Can Sharon win by force?

[Violet_Crumble]

by Mitchell Plitnick
April 21, 2004


For the past decade, political leaders -- Israeli, Palestinian, American, European and Arab alike, have had one point of agreement with peace activists around the Israel-Palestine conflict. That was the axiom that “neither side would triumph by force.” But now, the dangerous duo of George Bush in the White House and Ariel Sharon in the Prime Minister’s office has embarked on their attempt to prove this false.


At a White House press conference on April 14, Sharon received his thank-you gift from the United States for his plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip. The gift that Bush gave him will severely limit the possibility of fruitful negotiations with the Palestinians and will profoundly damage prospects for a lasting peace. But it was precisely what Sharon wanted most. Behind the specific statements Bush made was the opportunity for Sharon to see if he can prove the axiom about triumph by force wrong.


<snip>

Sharon will continue to pursue his attempts to defy conventional wisdom and prevail through overwhelming force. But even with the United States moving further and further in support of his program, Sharon will have to see a lot of things go his way for this to succeed. With Iraqi resistance intensifying; the dual occupations of Iraq and Palestine raising militancy and anger throughout the Arab world; and international support for US domination in the Middle East splintering, the necessity for either the US changing its course or the international community finally coming together to oppose this madness is growing. And, while anger continues to grow among Palestinians, so are the cries for internal reform, popular struggle and a democratic, representative and effective leadership.


It also remains to be seen if the already-terrified Israeli public can be made so fearful and so angry that they would tolerate an imposed settlement that crammed Palestinians into some 15% of Mandatory Palestine, and forced many of them to flee. While Israelis continue to favor Sharon, his approval ratings remain very low, both in terms of his domestic scandals and because of his failure to deliver on his promise of security. His ability to hold on to power is greatly dependent on the lack of a credible opponent outside of the Likud coalition. Israeli politics are much more volatile than American and Sharon and the Likud could face real opposition in the coming years.


Bush and Sharon have guaranteed more death and misery for Palestinians and Israelis. John Kerry offers no relief from this, nor do Israeli “doves” like Shimon Peres who was only too quick to applaud the assassination of Rantissi. The potential for change remains where it has always been—in the hands of those who need only organize themselves and force their governments to change course, the hands of ordinary Israelis and Americans.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5378

[The Magistrate]

1. Unfortunately, Ma'am

Sharon probably can prevail by force, providing he is sufficiently shrewd in defining what he regards as victory. If he confines his territorial ambitions in the Jordan valley to the large settlement blocs in the environs of Jerusalem, and a few other points near the Green Line, and writes off the more distant outposts, along with the Gaza settlements, he would be able to impose a fait accompli on his foes, and leave them to deal with it as best they can. They will not be able to overthrow such a circumstance, nor have they the power to prevent his imposing it, and so whether they consent to it or no is of no moment.

[Darranar]

2. Is that prevailing?

Sure, his goal of territorial expansion may be fulfilled, but the conflict isn't going to end through Sharon stealing some more land...

[bemildred]

3. One must assume that "prevailing" means getting what he wants.

So the question is what does he want? Well, he most likely wants
several things, but primary among them would be remaining in
power, and among them would also be holding onto land, his settler
project. He's not done so well on the land issue IMHO, but he
certainly has done a fair job of hanging onto power. As far as
the overall well-being of the State of Israel, he has been a disaster
of course, but one must assume he doesn't care much about that, much
as one assumes the same with respect to Mr. Bush in the USA.

[Darranar]

6. That is true...

I was speaking more of the nation he leads prevailing and improving, which doesn't seem to be very on track under his leadership.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. I don't really see the conflict ending in any case

[bemildred]

5. Not any time soon, that seems clear. nt

[The Magistrate]

7. It Is, Mr. Darranar

A question of definition, like so much else.

Ordinary Israelis would likely define prevailing in the conflict as enjoying a feeling of safety in the daily lives. If whatever line is imposed by Sharon in the Jordan valley is adequately fortified and policed, along the lines of the Gaza enclosure, it is likely infiltration to attack Israelis will be halted, and the ordinary Israeli will enjoy that desired feeling of security.

That might not be victory in the true sense, or even an end to the conflict, but it will likely do for most Israelis.

[Darranar]

8. Well...

Military actions, legitimate or not, against Israel are not suddenly going to end, even if they are made more difficult by various measures and fortifications. Attacks on such structures are sure to occur, likely resulting in deaths, not very pleasing to the Israeli public, to say the least. The costs of maintaining and fully staffing such a system would not be low, and with the current state of the Israeli economy this will be viewed as bad news.

A recent suicide bomber was suspected of taking a tunnel beneath the fortifications in Gaza; whether or not that suspicion was accurate doesn't change the fact that it is a possibility. In order to prevent such occurences, operations within the West Bank and Gaza would have to continue, resulting in more costs and deaths.

Escapist half-measures designed to bring security without peace would bring neither. The violence would continue, Israel's relationship with the international community would likely worsen, some degree of economic trouble would likely remain, and criminal actions, by both sides, would likely continue.