(Dat ontruimingsplan van Sharon, om de nederzettingen in de Gazastrook te ontruimen, is dat nou goed of slecht? Oude vredesveteraan Uri Avnery weegt de voors en tegens af)
Uri Avnery
26.3.05
Paved with Bad Intentions
Last week, the mainstream peace organizations held a demonstration in support of Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan. I agonized for days about whether to take part or not. The question continues to bother me, and the discussions on this subject are still going on – with crucial votes due in the Knesset this week.
Perhaps the best way to find an answer is to set out the pros and cons.
Let’s start with the cons.
I don’t trust Sharon. David Ben-Gurion, who liked him very much, considered him a compulsive liar. “If Sharon would get rid of his faults, such as not telling the truth… he would be an exemplary military leader,” Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on January 29, 1960.
For a year now he has been talking about the disengagement, working for the disengagement, moving heaven and earth for the disengagement. But up to this very moment, apart from some administrative moves, he has not done anything at all to implement the plan. On the contrary: these days, millions are being invested in strengthening the defense of houses in Gush Katif, the inhabitants of which are supposed to be evacuated in a matter of weeks.
Why give him credit and lend him support now, before implementation has even started?
Does this mean that he will not implement the plan?
I believe that he cannot retreat anymore. His huge ego is now identified with this operation. He has already split his party, become an enemy of the settlers and turned the whole political system upside down. Retreating from the plan now would shatter his self-esteem and public image.
Withdrawal from the withdrawal could arouse the anger of President Bush. Sharon has only contempt for the Goyim and thinks that cheating them is a national duty, but he knows where Israel would be without the unlimited support of the United States.
Only an earth-shattering event could allow him now to get out of the mess, such as an American invasion of Syria or Iran or the collapse of his government.
So, if it is probable that Sharon will implement the disengagement, why not support him?
Because I think about the day after.
I have no illusions about Sharon’s intentions as far as the West Bank is concerned. He plans to annex 58% of it and leave the Palestinians in isolated enclaves, cut off from each other by settlements and military installations. At most, in order to satisfy Bush’s demand for “contiguity”, the enclaves will be connected by bridges and tunnels.
Apart from his son Omri, Advocate Dov Weissglas is the person closest to him. When this man declared that after the disengagement, Sharon would put the peace process “in formaldehyde”, he was – exceptionally – telling the truth.
Supporting Sharon at this time means supporting this plan, too.
But that concerns the future. At present, what counts is the disengagement operation. Why not support Sharon now, and start the fight for the future the day after?
Because this is not at all a matter of the future! While this is being written, Sharon continues building the Separation Wall, which has annexed 7% of the West Bank so far. He is filling the area between the Wall and the Green Line with new settlements. Last week, it was announced that he is going to build 3500 housing units in Ma’aleh Adumim. This is the most dangerous settlement in the West Bank, which it effectively cuts into two.
The enlargement of the settlements and the outposts is racing ahead even now all over the West Bank.
Last week, advocate Talia Sasson published her report about the methods used in setting up the West Bank outposts. The task was given her by Sharon himself. It will be remembered that Sharon promised Bush to remove all settlements and outposts set up after he came to power in 2001.
Sasson’s report states that all these outposts (as well as the earlier ones) were set up illegally, and that all government ministries and Zionist Organization departments cooperated, breaking the law with a wink. So what happened? Nothing. Nobody was indicted, everything goes on as before. The report was buried the day it was born.
These are the reasons for not supporting Sharon. Let’s move to the reasons for supporting him.
It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But the opposite is also true: the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions.
It is possible that Sharon’s bad intentions will produce positive results that he did not dream about when he came up with his plan. It was conceived almost incidentally, in order to solve some problems of the moment, without thinking about the next steps.
Sharon could not have imagined that his plan would lead him into a head-on confrontation with the settlers.
He is a general, and his logic is military. The disengagement plan involves giving up a secondary effort in order to reinforce the main effort. This means giving up some small, unimportant settlements in a remote corner of the country, in order to consolidate and strengthen the important settlements in the West Bank. Giving up a piece of the desert that constitutes 6% of the occupied territories, and which is inhabited by one and a quarter million Palestinians, in order to annex 58% of the West Bank. In these areas, such as the Jordan valley and the Judean desert, the Palestinian population is sparse.
He was amazed when the settlers did not understand this logic. They have a different approach. They believe that the dismantling of even one single settlement, small and remote as it may be, will provide a dangerous precedent and start a process that they would be unable to stop. They are acutely aware of the fact that the great majority of the Israeli public opposes them, and that many consider them a pest.
The settlers are Sharon’s proteges. Not only did he himself plan the settlements and play a central role in establishing them, but their leaders are also his personal friends and regular visitors to his home. That’s why they consider him a traitor, while he feels betrayed by them.
All this has an impact on my decision, because the determined opposition of the settlers and their allies gives the disengagement a meaning that it did not possess to start with.
We are now at the beginning of a civil war. We cannot know whether or not blood will be spilled. But even if there are no killed and wounded, this war will determine the future of Israel.
This will be a struggle between the majority, which is mostly secular, mostly liberal and mostly democratic, against a fanatical minority that is mostly very nationalistic, driven by a messianic religiosity and, basically, anti-democratic, paying more respect to the decrees of their rabbis than to the laws of the Knesset. The results will not only decide whether we shall move towards peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world, but also determine the future character of the State of Israel itself.
Does Sharon want a secular, democratic state?
The idea is, of course, absurd. His basic outlook is confused and blurred. He resembles many Israelis: quite secular in their daily life but convinced that religion is necessary. He certainly is no great democrat, but believes that the state must be democratic. He is an extreme nationalist who strives for a homogeneous Jewish state in all of the country between the sea and the Jordan, but now he is compelled by circumstances to act against his beliefs. German philosophers call this the “cunning of reason”.
The important question is not what Sharon wants and believes in, but what will be the results of his actions. As it looks now, it seems that against his will, and without his intending to, he is leading towards a fateful decision.
It is, of course, possible that all this will not happen, that at the last moment, Sharon and the settlers will find a compromise, as usual in politics. Nothing is determined in advance. But one has to come to a decision on the basis of what can reasonably be expected.
In the end I decided to join the demonstration. Not for the sake of Sharon, but in support of the struggle against the settlers.
Uri Avneri’s aarzeling is volkomen begrijpelijk want het heeft er alle schijn van dat de ‘sound and fury’ van de Gaza ontruiming bedoeld is om voor een slechts half-geinteresseerd internationaal publiek de werkelijke ontwikkelingen af te schermen. Dit stelt Sharon in staat om door te gaan met wat zijn eigenlijke plan lijkt. Hij moet daartoe, zoals hij en zijn voorgangers dat eerder deden, opnieuw een situatie scheppen waarin hij met enige geloofwaardigheid kan beweren dat er aan de andere kant geen ‘partner for peace’ te vinden is. De eenvoudige formule hier, die ook door zijn voorgangers werd toegepast, is de Palestijnen te frustreren en provoceren. Dit kan, in dit geval, leiden tot de verbreking van de wapenstilstand, de radicalisering van het Palestijnse leiderschap of zelfs de overwinning van Hamas in de verkiezingen van a.s. juli.
De Palestijnen spreken terecht van opzettelijke provocatie.
De bouw aan de Apartheidsmuur gaat onverminderd verder. De Palestijnen stellen dat hij nog diepere insnijdingen zal maken in de West Bank, in het bijzonder in het gebied ten Noorden van Hebron en ten Zuiden van Bethlehem. Palestijnse boeren gaan dus nog meer grond verliezen en het ziet er naar uit dat hele dorpen zo omsingeld zullen worden dat hun bewoners alleen maar door een door het Israelische leger bewaakte poort, die slechts enkele uren per dag geopend is, hun grond kunnen bereiken of verder aan hun isolering ontsnappen.
Van de beloofde vrijlating van Palestijnse gevangenen is tot dusver slechts weinig gekomen. Volgens de Palestijnen hadden de tot nu toe vrijgelatenen in ieder geval hun tijd al bijna uitgediend. Anderen weer zaten alleen maar vast voor tamelijk geringe vergrijpen.
Israel heeft aangekondigd dat het nog eens 3,500 woningen wenst te bouwen tussen Ma’ale Adumim en Jeruzalem waardoor de Palestijnse bewoners van Oost-Jeruzalem verder omsingeld en geisoleerd zullen worden.
De Palestijnen die onroerend goed bezitten in Oost-Jeruzalem, maar het ongeluk hebben zelf net buiten de route van de Apartheidsmuur te wonen, zijn geclassificeerd als ‘absente eigenaren’ (zelfs al wonen ze maar op geringe afstand van hun eigendom) en verliezen zo hun bezit zonder er een cent schadevergoeding voor te krijgen.
Het is duidelijk dat Sharon geen enkele interesse heeft in het vredesproces. Hij heeft immers intussen, al weer zonder vrijwel enig kritisch commentaar van de politieke buitenwacht, zijn eisen verzwaard wat betreft het hervatten van onderhandelingen. Nu moet niet alleen elke vorm van verzet van de zijde van de Palestijnen (in Israeli-lingo ‘terreur’ genoemd) verdwijnen, Hamas en de ‘jihad’ groepen moeten ook volledig ontwapend worden. Met deze onmogelijke eis als excuus wacht hij nu cynisch af totdat Israelische provocatie de Palestijnen weer tot wanhopig verzet drijft die verdere Israelische onderdrukking en landdiefstal voor ‘het oog van de wereld’, dat in dit geval zo slecht functionerende orgaan, zal rechtvaardigen.
In hun briefwisseling van 4 April van vorig jaar verzekerden Bush en Sharon elkaar wederzijds vroom dat de Apartheidsmuur geen definitieve grens zal vormen tussen Israelisch en Palestijns gebied. Over die grens zou in nadere onderhandelingen beslist moeten worden. Als die er ooit komen kunnen de VS en Israel, weer even vroom, beweren dat de nieuwe’realiteiten op de grond’ nu de bestendiging van de door de Muur getrokken grens noodzakelijk maken. Bush’s verraad aan Resolutie 242 van de Veiligheidsraad, waaraan hij in die brief van vorig jaar alleen maar lippendienst bewees, werd immers zo eerder gerechtvaardigd.
Is er enige hoop dat Sharon zich misrekend heeft? Ik denk hier aan een eerdere voorspelling van Avneri. Een paar jaar terug opperde hij de mogelijkheid dat een mislukking van de Amerikaanse politiek in het Midden Oosten wel eens zou kunnen leiden tot een drastisch verlies aan invloed van de Amerikaanse pro-Israel lobby. Mocht dat gebeuren dan zou wel eens kunnen blijken dat alleen de betreffende aannemers rijker zijn geworden aan die Muur.
Een andere kleine mogelijkheid is dat de huidige vijandigheid tussen Sharon en de ‘settlers’beweging dusdanige vormen aannneemt dat de premier’s langjarige enthousiasme voor die beweging, en daarmee voor die zgn. ‘feiten op de grond’ die een obstakel blijven vormen voor onderhandelingen, een flinke deuk oploopt.
De Palestijnen doen er goed aan in geen van deze mogelijkheden veel vertrouwen te stellen. Tot dusver is voor hen vrijwel elke verandering er een van kwaad tot erger geweest.