[antiwar-van] We miss you, Mr. `There's-no-partner'

[hanna]

"It's hard to think of a stranger combination than democratization and
occupation - than a colonial power that demands that the country under
occupation will not only hold fire, but hold its tongue as well. And all
this, in return for a string of glass beads in the guise of a promise of
"painful concessions" and an acceleration of the theft of lands, the
destruction of houses and the pilfering of olives."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/504388.html

Mon., November 22

We miss you, Mr. `There's-no-partner'

By Akiva Eldar

The days of mourning have not yet ended, and the late Palestinian Authority
chairman Yasser Arafat is already greatly missed by Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon and his comrade-in-arms, U.S. President George W. Bush. And is it any
wonder? Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is languishing in prison while
terror reigns in Iraq, Osama bin Laden continues to give everyone the
finger, Afghanistan is becoming the world drug center, and Europe is not
showing any tendency to assist in the war against the ayatollahs in Iran.
And now of all times, one of the last icons of the war against terror has
been taken from them. Instead of the man with the scruffy face and the
military uniform, they are threatening to seat a cleanly shaved doctor in a
suit and a tie. Where will they find a new "there's-no-partner," to whom
Sharon refuses to talk? Who will rescue Bush from his road map peace plan,
which promised that "a settlement negotiated between the parties" will
result in a final status agreement that "will end the occupation that began
in 1967"?

But Israel will persevere, America will persevere. Dr. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu
Mazen) declares that he is opposed to terror? Bush demands democratization
first of all. Mohammed Qureia (Abu Ala) demands a state within a year?
Sharon sent him to censor the press. It looks as if, due to all the
confusion in the wake of Arafat's sudden demise, they haven't paid attention
to the contradiction between the two conditions. It's hard to think of a
stranger combination than democratization and occupation - than a colonial
power that demands that the country under occupation will not only hold
fire, but hold its tongue as well. And all this, in return for a string of
glass beads in the guise of a promise of "painful concessions" and an
acceleration of the theft of lands, the destruction of houses and the
pilfering of olives.

In Ramallah and in Gaza they have not forgotten the words of Sharon's
adviser Dov Weisglass, who declared that after the withdrawal from Gaza
everything would stand still "until the Palestinians become Finns." It's not
certain that Israel 2004 would pass the Finnish test. In the absence of
political hope, it's no wonder that Hamas supports the Bush-Sharon version
of "democratization." The fundamentalists have the greatest interest in
putting the "Oslo criminals," headed by Abu Mazen and Abu Ala, to the test
of the polls. People who see themselves as the messengers of Allah do not
have to fear that the elections will also lead to the imposition of a
democratic regime. After all, nobody is talking about democracy, but rather
about "democratization." Such a process, when it is being conducted while
there is an occupation, is probably destined to an end that is similar to
that of the peace process - which is being conducted while settlements are
being built.

Minister Natan Sharansky, one of the leading opponents of the withdrawal
from the Gaza Strip, suggested a brilliant formula to Bush: "the depth of
the withdrawal in accordance with the depth of democracy." It's lucky that
he wasn't here when Sharon destroyed the Israeli city of Yamit in order to
build the peace with Anwar Sadat's Egypt - the symbol of democracy.
According to Sharansky's formula, we would still be in a state of war with
the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan. It is interesting that Finance Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a great fan of democratization, conducted
negotiations with the late Syrian president Hafez Assad over the return of
the Golan Heights, without demanding that democracy be imposed in Syria.

There was one and only one Arab legislature that brought down a government
in a democratic process par excellence of a no-confidence vote. That was the
Palestinian parliament, which last year forced government reform on Arafat,
which included the appointment of Abu Mazen as prime minister. What did
Sharansky and his ilk propose as a prize to encourage the PA? Withdrawal
from the center of Ramallah, or expansion of building in the settlement of
Psagot (which is adjacent to that city)?

Democracy can be a two-edged sword. When it is practiced under conditions of
occupation, it serves its extremist opponents. When it is accompanied by a
cease-fire and the beginning of negotiations about a permanent solution, it
serves the forces of peace. One doesn't have to be the head of Military
Intelligence to understand that the only chance for the pragmatic group
headed by Abu Mazen to overcome the extremist nationalist and religious
circles, lies in its ability to convince the Palestinian street that there
is a substitute for violence. It is Israel that is holding at least half of
this substitute: an end to the cycle of the attacks-assassinations, and a
renewal of negotiations on the basis of the road map - the creation of that
knight of democracy George W. Bush, which was approved by the well-known
democrat Ariel Sharon.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/antiwar-van/attachments/20041121/3b2f530a/attachment.html>