I believe what we are seeing here is about land -- pure and simple and very calculated on the Israeli side. The Palestinians want a state and the Zionist elements in Israel want the West Bank to transition from the “occupied territories” to "Eretz Israel". There is a clearly defined Zionist ideal of a greater Israel reaching the Jordan River, encompassing biblical Judea and Samaria, and it is no secret that Sharon is a committed Zionist. And, in a practical sense, you have to have some place to put a half million Russian Jewish émigrés with potentially a million more or so on the horizon.
The approach to establish Israel itself, set by early European Zionists like Chaim Weizmann, involved creating a state by diffusion -- allow enough emigration and eventually you have the critical mass on the ground in the region to create a homeland where one wouldn’t exist otherwise. Both the immediate pre and post World War 2 emigration surge dramatically speeded up the process, with David Ben Gurion leading the charge. Looking at the current West Bank situation, you can see the same mechanisms in action. A regular settlement process over decades, with little international concern as long as it’s not too violent or overt, and pretty soon the West Bank is part of Israel and TS for the Palestinians. It almost seems as if Sharon took the Ben Gurion example to heart and decided it’s time to speed up the process. After all, he’s not getting any younger and there’s not much time left to see his Zionist dreams realized and set his place in the national mystique.
The initial provocation began with Sharon’s visit to the contested holy site Al-Haram al-Sharif. I wonder how calculated that event was? Sharon certainly must have known it would lead to some level of violent reaction. Even if it was just a ham-fisted blunder, the definition of “crisis” means both danger and opportunity, and there is certainly opportunity for Israeli Zionists in this crisis particularly after the WTC attack. I’m sure we can all recall, with just a little effort, any number of Israeli provocations during the sporadic quiet periods after the unrest began -- bulldozing some homes in a village or a casual assassination by TOW missile -- that would almost certainly be guaranteed to generate a counter response from Hamas. The same goes for the “no violence” before negotiating conditions where extremist like Hamas, who are likely not under the direct control of Arafat and likely not interested in a peace that recognizes the existence of Israel, would be guaranteed to play into the Israel’s hands. Sharon can therefore proceed as he wishes and continually spin the situation as the victim.
In a nation of over 6 million people, the 250 Israeli dead, while tragic on the personal level, can easily be seen by calculating individuals as a small price to pay to achieve the greater goals of Zionism. In fact, statistically most Israeli’s don’t even know first hand any victim of the terrorist bombings, and in fact likely don’t even know one second hand. Further, maintaining the current state of fear and unrest unifies public support behind Sharon’s leadership (not guaranteed at all, otherwise) and make the “dove” position less tenable, though it very well could back fire for him politically if things stay at the quagmire state.
Toad, as usual you raise some succinct points. Unfortunately, a contemporary land for peace initiative, while being fair, will likely fall on deaf ears since I doubt Israel’s current leadership wants peace without the eventual likelihood of having most, or at least the best, of the land as well. Israel might have been serious about land for peace immediately after the Six Day War (though the original offer was limited and on Israel’s terms), but if so then times have certainly changed over the decades of occupation. Yizhak Rabin was getting close to peace for land and we know what happened to him. Barak almost got as close, but Arafat dropped that ball and then Sharon decided to pay his infamous little visit and the rest is history. Some editorial writers have suggested that the UN move in and impose a settlement, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Cutting off funding for Israel is likely a pipe dream as well, though people do seem to be asking a few hard questions now about our Middle East policy, both in the media and on the street.
Israel isn’t all that unusual in how it is trying to grow its state. Most posters on this board live in countries where very similar efforts exist in the historical record. Unfortunately, and ironically, the lessons of Nazi Germany that we are compelled to remember also include frowning on the mighty taking land from the weak, as well as the lessons about naked racial genocide. Had Israel been founded 100 years earlier, or even fifty years, then the Palestinian question would likely just be a lamentable historical footnote. Of course, Israel couldn’t have existed then because there were far too few Jews in the region.
A few other asides:
-- As for Israel being a democracy, well, you have to be Jewish for that to apply. A theocracy is the more correct definition I believe.
-- IMO the comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is off base. A better comparison would be between Israel and apartheid South Africa or the Indian Wars of the Old West. However, the process of “non-precise” retaliation (I don’t believe there are sniper scopes on 155 howitzers) is clearly for intimidation purposes rather than an honest attempt to target legitimate individuals. Much like the Nazi policy of local retribution in response to partisan activities. There seems to be a disconnect, though, in many people’s understanding of the similarities between an individual strapping a bomb on his or her body and blowing up civilians to intimidate and another individual firing a howitzer at a village and blowing up civilians to intimidate. Frankly, it confuses me. If the Israelis are truly making an effort to be precise in their targeting then there has to be an extreme failure somewhere, because you don’t kill far more civilians fighting terrorism than the terrorists kill in return. The death toll is still about 900 Palestinians to 250 Israelis since the unrest began. If you just look at the latest and most intense terrorist campaign, the Israelis are still ahead by about 10 during the same period.
-- There are elements on both sides driven by feelings of religious hatred/superiority. Hamas seems to fall into this category, as do the ultra-orthodox Jews who describe the Palestinians in very Nazi-like rhetoric (animals, subhuman, etc. well before the current problems flared up). For perspective, one of these ultra-orthodox Jewish leaders recently said that the European Jews deserved the holocaust because they had become religiously soft and secular -- how very Bin Laden like.
-- Are all terrorists the same? I don’t believe Arafat falls in the extremist category, being a “statehood terrorist” in the same vein as Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir. If anything, the Zionist groups like the Stern Gang and Irgon helped establish that a campaign of terrorism can be very useful in creating a state. IMO it’s very likely that Arafat would accept a reasonable live and let live agreement that offered the Palestinians more than just a token state with continual servitude to the Israeli masters. It’s hard to say if he has any real control over other organizations like Hamas, which is a fundamentalist terrorist organization funded and controlled by the same elements that supported Bin Laden in a drive for a broadly regional overthrow of secular, moderate governments.
-- Hangtime, I have generally agreed with your position that the terrorist attacks fail to do the Palestinians any good. Lately though... would anybody even be paying attention to the plight of the Palestinians without those attacks or would the world turn around some day after the millionth Jewish settler established the final foothold in Judea and say: "oh my, nothing we can do about a homeland now."
Further, does Hamas really care for, represent or act in the best interests of the Palestinians? In a black and white world the palestinian people, Arafat and Hamas are all the same, just as Israelis are all of one mind. It's really a world of grey with different players and groups having different objectives and trying real hard to make sure the message is black and white to achieve their PR goals.
The Israelis didn't dance in the streets after the WTC but rest assured there were some who saw that as a very positive development for their strategic goals. There are also Israelis who don't care about the West bank, and even support a far more democratic and secular state, and even American Jews who protest Israel's actions at great social risk within the Jewish community.
Charon
