, particularly in the Rafah camp and the neighbourhoods of Qeshta, Al-Shaer, Al- Barazil, Al-Salam, and Tall Zorob. For the second or third time since 1948, Gazan inhabitants have lost their homes. There are twice as many homeless Palestinians as there are Israeli settlers in Gaza. At present, Sharon is considering a new "modified" plan for disengagement in Gaza. The Israeli brass is voicing concern that the gradualism of the three-phase plan may encourage Palestinian resistance. But Sharon is pushing ahead with the plan. Disengagement is the only option being discussed, not because it is a great plan, not because it is a remotely fair arrangement, but because the Arabs have no leverage, because the Israeli opposition has run out of ideas. Demolition and assassinations are integral parts of the disengagement plan. Assassinations aim to intimidate Palestinians, create a power vacuum and encourage the emergence of a more cooperative leadership. Demolition aims to secure the borders through which Israel is to oversee the Strip from the outside, like a detention camp. The disengagement policy involves two ingredients: a decimation of leadership inside and a siege from outside. Assassinations and demolition are Israel's way of subjugating the Palestinians by force. Sharon is refusing to negotiate with the PLO. When he was foreign minister under Peres, he made sure that talks with the Palestinians went nowhere. Sharon has never been a party to an "acceptable solution". He has rejected everything acceptable to Israelis who seek peace with the Palestinians. The quarrel was never about the right of return, as some people would have us believe. Those who are trying to persuade the Arabs to give up the right of return are wrong to assume that by doing so the Arabs may have a chance of achieving other goals: Israel's return to the 4 June 1967 borders, the removal of settlements and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Sharon and the Israeli right reject all of the above. The only thing they accept is the abstract idea of a Palestinian state, a state Bush hopes would comfort the Palestinians. Any solution that does not involve the above elements (full withdrawal, removal of settlements, East Jerusalem as capital) can only be imposed on the Palestinians through unilateral and gradual action, through decimation of leaders, through siege and strangulation. Those who promote the disengagement plan are waiting for the day the Palestinians are tired of bulldozers wrecking their homes, for the day they accept Israel's dictates. The disengagement plan cannot succeed unless the Palestinian political elite is totally demoralised and decayed. President Bush sees Sharon as a man of peace. Rafah's homeless inhabitants are unlikely to agree. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke out, some people expected the US to change tack -- it didn't. With the Arabs failing to show any measure of unity, the Americans went ahead and imposed sanctions on Syria. And Israel escalated its criminal actions. Sharon's plan is now possible because Barak, his predecessor, claimed that no Palestinian partner exists (read: no Palestinian partner exists who is willing to accept Israel's dictates). Sharon's plan is now possible because Peres, as foreign minister under Sharon, did some impressive footwork. Israel's "Zionist" left is just as tattered as Gazan dwellings, and has been for years. This is the same left that built settlements in Gaza under Rabin (1974-1977), that endorsed demolitions as a security policy, that demonstrates only when Israeli soldiers are killed, that is not worried when Rafah is raped. The destruction of Rafah has been approved by the Israeli Supreme Court, a bastion of Israeli liberalism -- of a democracy that ends at green lines. The death of Israeli soldiers has enticed the left to demonstrate, but not against the government, not against the prime minister. Twenty-two years ago, Sharon was security minister and the left demonstrated against him all the time. Not anymore. The left is now taking to the street to support Sharon. Why not? Sharon is a man of peace, as Bush keeps telling us. The left does not dare to call for a return to the negotiating table. It has lost the self-confidence it once had. Leftist leaders now believe that Sharon is the only man capable of getting Israel out of Gaza without "fratricidal war" (i.e. without confrontation with the settlers). Sharon is pulling out of Gaza "with pain", one demonstrator kindly noted. This is the same left that averted a confrontation with the extreme right following the murder of a Labour prime minister at the hands of a rightwing extremist. The left is now waiting for Sharon to confront the right on its behalf. In the 14 May demonstration, commemorating the 1948 War, the left was rudderless. "Out of Gaza and back to the negotiations table," the leftists chanted. What they don't seem to recognise is that Sharon is not getting out of Gaza to negotiate. He is getting out of Gaza in order not to negotiate. In the same demonstration, a leftist speaker stood up and called for Palestinian peace activists to get rid of Yasser Arafat. Gone is the time when the Zionist left didn't want to hear of Palestinians criticising Arafat, even for reasons that were purely democratic and domestic. Gone is the time when the Zionist left defended Arafat against Palestinian critics, as Arafat was then a party to Oslo. Speaking at the same demonstration, Shimon Peres described the gathering as a rally for "the majority of the people", not just the left. The way I see it is that this was a rally by a left that does not dare to draw an alternative policy, that has run out of ideas. That engagement involves assassinations and house demolition on a large scale does not seem to bother the left. What worries it is the killing of Israeli soldiers. Only this can turn private grief into national outrage. This is not the end of the Gaza debacle. Gaza will remain a thorn in Israel's side, even if the left were to lend a hand to Sharon, even if the left were to become Sharon's right hand in the government. The borders Israel wishes to impose in the West Bank and Gaza are nothing more than apartheid lines. Occupation is a risky affair. Occupation is impossible to maintain without the continual committal of war crimes.
