NATO AIR
Senior Member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412184/site/newsweek/
For Sharon, an Unlikely Legacy
Having spent his life opposed to a Palestinian state, he now explains that it is inevitable. He has recognized that there is no alternative. By Fareed Zakaria
NewsweekJuly 19 issue - The real story about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not what happened at the International Court in The Hague last week but what has been happening inside Israel for the past few months. Consider these facts. In the elections of January 2003, the Labor Party leader, Amram Mitzna, ran on a single issue, unilateral disengagement from Gaza. He was roundly denounced as a peacenik and Labor suffered its worst defeat in history. One and a half years later, Ariel Sharon is implementing Mitzna's plan. The withdrawal from Gaza has the support of 60 percent of Israelis and 75 percent of Palestinians. At a time of tension and anger on both sides, there is a chance for progress.
Whether he intended it or not, Sharon has now made a Palestinian state inevitable. A hard-line Likud general who built most of the settlements in Gaza has now pledged to destroy them. Why? Because Sharon understands the Israeli people. After being elected prime minister, Sharon gradually realized that while the public had voted for a right-wing prime minister, it still favored the left's solution: two states. Israelis had wanted to achieve this goal through negotiations. When these failed in June 2000 and terrorism mounted, they came to the view that they still wanted a two-state solution. But now the goal could be achieved only through unilateral disengagement.
And so Ariel Sharon, who had spent his life opposed to a Palestinian state, now explains that it is inevitable. He has recognized that there is no alternative. Israel cannot remain a democracy and rule millions of Palestinians against their will indefinitely. The prime minister now routinely cites the demographic realities that he had long brushed aside. By 2020, only 16 years from now, the population in Israel plus the occupied territories will be 6.4 million Jews and 8.5 million Arabs.
Sharon has placed himself to the left of his partyor rather of his party activists. Though 65 percent of Likud voters support the Gaza withdrawl, only 40 percent of Likud members voted for it in the party's referendum. His two rivals, Bibi Netanyahu and Silvan Shalom, are unhappy with it. Whether this means a national government with Labor or new elections, Sharon is pressing ahead because he knows he has the broader public with him.
This extent of the reversal in policy has been masked by two factors: antiterror operations and the wall. The Israeli Army is determined not to repeat the experience of the withdrawal from Lebanon, which many Israelis believe emboldened hard-line Palestinians. So it has been engaged in aggressive operations in Gaza, striking any and all targets it views as suspicious. This has made it much more difficult to portray what's been done in Gaza as "running away" or being "chased out."
The second factor, of course, is the wall. This too, was a Labor Party proposal, advocated by Ehud Barak, among others. Likud opposed it because it believed that were a wall to be constructed, it would inevitably demarcate the boundary of the Palestinian state. If what's on one side of the wall is Israel's, on the other lies Palestine.
Sharon is hoping to deny this inevitability by building parts of the wall beyond the 1967 lines. But much of it is being built on that border. And the recent monumentally important decision by the Israeli Supreme Court has declared that building the wall must take into account the rights of Palestinians. Thus the new plans will be even closer to the 1967 lines. The International Court's decision reinforces this trend. If and when negotiations over the final status ever take place, these precedents make more likely the kind of final deal that was discussed at Camp David, Taba and Geneva.
The proposed withdrawal is having a fascinating effect on the Palestinian community in Gaza. Faced with the prospect of real power and sovereignty, Palestinian groups are beginning to rise up and challenge Yasir Arafat's rule. Because Arafat has been the symbol of the resistance to Israel's occupation, he was untouchable. As the occupation in Gaza draws to a close, Arafat is losing that status and being seen for what he isa corrupt autocrat.
The withdrawal from Gaza could set off a chain of positive trendsif it works. But it might not work. The Saban Center at the Brookings Institution has issued a report pointing out that if the withdrawal produces chaos, a collapse of local authority, warlords, mafia-style corruption and a renewed terror offensive, it will be seen as a disaster by all and actually retard progress. If, on the other hand, it is done with careful planning, international support, investment in Gaza and coordination with local groups, it could have a big payoff. As in Iraq, success will depend not on the military mission but on the follow-on phase of nation-building. Let's hope Sharon will learn from the mistakes of his friend in the White House.
Write the author at [email protected]
For Sharon, an Unlikely Legacy
Having spent his life opposed to a Palestinian state, he now explains that it is inevitable. He has recognized that there is no alternative. By Fareed Zakaria
NewsweekJuly 19 issue - The real story about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not what happened at the International Court in The Hague last week but what has been happening inside Israel for the past few months. Consider these facts. In the elections of January 2003, the Labor Party leader, Amram Mitzna, ran on a single issue, unilateral disengagement from Gaza. He was roundly denounced as a peacenik and Labor suffered its worst defeat in history. One and a half years later, Ariel Sharon is implementing Mitzna's plan. The withdrawal from Gaza has the support of 60 percent of Israelis and 75 percent of Palestinians. At a time of tension and anger on both sides, there is a chance for progress.
Whether he intended it or not, Sharon has now made a Palestinian state inevitable. A hard-line Likud general who built most of the settlements in Gaza has now pledged to destroy them. Why? Because Sharon understands the Israeli people. After being elected prime minister, Sharon gradually realized that while the public had voted for a right-wing prime minister, it still favored the left's solution: two states. Israelis had wanted to achieve this goal through negotiations. When these failed in June 2000 and terrorism mounted, they came to the view that they still wanted a two-state solution. But now the goal could be achieved only through unilateral disengagement.
And so Ariel Sharon, who had spent his life opposed to a Palestinian state, now explains that it is inevitable. He has recognized that there is no alternative. Israel cannot remain a democracy and rule millions of Palestinians against their will indefinitely. The prime minister now routinely cites the demographic realities that he had long brushed aside. By 2020, only 16 years from now, the population in Israel plus the occupied territories will be 6.4 million Jews and 8.5 million Arabs.
Sharon has placed himself to the left of his partyor rather of his party activists. Though 65 percent of Likud voters support the Gaza withdrawl, only 40 percent of Likud members voted for it in the party's referendum. His two rivals, Bibi Netanyahu and Silvan Shalom, are unhappy with it. Whether this means a national government with Labor or new elections, Sharon is pressing ahead because he knows he has the broader public with him.
This extent of the reversal in policy has been masked by two factors: antiterror operations and the wall. The Israeli Army is determined not to repeat the experience of the withdrawal from Lebanon, which many Israelis believe emboldened hard-line Palestinians. So it has been engaged in aggressive operations in Gaza, striking any and all targets it views as suspicious. This has made it much more difficult to portray what's been done in Gaza as "running away" or being "chased out."
The second factor, of course, is the wall. This too, was a Labor Party proposal, advocated by Ehud Barak, among others. Likud opposed it because it believed that were a wall to be constructed, it would inevitably demarcate the boundary of the Palestinian state. If what's on one side of the wall is Israel's, on the other lies Palestine.
Sharon is hoping to deny this inevitability by building parts of the wall beyond the 1967 lines. But much of it is being built on that border. And the recent monumentally important decision by the Israeli Supreme Court has declared that building the wall must take into account the rights of Palestinians. Thus the new plans will be even closer to the 1967 lines. The International Court's decision reinforces this trend. If and when negotiations over the final status ever take place, these precedents make more likely the kind of final deal that was discussed at Camp David, Taba and Geneva.
The proposed withdrawal is having a fascinating effect on the Palestinian community in Gaza. Faced with the prospect of real power and sovereignty, Palestinian groups are beginning to rise up and challenge Yasir Arafat's rule. Because Arafat has been the symbol of the resistance to Israel's occupation, he was untouchable. As the occupation in Gaza draws to a close, Arafat is losing that status and being seen for what he isa corrupt autocrat.
The withdrawal from Gaza could set off a chain of positive trendsif it works. But it might not work. The Saban Center at the Brookings Institution has issued a report pointing out that if the withdrawal produces chaos, a collapse of local authority, warlords, mafia-style corruption and a renewed terror offensive, it will be seen as a disaster by all and actually retard progress. If, on the other hand, it is done with careful planning, international support, investment in Gaza and coordination with local groups, it could have a big payoff. As in Iraq, success will depend not on the military mission but on the follow-on phase of nation-building. Let's hope Sharon will learn from the mistakes of his friend in the White House.
Write the author at [email protected]
