When Ariel Sharon suffered his stroke, most Western commentators mused that the world would never know his exact plans for bringing peace to Israel/Palestine, and that no one else might be able to resolve the issue as he was about to do. This seems to me quite absurd. I know his plans, as he scarcely hid them. And these plans would not have resolved the issue, since they were based on a fundamental illusion.
National security is the obsession of most Jewish Israelis. As well it might be, since the basic security of the state of Israel is quite precarious and has been for a long time. Ariel Sharon was all his life someone who wished to obtain full sovereignty for Israel over the entire territory of what had been the British Mandate, and in some areas (Golan) beyond it. He wanted this territory to constitute a Jewish state, with a clear Jewish majority of the population.
In these views, he was in the direct line of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his Revisionist movement within Zionism. Jabotinsky, let us remember, had formed his party in protest against the British exclusion of Trans-Jordan (today's Jordan) from the Mandate. The Revisionists (of which today's Likud party is the descendant) always had the most expansionist vision of the territory of Israel. The Revisionists were also always insistent on the necessity for a militarily strong (and when they thought necessary aggressive) Israel, the policy of an "iron wall."
Sharon was also a brilliant soldier. He played an increasingly important role in successive Arab-Israeli wars, and a notoriously repellent role in the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, for which the Israelis themselves eventually formally sanctioned him. As a minister in various governments, he was a leader in pushing new settlements in the occupied territories after 1973, with the intent of creating faits accomplis that would be very difficult to undo in any future peace negotiations.
So what gave him his current reputation as a peacemaker? Two things: One is Sharon's dose of realism. He came to realize that the full implementation of his program aroused too much opposition even in the U.S. government to be feasible. And he came to fear the impending demographic "catastrophe" - an Arab majority in Israel as a result of differential birth rates. And on the other side (that of centrist Israelis and pro-Israeli Westerners) the increasingly widely-held belief that only a notorious hawk would be politically able to make the necessary concessions to obtain a settlement. The examples of DeGaulle and Algerian independence, and Nixon's meeting Mao Zedong were regularly cited.
What was Sharon's plan? He planned to evacuate those parts of the occupied territories that were densely populated by Arabs and thinly populated by Jews. Gaza was the first step, and various scattered zones of the West Bank would have been next. He planned simultaneously to incorporate zones that today have high Jewish settlement. This included East Jerusalem of course, but also three settlement blocs in the West Bank around which the wall is presently being built. He then planned to say to the Palestinians that you may set up a state in the remaining areas, provided that you have no serious military apparatus and provided that you recognize Israel and the permanence of these new boundaries. And since he knew that no Palestinian leaders would accept such terms, he intended to do this unilaterally, without consulting them.
What was the illusion? He believed first of all that the Palestinians would have no choice but to live with this unilaterally-imposed reality. How he could think that is beyond me, since the most "moderate" of Palestinian leaders have already made it quite clear that this would be absolutely unacceptable. And of course the Palestinians are already about to vote in less "moderate" leaders. He believed second of all that time was on Israel's side. How he could think that is also beyond me. The Israelis have been losing international legitimacy steadily since 1973 at least. Arrogant unilateralism isn't working for George W. Bush. There's no hope it would work for Israel. Indeed, Sharon's plan would speed up the delegitimization of Israel, just as Bush's invasion of Iraq has speeded up the decline of American power.
Abba Eban, Israel's famed diplomat, is supposed to have said, "the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Could this not be said even more forcefully of Israeli leadership over the past 50 years? Sharon may have been the last gasp of illusionary politics for Israel. Peace is always a political, not a military, arrangement.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
#2
the fact that th ePaleos are voting in Hamas leaders is a reudiation of Sharon? I think not. They are simply concluding their dance with death and harsh reality. Nobody gives a f*ck about the Paleos if they can't be used to aggravate the ME tensions by killing Joooos. The Soddies don't, the Syrians and Iranians don't and Saddam?...Who cares what that dead man walking thinks. The Paleos have a ground shift coming, and if they decide not to become extinct, they have soul-searching due. The Wall and reality demands it
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/16/2006 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think Sharon's vision was clearer.
For years, the Israelis tried to negotiate with Arafat, who neither offered good faith, nor could enforce it if he did. Only with his death did Sharon, if only Sharon, realize that you cannot negotiate with what amounts to anarchy. You are cursing the darkness. There is no one to negotiate with. So what is left to do?
Act unilaterally. But even that is misunderstood. Unilateral action is seen to be something in relation to somebody you could deal with, but aren't. A snub. But in this case, his actions are like those of someone resisting some unthinking thing. His wall is built with the same mood as a fire break or a tidal wall. It is to protect his people from some unthinking danger.
Sharon even transcended the hate of the Paleos. Why worry if the fire or the sea hate you? You just don't want to get burned or drowned. No reason to be angry. But this creates a very different strategy in dealing with the problem.
This realization freed up the Israelis to reach real and practical solutions to *their* problems. They no longer needed to waste time, effort and energy trying to deal with the Paleos. For their part, the Paleos have marginalized themselves; and until they have someone to lead them, even Hamas, they are a non-issue.
#4
National security is the obsession of most Jewish Israelis.
I can't for the life of me figure out why the Israelis are always obsessing over security. I mean, it's not like they are surrounded by maniacs who have declared their intent to murder them all. Oh, wait! Never mind.
#5
Sharon was/is a true Israeli visionary. He deserves praise, even from the Paleos, although they don't understand that yet. He's forced them to confront actually running a nation rather than seething about everyone else. Some day, maybe they'll get it...those that survive
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/16/2006 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What an armchair self-hating wanker.... was my first thought. The scribbler (I don't dare to say writer) has only vague, shallow comprehension of the Israel's reality.
I have to shake my head in disbelief just about every day when I listen to people who have no clue about Islam or what is happening all around the world.
I still have a very hard time buying into the claims by many of our politicians and media that this is somehow a peaceful religion. This does not mean that every Muslim out in this world is violent. I am not saying that at all. But what I AM saying is that Islam is the perfect spring board for violent acts of every kind and is simply unchecked by it's own members.
This week in Mecca we can watch the video from Memri where in the height of the Muslim spiritual Hadj, the holiest time and holiest site in all of Islam, are Muslims screaming for the death and mutilation of all infidels, but specifically Americans and Jews. They cry to their god for our hands to be chopped off and to be murdered while thanking Allah for his greatness.
And in Mount Arafat this week the people who were on Hadj were told that there was a huge holy war against Islam ongoing in this world right now, according to the Grand Mufi of Saudi Arabia.
We are now finding that Saddam did provide for terrorist training, we see evidence that Syria was involved in goading Iraqi terrorists into action, we see recruiting in Europe and Canada as well as the USA. We see Muslims worldwide who refuse to live as their host nations live, but rather demand those nations bend to the will of Islam. Rapes have become the crime of choice for many Muslim men living in Australia and Europe, where violent crimes in many of these countries has risen to heights unknown before the Islamic immigration into those nations.
The Palestinians will never be satisfied with the way Israel has bent backwards trying to appease them. They still scream for blood, and they still train their children in the ways of death and slaughter.
Iran has snubbed their nose at the IAEA and the rest of the world with it's cat and mouse tactics on nuclear technology. They claim they need the power, but in truth, the population of Iran has never been the concern of the mullahs running the place. All they care about is pushing Islam as a world power and desire the technology to use it as a terror threat when they deem it necessary.
Islam has no concern for human rights if one looks around the world. There are no storms of people protesting the rapes and oppression by the millions, even when perpetrated on Muslims, by Muslims. They have no care for the Sudan where they shoot at innocent women and children as they drink from the muddy Wadi because they have no other source of water due to Muslims destroying their lives, land and population.
The funny thing is, Muslim women have written to me telling me the wonderful rights they have, all the while being forced to wear a head cover and not even being able to drive or shop without a male escort. And the Saudis are concerned that when we report such inane and evil events that we as the West are chasing people away from Islam.
However, this to me is the typical Islam double standard and total lack of responsibility so prevalent in the religion. Like not long ago in Sydney where a well known Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed publicly condoned raping of women by saying they had no one to blame but themselves. It is not the fault of the Muslim male; it had to be the fault of the victim.
Much like the Democrats in America, the criminal did what they did for any other purpose that by personal choice. Whether it is their upbringing, abuse, poverty, wealth, illness, being bullied, all lame excuses that have actually been used in our courts. And because of this like minded philosophy, Islam can never blame itself for its own shortcomings or actions. If one of them rapes, it was the fault of the victim for wearing no socks. If a school house got bombed and children slaughtered in innocent blood, it was the fault of the village or country not accepting Islam that made them bomb it.
If Palestinians are starving in dire poverty due to Arafat having skimmed the coffers and pocketed the money, then it must be the Jews who are not allowing them into Israel. If the Jews do not want them in Israel because they cannot abstain from terror and crime, then it must be an agenda against Islam and Jihad must be waged. It can not be that they are simply terrorists and like Jordan and Syria before Israel, they are not wanted due to their proclivities.
In the mind of Islam, anything that is not Islam is the fault of their people starving, the fault they fight each other, the fault they use acts of extreme cowardice to make a political point. It is the fault of all others on Earth that they refuse to help their own and the image they put to the world. It is NOT the West chasing people away from Islam. It is Islam chasing people away. It is the actions of Muslims, it is the writings of the Koran and Hadiths, it is the questionable life of Mohammed himself that keep people away from Islam. It is the silence of Muslims when their own commit acts so diabolical it would take the Devil himself some trouble to devise.
It is the chaos within Islam and the chaos it creates without that make human beings shake their heads in disbelief at the horrors committed in the name of their god. But we who are civilized can never teach those who refuse to hear.
It is simply easier for Islam to blame the rest of the world for the evil it creates and commands through the Koran. It is much easier to hide behind the lies than to look at the deceit within. It is easier to write off the starvation, blood letting, and lust for murder with Koranic passages than to actually become human beings that care for one another.
It is easier for Muslims around the globe to say nothing while their own walk this Earth spewing evil. It is easier for many to believe that just because a few of the billions do not act like this, it may have enough peaceful elements to actually be placed in the Great Religion category. But those who have befriended Islam have been bitten badly by the ones they reached to. France, Spain, England, The Netherlands, Finland, Canada, USA, and many African nations have learned the price of treating them like decent and civilized people. They have been attacked from within, they have been demanded to change laws that favor Islam, they seen crime rates rise, and they have been berated by these people.
This is a simple thing really. It stems from a great arrogance that Islam and only Islam is to survive on Earth at any cost. Though arrogance is evident in other religions to some extant, it is the mainstay of Islam and because oft his millions are enslaved by Islam and millions die by the hand of the followers of Mohammed.
And because of this, Islam can never be appeased. It is never enough until they dominate. It will never be enough until they make all the laws. It can never be enough as long as there are those who refuse to buy into Mohammed and his 6,666 verses called Koran. It can never be appeased until it is fully dominant, or until it does not exist to create the evil it does on a daily basis.
I love my fellow man, and I love animals, but even a rabid dog is shot to protect the townsfolk from the death a bite can bring about.
Pete Fisher is a concerned citizen in the Chicago area who has written several articles on the economy, educational system, politics, and religion. He has been featured on several sites such as RenewAmerica.us, Blessedcause.com, Michnews.com, RichardMullenax.com, The Rant.us, and has been circulated on various other sites worldwide. He is a 6 year veteran of the Armed Forces.
Pete can be contacted at PFisher2005@aol.com
#5
"I love my fellow man, and I love animals, but even a rabid dog is shot to protect the townsfolk from the death a bite can bring about."
I find the rabid dog comparisons to be the most apt when dealing with the Islamofascists and their soft supporters among the religion.
Unfortunately, leftists living in the West believe that the appropriate response to a rabid dog roaming their neighborhood is to:
A) hide in their house and wish it was a month ago when they didn't know about rabid dogs
B) try to reason with said animal ("Oh poor misguided Fido, wouldn't you really rather choose not to bite my family and spread disease? It's all about choices...")
C) look for "root causes" ("We really should have good leash laws and enforce them, and a town policy against antagonizing canines to the point where they bite"), and
D) to initiate proceedings against the mayor ("It's HIS fault that the dog chose this particular time to start biting people. And Halliburton's, too.")
And all the time allowing the dog to roam and continue to bite.
The correct solution is to blow rover in half with your Winchester 12 gauge 120 pump and when the threat is gone, then (and only then) deal with whatever "root causes" exist.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/16/2006 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
In the Boston Globe editorial section, of all places...
By Alan Dershowitz | January 16, 2006
WHATEVER ANYONE might think of the artistic merits of Steven Spielberg's new film ''Munich," no one should expect an accurate portrayal of historical events.
''Munich" portrays a squad of Mossad agents, led by a fictional character named Avner Kauffman, tracking down and killing the Black September terrorists who had perpetrated the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. As the movie progresses, Avner becomes increasingly disillusioned with his mission.
His chief concern is that counterterrorism only incites more terrorism, which in turn provokes reprisals. The last shot in the movie rests on the World Trade Center, suggesting a connection between the Middle East's ''cycle of violence" and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Deepak Chopra wrote that the movie ''draws a trail that leads directly to the attacks of 9/11."
The trouble with this ''cycle of violence" perspective is that it confuses cause and effect. The period immediately preceding Munich was plagued by airline terrorism, including the blowing up of a Swiss airliner that killed all 47 passengers and crew, and dozens of deadly hijackings. Palestinian hijackings were successful because even when the hijackers were captured, they were quickly released as soon as Palestinian terrorists hijacked another airplane.
This long pattern of high-publicity, low-risk hijackings is what encouraged Black September to up the ante by infiltrating the Olympic Village in Munich.
As I wrote in my book ''Why Terrorism Works," ''Based on the reaction to international terrorism over the previous four years, the terrorists planning the Munich operation could expect to succeed in attracting the world's attention and be relatively certain that if any of the terrorists were captured, they would not be held for long."
In short: Terrorism works because it is successful, and success begets repetition.
In the final scene of the movie, Avner asks his Mossad handler why Israel killed the Black September terrorists instead of arresting them. The answer, never given in the film, is that the arrest method had failed. Arrested terrorists were never tried and imprisoned for long. Between 1968 and 1975, 204 terrorists were arrested outside of the Middle East. By the close of 1975, only three were still in prison. George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a Marxist terrorist group responsible for some of the Palestinians' most brutal mass killing), noted that Europe's refusal to imprison terrorists meant that, when it came to plotting hijackings and bombing, ''success [was] 100 percent assured."
Take the example of PFLP hijacker Leila Khaled. In 1969, Khaled hijacked a TWA plane. She was arrested but soon released. Only a year later, in September 1970, she led another hijacking operation, this time on an El Al flight to New York. Khaled was held in a British prison where, by her own account, she was treated ''as if I were an official state guest." The British released her -- after her second hijacking! -- before she had spent even one month in jail.
Both Israel and America pressured the British to extradite Khaled to Israel to stand trial. England refused, aligning itself with every other European country that had refused to extradite terrorists for trial in Israel.
And it is not only Israel whose extradition requests have been utterly frustrated. In 1985, for example, Italy allowed Achille Lauro mastermind hijacker Abu Abbas to flee safely to Tunisia, rather than sending him to the United States to face charges of killing American tourist Leon Klinghoffer.
The best evidence of why the arrest method advocated by ''Munich" would not work was provided by Black September's own demands in Munich -- that Israel free more than 200 imprisoned terrorists. Israel understood that releasing terrorists would encourage future terrorism. Without European cooperation, Israel stood little chance of curbing international terrorism. Sure enough, Germany released the surviving Black September terrorists less than two months after Munich, when Palestinian terrorists ''hijacked" a Lufthansa plane.
(According to the senior aide to Germany's interior minister, it is ''probably true" that the ''hijacking" was orchestrated as part of a German-Palestinian scheme to free the terrorists.) It was the German decision to free these killers to kill again that strengthened Golda Meir's resolve to take the steps necessary to protect her citizens, but you wouldn't know that from watching ''Munich."
#1
Steven Spielberg and Deepak Chopra have simplistic views of terrorism and world politics? I'm shocked! Who's next -- Barbara Streisand? Say it isn't so!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
