Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Bryan Atinsky wrote:
>
>> The second reason (and I am sure there are others, but these
>> come to mind), relates to the agreement that was being solidified
>> between the Hamas and Fatah over the prisoner’s document. Among other
>> elements, this would include the formation of a Palestinian unity
>> government and an agreement to limit resistance to the Israeli
>> occupation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) (the
>> territories occupied by Israel since 1967). While this would seem to be
>> something that the Israeli establishment should recognize as a positive
>> step forward, it is instead taken as a dangerous change that puts
>> Israel’s interests in jeopardy.
>
> In the sense that Israel can't contemplate an actual peace with the
> Palestinians? Is the state of war too much a part of Israeli identity to
> stop?
>
> Doug
The aspect of identity may have something to do with it too, but I was referring more specifically to how these changes could effect Israeli policy as defined by Sharon and then Olmert. Unilateral separation, disengagement, maintenance of Israeli control over Palestinian movement and borders, etc. only make sense in a context of defense moves against terror and "no partner for negotiations." Also, every attack on civilians inside the Green Line is "proof" that the Palestinians aren't only interested in Gaza and the West Bank, but Haifa, Jaffa, Rishon L'Tsion, etc., and if they don't recognize the Green Line as a potential border how can/why should we? Also, even within Israeli discourse, the pro-settlement right always try to persuade the rest of the Israeli public that "Yesha Ze Kan" (Yehuda and Shomron is Here [throughout Israel]), with multiple meanings, but especially that the settlements are the first line of defense, the Palestinians don't see a difference between Kiryat Arba (Jewish settlement in Hebron) and Kiryat Ata (Israeli town near Haifa), and what they do to us (the settlers) they do to you. And believe me, it is hard for the settlers to maintain this argument, because most Israelis are sick to death of the settlers behavior, special perks, having to risk their lives doing guard duty and such for them, etc.
A significant change in Palestinian policy and long term end to attacks by Palestinians against civilian targets inside the Green Line, would eat away at all these arguments. How long could the Israeli government continue its arguments for why it must maintain its "no partner" and "no negotiations with Hamas" stand?
This topic came out a bit in my recent interview (in April)with Prof. Tanya Reinhart:
http://www.alternativenews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=434&Itemid=70#Reinhart
"NfW: I saw in Ha’aretz this morning that there is a new book by the former Mossad chief, Efriam Halevy. He reveals that a few days before the failed assassination attempt on the Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, in Jordan in 1997, King Hussein had conveyed an offer from the Hamas leadership to reach an understanding on a ceasefire for thirty years. So, after this botched hit against Meshal, the agreement was totally negated. The question is—there have been numerous such instances, but can we connect this to an Israeli policy in which they are purposefully destroying the chances of moves towards peace with the Palestinians?"
Tanya: There is no doubt that this is an Israeli policy. When the US came up with the Road Map, for the first time, the Hamas and other Palestinian organizations declared a hudna [cease-fire], even though they knew that it would be one-sided. They kept it for three months at least. They ceased terror, but Israel kept provoking them. The Israelis started assassinating the leadership of Hamas and they provoked the Palestinians time after time until the assassination of [Ismael] Abu Shaneb, who was a real moderate political leader of Hamas. That was the thing that eventually blew the ceasefire. So it is very clear that it is an Israeli policy to provoke terror.
The reason is that since Oslo, Israel has declared that it is willing to give up the territories. The only reason why this couldn’t materialize—in Israeli propaganda— is that there is no partner, there is never a partner. Now, once the Palestinians started using terror, that turned out to be very convenient for this Israeli line. There is this global war on terror, so when Israel is subjected to terror attacks, it immediately gains the sympathy of the world, and it is viewed as the victim and the Palestinians as the aggressors. As long as this goes on, it is easier to explain why we don’t get out of the territories. But, the fact of the matter now is that since the Sharm al-Sheikh summit in February 2005, Hamas has completely stopped terror. No matter what Israel does—and Israel did a lot to provoke the Hamas, like in July of 2005 they killed in one day seven Hamas activists in Gaza—they haven’t managed to provoke Hamas into a single suicide bombing attack."
Michael Perelman said:
> Would Israel implode if all the Arabs disappeared from the face of the
> earth? What do you think,
Doug said:
> Identity in the sense of national political coherence, and avoiding some kind of civil war. As i recall, Joel Schalit made that argument on my radio show.
There is definitely something to this. I am sure that, (big)IF Israel would end its occupation, the internal cracks within Israeli society, be they rich/poor, Right/Left, Mizrahi/Ashkenazi, Religious/Secular, Arab/Jew, would increase. I am sure anyway that the right's fight against the Gaza pullout was light in comparison to what will happen when there is significant withdrawals from settlements in the West Bank. This is due to increased militancy in the settler movement, a larger number of them in the West Bank than in Gaza, their feeling that this will be their last stand, plus the tighter religio-historical bonds that the settlers, nationalist camp, and religious Jews in general have with "Yehuda" and "Shomron". It won't go as easy by any standards. So, the movement towards civil strife or civil war could start even before the "end of the occupation." But who knows, perhaps an end to the occupation, though at first opening up fissures that are under the surface at the moment, could also create a momentum of change for the better. Most Israelis want Israel to just be a "normal" secular society and most Israelis' patience for so much money going to the religious sector and for them to dictate so many aspects of our lives will go down. The interpassive need of Israelis for the religious to act as good Jews so that we don't have to, to give us the sense of meaning to the Jewish state, all while we go to drive and go to pubs on Shabbat, eat shrimps and pork, and avoid synagogues like the plague. Perhaps that will fall away and we will have more energy to reflect on how fucked up of a society Israel is? Who knows...any way it goes, there will be conflict over these changes... Who can tell?
Michael J. Smith said:
> Greater Israel has been
> part of the program from the git-go. They might reconsider
> if they ever had any real reason to do so, but they don't --
> they know perfectly well they could sweep the West Bank
> clean and deport all the Green Line Arabs into the bargain,
> and the worst they'd have to face would be a week of
> indignant headlines. I suspect that the only reason they
> haven't done it already -- the reason they're going
> for the salami tactics instead -- is that other things
> being equal, they'd rather come out of it smelling like
> a rose.
Greater Israel has been part of the program from the git-go, that is true, but there is a much varied opinion in Israel over what that means. There is definitely an explicit pro-transfer constituency, but they are a small percentage. I don't want to go and look for the numbers, but you can look at other postings I have done in the past which show that many Israelis are willing to give up most of the settlements, many would divide Jerusalem, but most would also would be fine if Israel would keep some of the settlements. Yet most Israelis would not want to stomach a open transfer. Among the Israeli politicians however, from Likud to Labor, they have plans to keep most of the settlement blocs, Jordan Valley, a "Unified Jerusalem," and control over borders and such.