Sharon Plans to Drive Down Another Road
Avi Shlaim
The Observer, 8 June 2003
Israel must make the peace of the brave, not the bully, writes Middle East expert Avi Shlaim
On
Wednesday in the Red Sea resort of Aqaba, King Abdullah II of Jordan
played host to a summit meeting that constitutes a potential
turning-point in the century-old conflict between Jews and Arabs in
Palestine. At the summit President Bush, Ariel Sharon, and Mahmoud
Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister who is better known as Abu Mazen,
committed themselves to follow the United States-led
‘road-map’ to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The road map is the
brain-child of the Quartet – America, Russia, European Union, and
the United Nations. It calls for the creation of an independent,
democratic, and viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel by
2005. High-level endorsement of the road map opened the prospect of
progress on the political front after two and a half years of
escalating violence and bloodshed. This prospect, however, is
exceedingly slender.
The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is one of the most bitter and protracted international
conflicts of modern times but its basic cause is fairly simple: there
are two nations and one small land, hence the conflict. Since the two
nations cannot agree to share the land, the only solution is to
partition it. The politics of partition, however, are anything but
straight-forward for they cut to the very core of each nation’s
image of itself and of its historic rights, going back to Biblical
times.
In 1937 the Peel
commission of inquiry proposed for the first time the partition of
Palestine between the two warring communities. In 1947 the United
Nations voted for the partition of mandatory Palestine into two states,
one Jewish and one Arab. The logic behind partition was simply
irresistible. It was irresistible then and it remains the only viable
solution today. Abu Mazen understands this, which is why he accepted
the road map unambiguously and unconditionally and started implementing
its provisions even before the summit.
Ariel Sharon’s
attitude to the road map is much more ambivalent. He had persuaded Mr
Bush to delay the publication of the map three times and then submitted
14 amendments with the transparent aim of wrecking the plan. At the
Aqaba summit Sharon appeared to reverse his position. Bowing to
American pressure, he agreed to the creation not only of a Palestinian
state but one with contiguous territory rather than a series of
enclaves.
But Sharon refused to say
that the Palestinian state would be independent. And in a bizarre move,
even before he made his speech, his office issued a statement to
clarify that when the prime minister referred to a Palestinian state he
meant one that is demilitarised and that by ‘viable’ he
meant an interim state.
The truth of the matter
is that Sharon’s ideology of Greater Israel is incompatible with
the Quartet’s plan for a genuine two-state solution. Like the
right-wing Likud party of which he is the leader, Sharon regards the
West Bank as an integral part of the Land of Israel. Throughout his
long political career, the 75 year-old leader has been an out-and-out
territorial expansionist and a godfather of the settlement movement. He
talks about the need for ‘painful concessions’ but so far
he has adamantly refused to yield to the Palestinian Authority more
than the 70% of Gaza and 42% of the West Bank that it controlled under
the Oslo accords.
Moreover, while
pretending to accept the Quartet’s road map to a negotiated
settlement, Sharon has been drawing a different map by unilateral
action on the ground. Two principal means have been used towards this
end. One is the building of new settlement outposts on the West Bank.
The other is the building of a ‘security barrier’ or wall
along the Western length of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This wall
is unlikely to bring security. It is part of the process of creeping
annexation and it has already succeeded in driving out a large number
of Palestinians from their land. These actions do not indicate any real
readiness to start reversing Israel’s 36 year-old occupation of
the Palestinian territories.
As a soldier and
politician Sharon has always been a champion of violent solutions, a
believer in using Israel’s military power to impose its terms on
the Arabs. Negotiation, accommodation, and compromise are alien to his
whole way of thinking. He has yet to learn that you cannot have a
winner and a loser in a peace process; that the resolution of a
conflict requires two winners. Nor does he understand that Israel ought
to end the occupation not as a concession to the Palestinians but as a
favour to itself if it wishes to preserve its democratic and Jewish
character. For, as Karl Marx observed, a nation that oppresses another
cannot itself remain free.
Sadly, the handshakes in
Aqaba that gave rise to so much hope, have but a slim chance of leading
to a real breakthrough on the Palestinian track. What Sharon is
prepared to concede falls a long way short even of the most minimal
Palestinian expectations of independence and statehood. It is the peace
of the bully rather than the peace of the brave. The greatest irony is
that Sharon is one of the moderates in the ultra-nationalist government
over which he presides. With Sharon and his party representing
Israel, the Quartet’s wonderful road map is likely to lead
nowhere slowly.
Back