[Peace-discuss] Israel's True Intentions In Removing Arafat (fwd)

[parenti susan rose]

This is an excellent analysis.  Please forward to others.
Susan
*** ISRAEL'S TRUE INTENTIONS IN REMOVING ARAFAT ***
By R. S. Zaharna

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary,
posted
in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112arafat.html .)

It may be time--yet, then it may be too late--for Israel to confess to
its
true intentions in the Palestinian territories. The sustained and myopic

focus on the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, has little to do with
stopping "terrorism." What removing Arafat will do is induce a
Palestinian
civil war and, by extension, give Israel a pretext for re-occupying the
Palestinian territories. The campaign behind this strategy has been
ongoing, but it has rapidly intensified since the U.S. military action
in
Afghanistan. As the U.S. focuses its efforts on Osama bin Laden, Israel
appears to be making parallel moves against Arafat.

By keeping the focus on Arafat and intensifying its focus through the
new
association of "terrorism," Israel was able to further downplay the role
of
its military occupation and the new measures introduced to control the
Palestinian population. In fact, Israeli actions in early spring 2001
clearly suggest that Israeli actions to "maintain security," had a dual,

longer-term, strategic purpose. First, the Israelis, by cordoning off
the
major Palestinian towns from each other and constructing a network of
check
points and trenches, were able to effectively isolate major segments of
the
Palestinian population from each other. The "power" of the Palestinian
Authority was reduced to noncontiguous pockets of limited control.

Second, the Israelis began incursions into Palestinian-controlled
territories, bulldozing areas of land bordering on jointly controlled
Palestinian-Israeli territory. Again, the pretext was security; the
Palestinian homes and territory were being used as a staging ground for
attacks against Israelis. The effect, however, was that Israel created a

convenient staging ground for itself should it find it perhaps necessary
to
launch a more sustained military attack in the future. The repeated
incursions into the Palestinian-controlled territory had the additional
affect of numbing the shock factor of such military action within
international public opinion.

Third, the Israelis began a direct assault on Palestinian leaders. The
first assassinations began as early as November 2000. After initial
American and international pressure, they subsided briefly only to be
renewed with greater intensity in the late spring. In August, after
extensive reports of civilian deaths, again the assassinations came
under
international censorship. Then came September 11. The debate, like other

political and ethical considerations, fell silent.

None of the Israeli tactics have reduced Palestinian "violence" or
increased Israeli security. In fact, they have had the opposite effect.
The
tightened Israeli control around the Palestinian towns has paralyzed the

Palestinian economy, creating an increasingly desperate population. The
military incursions have undermined the Palestinian Authority's power to

protect Palestinian land or lives, and have systematically erased the
diplomatic gains from Oslo. The Israeli assassinations of Palestinian
leaders have emboldened to a new breed of Palestinian youths, who draw
parallels from the Israeli action, which to the youths, legitimizes
reciprocal retribution.

What these Israeli tactics have done is perpetuated the cycle of
violence.
However, when viewed from the perspective of the ongoing campaign to
hold
Arafat responsible, all violence--whether Palestinian or
Israeli--becomes
associated with him. This is the beauty of an effective media campaign.
So
long as one can control perceptions through intensify and downplay
techniques, the reality of the situation on the ground is meaningless.
It
is the perception that matters: Arafat is responsible for the violence.

This assessment of Arafat's ability to control the Palestinian
population
and stop Palestinian "violence," has been spelled out specifically and
repeatedly in intelligence analysis throughout the Middle East, Europe,
and
the United States. Jane's Intelligence Digest, one of the premiere
military
intelligence sources, stated unequivocally "As JID has warned for
months,
Arafat will not be able to deliver because he does not control the
situation on the ground" ("Middle East Peace?" June 15, 2001).

If Arafat is not able to "control the violence," why is there continued
pressure on him to do so? If one looks at the campaign strategically,
the
end result is the same. So long as Arafat is perceived as being
responsible
for the violence, pressure can be placed on him to stop the violence.

If Arafat does yield to Israeli and American pressure to arrest all
Palestinian militants (who are perceived by the Palestinian population
as
legitimately resisting Israeli occupation) Arafat will be removed from
power and a Palestinian civil war will likely ensue. However, if Arafat
does not arrest all militants, Israel can continue and even intensify
its
tactics against the Palestinians, eventually removing the Palestinian
leaders themselves. Again, the result would be a state of internal
instability that parallels a civil war, requiring Israel to move into
the
territories.

Ideally, for the Israelis and the U.S., it is preferable that the
Palestinian leader be removed through an internal rebellion from his own

people than if Israel is "forced" to remove him. However, if Arafat does

not go against his own people, Israel will claim that because Arafat is
doing nothing to stop Palestinian attacks that Israel has no choice but
to
protect its own security; Israel must remove Arafat. Either way, Arafat
is
removed from power, resulting in a state of instability that gives
Israel
the pretext for reoccupying the Palestinian territories to insure
Israel's
security.

Thus far, Arafat has yielded to the pressures of his own Palestinian
constituency rather than those from the U.S. and Israel. Israel is now
facing the least desirable option of removing Arafat itself. However,
the
current American attacks in Afghanistan and focus on bringing bin Laden
to
justice have provided an emotional climate for Israel to not only take
such
action but also legitimize it.

In Israel's assassination policy of targeting Palestinian "leaders," the

distinction between Palestinian "leaders" and "leadership" is strategic.

Once it becomes acceptable to systematically target and assassinate
Palestinian leaders associated with "terrorism"--in the name of Israeli
security--the leap to targeting and assassinating the Palestinian
leadership, i.e. Arafat, is not that difficult to make. In recent days,
that leap has been made.

The comments of Sharon and Bush over the weekend in the "war on
terrorism"
are not seemingly and uncannily similar; they are identical. Neither
envisions an immediate end to terrorism, but both have clearly
identified
the source and actions needed to fight terrorism. For Bush, it is Osama
bin
Laden. For Sharon, it is Yasser Arafat. And, as Bush also indicated, the

sooner the better.

(R.S. Zaharna <zaharna at american.edu> is an assistant professor of public

communication at American University and served as a media analyst for
the
Palestinian Delegation to the Washington peace talks (1991-93).)

_______________________________________________
Sdas mailing list
Sdas at che.onthejob.net
http://che.onthejob.net/mailman/listinfo/sdas