IslamOnline - Views Section

"There is a new Middle East game that we are just seeing beginning," said a Western diplomat described as being familiar with all sides in the Middle East conflict, according to the New York Times. Many observers would agree. The events of late September and early October strongly suggest the adoption of a new strategy by the Israeli government – a strategy intended to redraw the political map of the Middle East.

It’s no secret that Ariel Sharon strongly believes that force is the only way to communicate with Arabs. A final settlement can only be reached by convincing the Arabs that Israel is invincible, and that the only peace the Arabs can get is one on Israel’s terms. These terms would mainly be abandoning the 1948 refugees’ right of return to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish-majority state, accepting a unified Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel, and a harmless Palestinian state that satisfies Israel’s security requirements.

The cornerstone of Sharon’s policy in handling the Intifada is that all measures shall be taken until the Palestinians capitulate and disarm. Any political negotiations before then would send a message to the Palestinians that they have succeeded in pressuring Israel and forcing it into making concessions – a conviction that would have disastrous long-term effects on the existence of the Jewish State.

On the regional level, a cornerstone of Israeli policy since the state’s establishment is that there must be no rival military power that has the capability to threaten Israel’s security. In pursuing this goal, Israel launched the 1967 war, and later destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

The time is now suitable for a somewhat similar step, being the neutralization of any power that may pose a threat in future, and implementing on-the-ground changes in the Occupied Territories that would take Israel one step closer to achieving its own version of a final settlement. Current domestic, regional and international circumstances make it possible, perhaps even necessary, for Sharon to immediately take bold steps to reshape the Middle East in – he believes -Israel’s favor.

Domestically Sharon finds himself leading a people who are desperate for security. The fact that Israeli citizens still largely support him despite his failure to deliver the security he promised would prevail within 100 days of his election indicates that they generally subscribe to his belief that only force can convince the Palestinians to stop “terrorism.” The fact that Barak’s “peace” offer did not end the violence has also convinced Israelis that the Palestinians will not be content with anything less than the destruction of Israel. In their current state of mind the Israeli public is likely to support or at least acquiesce to bold steps to weaken the Arabs.

On the other hand, the Israeli Left, in a state of hibernation for the past two and a half years, is now giving signs that it might be reawakening. After almost two years of secret negotiations sponsored by Switzerland, a group of Israeli leftists led by Yossi Beilin were lately able to conclude an unofficial peace treaty with a number of Palestinian politicians who are close to Arafat’s ruling circle, including ex-minister Yasser Abd Rabbo. The treaty, referred to as the Geneva Accord, is reportedly comprehensive and deals with every detail of the final settlement. It also embarrassed Sharon and his governing coalition, as it challenged their claims that there is no one to negotiate with on the Palestinian side and no room for agreement with the Palestinian leadership.

The potential reawakening of the Israeli Left in addition to Israel’s economic problems could strengthen Sharon’s determination to escalate his war. Historical evidence suggests that the Left will subside and the Israelis will overlook their economic hardships in times of national emergency - which might be exactly what Mr. Sharon is pushing for right now.

On the regional level, things also seem encouraging for ex-general. Joint-Arab efforts are perhaps more harmless than ever, and trouble makers such as Syria and Iran are on the defensive, attempting to maintain stability in the face of an American administration determined to undermine them. In addition, there is of course a tremendous strategic transformation in Israel’s favor, with the removal of Baa’thist Iraq from the equation and its replacement by the US, which happens to be Israel’s biggest ally.

Internationally, conditions have never been more favorable. In its “war on terrorism” – which some observers argue is just another term for “imperial quest” – the Bush administration is determined to go as far as possible in undermining rouge states, which it accuses of sponsoring terrorism. The focal point, of course, is the Middle East. However, the US’s current quandary in Iraq and increasing domestic pressures make it difficult for the hawks in the Pentagon, State Department and the White House to pursue another state at this time. What other country in the region would be more suited to carrying out this mission than Sharon’s Israel?

Even if President Bush does not find it in his interest to encourage Sharon to escalate tensions with the Arabs, he would have to think twice before opposing any action taken by Tel Aviv in this regard. His deteriorating popularity at home leaves him badly in need of Jewish support in the upcoming elections. Secondly, Sharon has successfully emulated Bush’s war-on-terrorism rhetoric ever since 9/11. Any official objection to Sharon’s tough policies would therefore prompt numerous accusations of US hypocrisy by Israel’s sympathizers, claiming that Bush was criticizing Israel for doing nothing more than what the US does.

The US position on Israel’s attack on Syria is revealing. Far from condemning this historical breach of the cease-fire, the American President actually gave his support to the Israeli assault, saying, “Israel should not feel constrained in exercising its right to self defense.” Moreover, apart from a short period following the war on Iraq and until it became apparent that Abu Mazen could not muster enough popular support to carry out the Palestinian part of the roadmap peace plan, American involvement in the Middle East crisis was kept to a minimum. This represents an ideal opportunity for Mr. Sharon to act with a free hand against the Palestinians.

However this “ideal” American position might not last forever. Bush’s chances for reelection are decreasing as American forces face increasing trouble in Iraq and the economic situation deteriorates at home. Knowing that he may have no more than 12 months before the American administration, Sharon is under pressure to accomplish as much of his plan as possible before he finds a new president in the White House, one who might not consent to everything the Israeli Prime minister has in mind.

The first week of October witnessed two events that could be considered manifestations of the new Israeli strategy.

A cornerstone of Israeli policy since its establishment is that there must be no rival military power that has the capability to threaten its security.

The Israeli airstrike on October 5, 2003, against a reportedly deserted camp 15 miles from Damascus was an unprecedented violation of a 30 years old cease-fire on the Syrian-Israeli borders. The attack was seen as a message from Israel that the rules of the game have changed: No more proxy wars would be fought with Hizbullah. From now on Syrian soil would be the target of Israeli attacks if Damascus wished to continue antagonizing Israel.

In a later interview with the Jerusalem Post, Sharon suggested that Israel could strike again at Syrian targets. By delivering this message, Sharon crossed a long-established red line, that of avoiding a direct showdown between Syria and Israel. But this in itself was another message he was sending to whom it may concern: The old rules will not constrain Israel anymore. The Jewish state will strike directly and with full force against any entity that dares to threaten its security. If Syria does not stop toying with Israel’s security through its support for “terrorist” organizations such as Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, Damascus will have to pay a dear price. Other states that consider playing the Syrian game – essentially Iran – will also pay a similar price. Aware of Israel’s military capabilities and the opportune international and regional circumstances, Sharon knows he can deliver on his promises.

The second manifestation of Israel’s new strategy was a not-widely-publicized decision taken by its military authorities in the Occupied Territories. On October 7, 2003, Israeli occupation forces started implementing new orders that consider land between the Separation Fence and the Green Line – i.e. areas of the West Bank – as a “contiguous zone,” closed to Palestinians except those with a permit, whereas “all Israeli citizens and Jews” will have free access to that area. To obtain a permit a Palestinian has to be a resident of this zone or own land there. Approval of the application for a permit is subject to an Israeli military committee’s decision, with periodic review of any permits issued.

In practical terms, this means that these areas of the West Bank have been virtually annexed to Israel. It also means that, in the first stage of the Separation Fence, 14,000 Palestinian inhabitants of these areas could be forcibly relocated from their homes and transferred east of the wall. This could be the first step, observers warn, of an attempt to carry out an old Zionist dream, known as “the transfer.”

“The transfer” is a solution proposed by many Zionist leaders to what they see as the demographic threat posed by the fact that fertility rates among Arabs living in Israel and the Occupied Territories are much higher than Jewish fertility rates; a fact that threatens the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. “Transfer” is a sanitized term for ethnic cleansing, by which the Palestinians (and possibly Israeli Arabs) would be pushed to the east bit by bit until they exist only in small pockets in Gaza and the West Bank, or – according to the more radical vision – until they are all ultimately pushed to the east side of the Jordan River, where they can have their Palestinian state.*

These recent military orders dispute the allegations made by the Israeli government that the Separation Fence is merely intended for security purposes. It reveals that Sharon and his governing coalition are set on a course to redraw the political and demographical map of the Occupied Territories. Subtle as the plan is, it is a grave step with disastrous long-term implications for the Arabs.

Ariel Sharon probably wants peace and security as much as any other Israeli citizen. However he is willing to go to great lengths in the use of force to ensure the other party capitulates into accepting Israel’s terms for peace. Sharon is also a man of initiative. He takes action to change the realities on the ground, making the stage more favorable for him and weakening his opponents.

The time is now ripe for Sharon to take an initiative that would strengthen Israel’s security. The domestic, regional and international circumstances are ideal for such action, resembling to a striking degree conditions that prevailed in the weeks leading up to the Six Day War.

Current circumstances make it possible, perhaps even necessary, for Sharon to immediately take steps to reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favor.

This does not suggest, however, that a full-scale war is imminent in the Middle East. For one thing, there are hardly any countries for Israel to go to war with. What it indicates is that, utilizing the historical opportunity now at hand, Israel is set on a strategy of crossing established redlines in order to reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favor. This includes using military pressure to force Syria into terminating its support for “terrorist organizations,” crushing the Palestinian uprising with an iron fist, implementing adjustments to the political and demographic map of the West Bank to ensure that Israel will have secure borders in the future, and foiling any attempts to reach a final settlement until the time is ripe for an agreement that satisfies Israel’s terms for peace.

Khaled Ezzelarab is a staff journalist for the Cairo Times and a TV journalist and presenter for Catalyst Audio and Video Production. A graduate of Economics and International Relations from the American University in Cairo, he is a freelance contributor to a number of Arab and foreign media institutions. You can reach him at kezzelarab@islam-online.net

* The Israeli intentions for “transfer” is not a myth propagated by conspiracy theorists – it is a reality of the Israeli political scene. In 1989 Benjamin Netanyahu, later to become Israeli Prime minister, told students at Bar-Ilan University, that "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."

Last year around one hundred Israeli academics wrote a letter warning that talk of transfer is increasing within mainstream political discourse in Israel. The letter warned that the "Israeli ruling coalition includes parties that promote 'transfer' of the Palestinian population as a solution to what they call 'the demographic problem.'"