MIFTAH
Thursday, 26 September. 2024
 
Your Key to Palestine
The Palestinian Initiatives for The Promotoion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
 
 
 

Lately, Sharon has been making a new declaration of his intentions for peace almost daily. These are welcome words for those interested in an end to conflict. But is it for real? Sharon declared that he will accept the road map. But then he continues to order political assassinations, knowing full well that it sends a clear message of violence, not peace. He called the occupation a “terrible thing.” Yet that same day, his army killed a Palestinian boy and injured two other children. Sharon stated that he will dismantle settlements. Yet this is the same Sharon who proclaimed two years ago: “You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are. They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.”

This sequence of pronouncements should come as no surprise, being that they originate with a man like Sharon, who like so many politicians plays a political game in contradiction to his true desires and interests. Pronouncing peace, adopting the road map, announcing “painful concessions” – these are all a part of Sharon’s strategy to appeal to Western ears. And it sounds good. But there is another reality, and the history of Sharon does not sound so good.

A Man of Peace

Though he was touted as a “man of peace” by President George W. Bush, a more detailed look at the history of Sharon’s perspective on peace – not to mention his stance on a Palestinian State and Jerusalem (two central components of the present road map peace plan) – leaves little doubt that that epithet deserves to remain enclosed in quotes for the foreseeable future.

On Peace. As a first step of the road map peace plan, Sharon declared that he would begin easing restrictions in the Palestinian Territories. But as soon as Colin Powell left the region in mid-May after a visit intended to jumpstart the road map, Israel imposed a complete closure on Gaza. No one was allowed to enter or leave Gaza, not even foreigners, including humanitarian workers, who had to agree to sign a waiver absolving the Israeli military of any blame if they were to be shot. In other words, the Israeli military wants to protect itself from blame if it shoots someone. This cannot be categorized as “easing” restrictions, nor is it a policy conducive to making life in general easier for people in the Palestinian Territories.

An example like this of Sharon’s insincere commitment to peace is nothing more than the actualization of anti-peace statements that he has been making since 2000. That year, Sharon called Oslo “backward,” and when asked in an interview if the Golan Heights could ever be returned in a peace process, Sharon stated plainly: "No. We cannot leave the Golan Heights." Other statements indicating Sharon’s distaste for peace can also not be forgotten, such as one reported in the Jerusalem Post in 2000, when Sharon was Likud chairman: "The Likud will never join a government that adopts the understandings and agreements reached by Barak at Camp David. We will never agree to divide Jerusalem. We will never abandon the Jordan Valley, compromise on security areas, evacuate the settlements, allow Palestinians to ‘return,’ give up control of our water resources, or leave the Golan.” One would be hard pressed to argue that these attitudes are the mark of a man willing to forge a genuine peace.

On a Palestinian State. Sharon has indeed uttered the words “Palestinian state” – a central outcome of the road map – and for this he is praised. But the term remains empty, because Ariel Sharon has never considered anything even close to a contiguous state for the Palestinians. He has stated time and again that he envisions a Palestinian state made up of no more than just 40 percent of the West Bank, surrounded by Israel on all sides. According to Sharon’s design, even that would be divided into small areas, unconnected to each other, and none of Jerusalem would be included. Is this the viable Palestinian state that Sharon has agreed to strive for through the road map?

Though Sharon’s words belie his actions now, they are in concert with statements he has made in the past. For instance, as foreign minister, he announced plainly that he was against a Palestinian state. That is securely in line with his Likud Party, which as recently as May 2002 voted unequivocally that "No Palestinian state will be created west of the Jordan [River]." And for years, Sharon has said that at the most – if he must envision a Palestinian land – then the appropriate solution would be to remove Palestinians from the territories and promptly “relocate” them to Jordan.

In the midst of the diplomatic efforts to bring Israel to the negotiating table, Sharon, as a driving force behind the so-called “Security Wall,” has been actively violating the intent of the peace process in another way. In essence, Sharon is creating Palestinian borders of his own choosing. The Wall is in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and several UN Security Council resolutions. Yet, none among the international community has protested the building of the Wall, despite the fact that it illegally creates what essentially amounts to a Palestinian border, annexing 10 percent of the West Bank to Israel. This includes about 384,918 Palestinians, who will be stuck in Israel behind this wall, separated from their Palestinian neighbors, yet not granted Israeli citizenship either. The Wall may be a recent development in the history of the conflict, but Sharon has had the Wall on his mind since as early as 1973, according to Yedioth Ahronoth, and had been drawing maps of it since 1978, according to Ariel mayor Ron Nahman, with whom he shared them.

On Jerusalem. Another vital issue intended for discussion in the peace process is Jerusalem. Yet a look at past statements made by Sharon reveals that he has always been single-minded that Jerusalem must remain completely under Israeli control. As leader of the Likud party in 1999, Ariel Sharon wrote in the Jerusalem Post: “Full Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, the united and eternal capital of the Jewish people, is not and will never be a subject for negotiation with any foreign entity.” Full stop. In a Jerusalem Post opinion piece in 2000, he wrote: “Peace is still at hand, but only with an undivided Jerusalem under full Israeli sovereignty.” And two months earlier, Sharon was quoted in Ha’aretz, as saying to the Knesset: "We were privileged to be given the role of defending Jerusalem and freeing it and there is no one among us who has the right to give it up. Jerusalem does not belong to us. It belongs to the whole Jewish nation.” How can we expect Sharon to genuinely enter negotiations about the status Jerusalem when he has made it abundantly clear that he will consider nothing other than full Israeli sovereignty of the city?

An Occupier

"You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation – to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians," said Ariel Sharon recently. Honest words, many thought, proving Sharon’s interest in making good on withdrawal from occupied territory. Once again, though, Sharon’s words belie his actions. That same day, Israeli tanks attacked the West Bank town of Tulkarem, killing a Palestinian boy and injuring two other children in the attack. Moreover, Sharon quickly ate his own words, when he angered members of his right-wing coalition, and he was soon back to pronouncing a phrase he is more familiar with and which right-wing Israelis are infinitely more comfortable with: “disputed territory.” In recanting his declaration, Sharon said, plain and simple, "We are not occupiers…This is the homeland of the Jewish people." Sharon backtracked, saying that it was the people who are occupied, not the land. How such a thing is possible is not clear, and there appears to be no legal distinction between the two.

As a matter of fact, since 1967, every Israeli government has considered the Palestinian territories “disputed territories,” not occupied territories, so why would this change now, with Sharon, one of the most hawkish Israeli leaders in its history. In 1998, Yediot Aharonot quoted Sharon as saying: "I made a huge error over the past thirty years, by not sufficiently emphasizing the historical Jewish claim to the lands of Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]. This land is the birthplace of the Jewish nation. The feeling that you rightly deserve to be in a certain place – which is an important component in security – is first and foremost dependent on your sense that the land is yours."

A Godfather of the Settlement Movement

Of course, no discussion of Sharon’s political maneuvering is complete without mention of the settlements. The road map calls for the withdrawal of settlements from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but Sharon has already announced that he will dismantle only “unauthorized outposts.” These outposts are largely unpopulated; in fact, only four of the 15 outposts that Israel has so far agreed to dismantle are inhabited at all.

This is not a surprise, given that Sharon has been a strong supporter of settlement expansion, and has even been called a “godfather” of the settlement movement. As a part of his platform for election as prime minister, Sharon promised not to dismantle any settlements. Now, Sharon’s cabinet is composed of several settlers as well as two ardently pro-settler parties, the National Religious Party and the National Union Party. Moreover, under Sharon’s leadership alone, 60 of about 100 settlements in the West Bank were built. In fact, Sharon played a central role in the settlement expansion from 1977 to 1992, a period of greater settlement activity than any other previous period, when settlers increased by 2,000 percent to total 110,000 settlers. Then from 1993 to 1999, when Sharon was in control of settlement construction as national infrastructure minister, the numbers almost doubled from 109,000 to 200,000 in the West Bank and Gaza.

In 1998, Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon joined Netanyahu at the Wye River negotiations, and he told a meeting of right-wing extremists from the Tsomet Party: "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."

In 1999, Sharon boldly stated: "The settlements are not an obstacle to peace, but contribute to peace. They contribute to security, and Israel's readiness to go forward will be enhanced [by expanding settlements]."

And as recently as 2001, Sharon said in an interview with Ha’aretz, “Look, people today don't get so excited by the idea of 'another dunam and another dunam' [of land]. But I still get excited.” Also in 2001, Sharon said: “… I see no reason for evacuating any settlements. In any event, as long as there is no peace, we are there. And if in the future, with God's help, there is peace, there will certainly be no reason for not being there. After all, hundreds of Arab families live in Upper Nazareth, and in Be'er Sheva and Lod and Ramla. So why should the residents of the settlements in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] be an obstacle?"

Once again, the pleasant-sounding words of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon today are undermined by the words, and the actions, of the real Ariel Sharon of both the distant and the not-so-distant past.

Sources:

www.cnn.com
www.counterpunch.org
www.fmep.org
www.haaretz.com
www.israel-embassy.org.uk
www.jpost.com
www.palestinemonitor.org
www.pmwatch.org
www.time.com
New York Times
Associated Press
Agence France Presse
Yedioth Ahronoth

 
 
Read More...
 
Footer
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street,
Al Massayef, Ramallah
Postalcode P6058131

Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647
Jerusalem
 
 
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1
972-2-298 9492
info@miftah.org

 
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
* indicates required