[Peace-discuss] US/Israel and the Palestinians now

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The most cogent account I've seen of the present situation.  --CGE]

	Divide and rule, Israeli-style
	Can the Arab world be turned into Gaza’s jailers?
	by Jonathan Cook
	June 26, 2007

Nazareth -- The boycott by Israel and the international community of the 
Palestinian Authority finally blew up in their faces with Hamas’ recent 
bloody takeover of Gaza. Or so argues Gideon Levy, one of the saner 
voices still to be found in Israel. “Starving, drying up and blocking 
aid do not sear the consciousness and do not weaken political movements. 
On the contrary …  Reality has refuted the chorus of experts and 
commentators who preached [on] behalf of the boycott policy. This daft 
notion that it is possible to topple an elected government by applying 
pressure on a helpless population suffered a complete failure.”



But has Levy got it wrong? The faces of Israeli and American 
politicians, including Ehud Olmert and George Bush, appear soot-free. On 
the contrary. Over the past fortnight they have been looking and 
sounding even more smug than usual.



The problem with Levy’s analysis is that it assumes that Israel and the 
US wanted sanctions to bring about the fall of Hamas, either by giving 
Fatah the upper hand so that it could deal a knockout blow to the 
Palestinian government, or by inciting ordinary Palestinians to rise up 
and demand that their earlier electoral decision be reversed and Fatah 
reinstalled. In short, Levy, like most observers, assumes that the 
policy was designed to enforce regime change.



But what if that was not the point of the sanctions? And if so, what 
goals were Israel and the US pursuing?



The parallels between Iraq and Gaza may be instructive. After all, Iraq 
is the West’s only other recent experiment in imposing sanctions to 
starve a nation. And we all know where it led: to an even deeper 
entrenchment of Saddam Hussein’s rule.



True, the circumstances in Iraq and Gaza are different: most Iraqis 
wanted Saddam out but had no way to effect change, while most Gazans 
wanted Hamas in and made it happen by voting for them in last year’s 
elections. Nevertheless, it may be that the US and Israel drew a 
different lesson from the sanctions experience in Iraq.



Whether intended or not, sanctions proved a very effective tool for 
destroying the internal bonds that held Iraqi society together. 
Destitution and hunger are powerful incentives to turn on one’s 
neighbour as well as one’s enemy. A society where resources -- food, 
medicines, water and electricity -- are in short supply is also a 
society where everyone looks out for himself. It is a society that, with 
a little prompting, can easily be made to tear itself apart.



And that is precisely what the Americans began to engineer after their 
“shock and awe” invasion of 2003. Contrary to previous US interventions 
abroad, Saddam was not toppled and replaced with another strongman -- 
one more to the West’s liking. Instead of regime change, we were given 
regime overthrow. Or as Daniel Pipes, one of the neoconservative 
ideologues of the attack on Iraq, expressed it, the goal was “limited to 
destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement … Fixing Iraq is 
neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden.”



In place of Saddam, the Americans created a safe haven known as the 
Green Zone from which its occupation regime could loosely police the 
country and oversee the theft of Iraq’s oil, while also sitting back and 
watching a sectarian civil war between the Sunni and Shia populations 
spiral out of control and decimate the Iraqi population.



What did Washington hope to achieve? Pipes offers a clue: “When Sunni 
terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims [that is, US 
occupation forces and their allies] are less likely to be hurt. Civil 
war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a 
strategic one.” In other words, enabling a civil war in Iraq was far 
preferable to allowing Iraqis to unite and mount an effective resistance 
to the US occupation. After all, Iraqi deaths -- at least 650,000 of 
them, according to the last realistic count -- are as good as worthless, 
while US soldiers’ lives cost votes back home.



For the neocon cabal behind the Iraq invasion, civil war was seen to 
have two beneficial outcomes.



First, it eroded the solidarity of ordinary Iraqis, depleting their 
energies and making them less likely to join or support the resistance 
to the occupation. The insurgency has remained a terrible irritation to 
US forces but not the fatal blow it might have been were the Sunni and 
Shia to fight side by side. As a result, the theft of Iraq’s resources 
has been made easier.



And second, in the longer term, civil war is making inevitable a slow 
process of communal partition and ethnic cleansing. Four million Iraqis 
are reported to have been forced either to leave the country or flee 
their homes. Iraq is being broken up into small ethnic and religious 
fiefdoms that will be easier to manage and manipulate.



Is this the model for Gaza now and the West Bank later?



It is worth recalling that neither Israel nor the US pushed for an 
easing of the sanctions on the Palestinian Authority after the national 
unity government of Hamas and Fatah was formed earlier this year. In 
fact, the US and Israel could barely conceal their panic at the 
development. The moment the Mecca agreement was signed, reports of US 
efforts to train and arm Fatah forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas 
became a newspaper staple.



The cumulative effect of US support for Fatah, as well as Israel’s 
continuing arrests of Hamas legislators in the West Bank, was to strain 
already tense relations between Hamas and Fatah to breaking point. When 
Hamas learnt that Abbas’ security chief, Mohammed Dahlan, with US 
encouragement, was preparing to carry out a coup against them in Gaza, 
they got the first shot in.



Did Fatah really believe it could pull off a coup in Gaza, given the 
evident weakness of its forces there, or was the rumour little more than 
American and Israeli spin, designed to undermine Hamas’ faith in Fatah 
and doom the unity government? Were Abbas and Dahlan really hoping to 
topple Hamas, or were they the useful idiots needed by the US and 
Israel? These are questions that may have to be settled by the historians.



But with the fingerprints of Elliott Abrams, one of the more durable 
neocons in the Bush administration, to be found all over this episode, 
we can surmise that what Washington and Israel are intending for the 
Palestinians will have strong echoes of what has unfolded in Iraq.



By engineering the destruction of the unity government, Israel and the 
US have ensured that there is no danger of a new Palestinian consensus 
emerging, one that might have cornered Israel into peace talks. A unity 
government might have found a formula offering Israel:



* limited recognition inside the pre-1967 borders in return for 
recognition of a Palestinian state and the territorial integrity of the 
West Bank and Gaza;



* a long-term ceasefire in return for Israel ending its campaign of 
constant violence and violations of Palestinian sovereignty;



* and a commitment to honour past agreements in return for Israel’s 
abiding by UN resolutions and accepting a just solution for the 
Palestinian refugees.



After decades of Israeli bad faith, and the growing rancour between 
Fatah and Hamas, the chances of them finding common ground on which to 
make such an offer, it must be admitted, would have been slight. But now 
they are non-existent.



That is exactly how Israel wants it, because it has no interest in 
meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians or in a final agreement. It 
wants only to impose solutions that suit Israel’s interests, which are 
securing the maximum amount of land for an exclusive Jewish state and 
leaving the Palestinians so weak and divided that they will never be 
able to mount a serious challenge to Israel’s dictates.



Instead, Hamas’ dismal authority over the prison camp called Gaza and 
Fatah’s bastard governance of the ghettoes called the West Bank offer a 
model more satisfying for Israel and the US -- and one not unlike Iraq. 
A sort of sheriff’s divide and rule in the Wild West.



Just as in Iraq, Israel and the US have made sure that no Palestinian 
strongman arises to replace Yasser Arafat. Just as in Iraq, they are 
encouraging civil war as an alternative to resistance to occupation, as 
Palestine’s resources -- land, not oil -- are stolen. Just as in Iraq, 
they are causing a permanent and irreversible partition, in this case 
between the West Bank and Gaza, to create more easily managed 
territorial ghettoes. And just as in Iraq, the likely reaction is an 
even greater extremism from the Palestinians that will undermine their 
cause in the eyes of the international community.



Where will this lead the Palestinians next?



Israel is already pulling the strings of Fatah with a new adeptness 
since the latter’s humiliation in Gaza. Abbas is currently basking in 
Israeli munificence for his rogue West Bank regime, including the 
decision to release a substantial chunk of the $700 million tax monies 
owed to the Palestinians (including those of Gaza, of course) and 
withheld for years by Israel. The price, according to the Israeli media, 
was a commitment from Abbas not to contemplate re-entering a unity 
government with Hamas.



The goal will be to increase the strains between Hamas and Fatah to 
breaking point in the West Bank, but ensure that Fatah wins the 
confrontation there. Fatah is already militarily stronger and with 
generous patronage from Israel and the US -- including arms and 
training, and possibly the return of the Badr Brigade currently holed up 
in Jordan -- it should be able to rout Hamas. The difference in status 
between Gaza and the West Bank that has been long desired by Israel will 
be complete.



The Palestinian people have already been carved up into a multitude of 
constituencies. There are the Palestinians under occupation, those 
living as second-class citizens of Israel, those allowed to remain 
“residents” of Jerusalem, and those dispersed to camps across the Middle 
East. Even within these groups, there are a host of sub-identities: 
refugees and non-refugees; refugees included as citizens in their host 
state and those excluded; occupied Palestinians living under the control 
of the Palestinian Authority and those under Israel’s military 
government; and so on.



Now, Israel has entrenched maybe the most significant division of all: 
the absolute and irreversible separation of Gaza and the West Bank. What 
applies to one will no longer be true for the other. Each will be a 
separate case; their fates will no longer be tied. One will be, as 
Israelis like to call it, Hamastan, and other Fatahland, with separate 
governments and different treatment from Israel and the international 
community.



The reasons why Israel prefers this arrangement are manifold.



First, Gaza can now be written off by the international community as a 
basket case. The Israeli media is currently awash with patronising 
commentary from the political and security establishments about how to 
help avoid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the possibility of 
air drops of aid over the Gaza “security fence” -- as though Gaza were 
Pakistan after an earthquake. From past experience, and the current 
menacing sounds from Israel’s new Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, those 
food packages will quickly turn into bombs if Gaza does not keep quiet.



As Israeli and US officials have been phrasing it, there is a new 
“clarity” in the situation. In a Hamastan, Gaza’s militants and 
civilians can be targeted by Israel with little discrimination and no 
outcry from the international community. Israel will hope that message 
from Gaza will not be lost on West Bank Palestinians as they decide who 
to give their support to, Fatah or Hamas.



Second, at their meeting last week Olmert and Bush revived talk of 
Palestinian statehood. According to Olmert, Bush “wants to realize, 
while he is in office, the dream of creating a Palestinian state”. Both 
are keen to make quick progress, a sure sign of mischief in the making. 
Certainly, they know they are now under no pressure to create the single 
viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza once promised by 
President Bush. An embattled Abbas will not be calling for the inclusion 
of Gaza in his ghetto-fiefdom.



Third, the separation of Gaza from the West Bank may be used to inject 
new life into Olmert’s shopworn convergence plan -- if he can dress it 
up new clothes. Convergence, which required a very limited withdrawal 
from those areas of the West Bank heavily populated with Palestinians 
while Israel annexed most of its illegal colonies and kept the Jordan 
Valley, was officially ditched last summer after Israel’s humiliation by 
Hizbullah.



Why seek to revive convergence? Because it is the key to Israel securing 
the expanded Jewish fortress state that is its only sure protection from 
the rapid demographic growth of the Palestinians, soon to outnumber Jews 
in the Holy Land, and Israel’s fears that it may then be compared to 
apartheid South Africa.



If the occupation continues unchanged, Israel’s security establishment 
has long been warning, the Palestinians will eventually wake up to the 
only practical response: to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s 
clever ruse to make the Palestinian leadership responsible for 
suppressing Palestinian resistance to the occupation, thereby forcing 
Israel to pick up the bill for the occupation rather than Europe. The 
next stage would be an anti-apartheid struggle for one state in historic 
Palestine.



For this reason, demographic separation from the Palestinians has been 
the logic of every major Israeli policy initiative since -- and 
including -- Oslo. Convergence requires no loss of Israel’s control over 
Palestinian lives, ensured through the all but finished grid of walls, 
settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints, only a repackaging of their 
occupation as statehood.



The biggest objection in Israel to Olmert’s plan -- as well as to the 
related Gaza disengagement -- was the concern that, once the army had 
unilaterally withdrawn from the Palestinian ghettoes, the Palestinians 
would be free to launch terror attacks, including sending rockets out of 
their prisons into Israel. Most Israelis, of course, never consider the 
role of the occupation in prompting such attacks.



But Olmert may believe he has found a way to silence his domestic 
critics. For the first time he seems genuinely keen to get his Arab 
neighbours involved in the establishment of a Palestinian “state”. As he 
headed off to the Sharm el-Sheikh summit with Egypt, Jordan and Abbas 
this week, Olmert said he wanted to "jointly work to create the platform 
that may lead to a new beginning between us and the Palestinians”.



Did he mean partnership? A source in the Prime Minister’s Office 
explained to the Jerusalem Post why the three nations and Abbas were 
meeting. “These are the four parties directly impacted by what is 
happening right now, and what is needed is a different level of 
cooperation between them.” Another spokesman bewailed the failure so far 
to get the Saudis on board.



This appears to mark a sea change in Israeli thinking. Until now Tel 
Aviv has regarded the Palestinians as a domestic problem -- after all, 
they are sitting on land that rightfully, at least if the Bible is to be 
believed, belongs to the Jews. Any attempt at internationalising the 
conflict has therefore been strenuously resisted.



But now the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office is talking openly about 
getting the Arab world more directly involved, not only in its usual 
role as a mediator with the Palestinians, nor even in simply securing 
the borders against smuggling, but also in policing the territories. 
Israel hopes that Egypt, in particular, is as concerned as Tel Aviv by 
the emergence of a Hamastan on its borders, and may be enticed to use 
the same repressive policies against Gaza’s Islamists as it does against 
its own.



Similarly, Olmert’s chief political rival, Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud, 
has mentioned not only Egyptian involvement in Gaza but even a Jordanian 
military presence in the West Bank. The “moderate” Arab regimes, as 
Washington likes to call them, are being seen as the key to developing 
new ideas about Palestinian “autonomy” and regional “confederation”. As 
long as Israel has a quisling in the West Bank and a beyond-the-pale 
government in Gaza, it may believe it can corner the Arab world into 
backing such a “peace plan”.



What will it mean in practice? Possibly, as Zvi Barel of Haaretz 
speculates, we will see the emergence of half a dozen Palestinian 
governments in charge of the ghettoes of Gaza, Ramallah, Jenin, Jericho, 
and Hebron. Each may be encouraged to compete for patronage and aid from 
the “moderate” Arab regimes but on condition that Israel and the US are 
satisfied with these Palestinian governments’ performance.



In other words, Israel looks as if it is dusting off yet another 
blueprint for how to manage the Palestinians and their irritating 
obsession with sovereignty. Last time, under Oslo, the Palestinians were 
put in charge of policing the occupation on Israel’s behalf. This time, 
as the Palestinians are sealed into their separate prisons masquerading 
as a state, Israel may believe that it can find a new jailer for the 
Palestinians -- the Arab world.



Jonathan Cook, a journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, is the author of 
“Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” 
(Pluto Press, 2006). His website is www.jkcook.net

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=13165