_______   ____   ______
  /  |/  /  /___/  / /_ //    M I D - E A S T   R E A L I T I E S
 / /|_/ /  /_/_   / /\\         Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/  /_/  /___/  /_/  \\©            http://www.MiddleEast.Org

  News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
         and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!
                      *  *  *  *  *  *  *
          IF YOU DON'T GET MER, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!
     To receive MER regularly email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




In just four days now, Retired General and accused
war criminal Ariel Sharon becomes the Prime Minister
of the Jewish State of Israel:


                         WAITING FOR SHARON

                          By Graham Usher*

          "They believe a Sharon victory will be a boon for their cause.
          'He will expose the true face of Israel,' says an activist
          in Yasir Arafat's Fatah movement in Nablus, 'and force the
          world, including the US, to address its real responsibilities
          to the peace process...  The difference in the appraisal of a
          Sharon victory is not the only rift between the leaders and
          the led in Palestinian society."

          "The Palestinians could hardly be in worse shape to confront
          the 'Sharon era.' And eighteen years after he was forced to
          resign from office because of Sabra and Shatila -- and 16 to
          20 points ahead in the polls -- Sharon could hardly be in
          better shape."

[Ramallah and Gaza]:  Among Palestinians in the occupied territories, the prospect
that Ariel Sharon will be Israel's next prime minister is met with a shrug
of the shoulders. The indifference is not from ignorance.
Palestinians know well Sharon's history. They have always been the victims
of it.

Leading the Israeli army's "southern command," Sharon ruthlessly crushed the
Palestinian resistance in what was then the newly occupied Gaza Strip in the
early 1970s. And of course it was Sharon, as Israel's defense minister, who
was held "indirectly responsible" (by an independent Israeli Commission of
Inquiry) for the massacre of
about 2,000 Palestinians at Beirut's Sabra and Shatila refugee camps during
Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The commission recommended that Sharon "draw
the appropriate personal conclusions" and resign from his post as defense minister.

Rather, the Palestinians' apathy is explained by the comparison they make between
Sharon and Israel's present prime minister. "By his actions, Ehud Barak has
erased any difference between the two men in the Palestinian perception," says
Palestinian political leader Mustafa Barghouthi. Four months after Sharon-with
Barak's
approval-decided to "demonstrate Jewish sovereignty" over the Islamic holy
sites in occupied East Jerusalem by making a provocative visit to the Haram
al-Sharif, Palestinian losses from Israel's suppression of the "intifada al-Aksa"
are beginning to reach Sabra and Shatila proportions.

According to Barghouthi's Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees, Palestinian
casualties from the Israeli army and settlers now stand at nearly 360 killed
and more than 13,000 injured. In addition, according to a UN economist, a military
blockade isolating each Palestinian town and village from the other in the
occupied
territories has caused a 13 percent decline in the Palestinians' GDP and a
50 percent increase in their unemployment and poverty levels.

"The vast majority of Palestinians don't see Sharon or Barak. They see an army,
with Sharon and Barak as its generals," says Barghouthi. Some Palestinians
see more. They believe a Sharon victory will be a boon for their cause. "He
will expose the true face of Israel," says Hussam Khader, an activist in Yasir
Arafat's Fatah movement in Nablus, "and force the world, including the US,
to address its real responsibilities to the peace process."

This is not a vision shared by the Palestinian negotiators. Perhaps they are
aware that the "world" is never so negligent of its "responsibilities" as when
Israel is the culprit, but surely they are concerned that the fall of Barak
and rise of Sharon may spell the end not only of what is left of the negotiating
process but also their
own privileged leadership position within it. This may be why Arafat is warning
that Sharon would be a "disaster" for the peace process and would increase
the risk of regional war.

For most Palestinians -- and a few Israelis --  the recent "intensive talks"
between the two sides at the Egyptian resort of Taba were thus seen not as
a genuine attempt to seal an agreement, but as a charade to woo back to Barak's
fold two Israeli constituencies threatening to abandon him on election day,
February 6. These include some elements of the Jewish left, appalled by his
excessive response to the Palestinian uprising, and the million or so Palestinian
citizens of Israel who remember that it was Barak (and not Sharon) who gave
the order that the police shoot dead thirteen of their kin during October protests
in Galilee.

The difference in the appraisal of a Sharon victory is not the only rift between
the leaders and the led in Palestinian society.  Another is over whether to
participate at all in negotiations when Israel is still using lethal force
to put down the uprising and the West Bank and Gaza are still under siege.
For the various Palestinian factions-including Fatah-the subtext of the Taba
negotiations was less "peace" than a joint effort by Israel and the Palestinian
Authority to, if not end the intifada, then at least keep it at an acceptable
level of violence.

The suspicion was acute because all were aware that Taba was conceived at a
meeting in Cairo in early January between Israeli and PA security chiefs, brokered
by the CIA.  Since then -- aided by the quiet resumption of cooperation between
the two security forces -- there has been a steep decline in the popular demonstrations
that marked the initial phase of the uprising and a less pronounced fall in
the number of armed Palestinian attacks on soldiers and settlers that characterized
the next. The danger is that as the national struggle has ebbed, a wilder,
more indiscriminate violence has taken its place.

In the last two weeks of January, four Israeli civilians -- as opposed to soldiers
and settlers -- were killed in the occupied territories, apparently for no
other reason than being Israeli in the wrong place at the wrong time. There
has been a revival of Palestinian "collaborator" killings similar to those
that so blighted the last
years of the first intifada. And, most ominous, there has been the return to
Palestinian political assassination as distinct from the Israeli army's "precise"
(and extrajudicial) execution of Palestinian political and military leaders.

On January 17 the head of the Palestinian Authority's Broadcasting Corporation,
Hishem Mekki, was shot by masked gunmen in a Gaza hotel. He was killed for
"practicing sex and stealing money," ran a statement from the Brigades of Al-Aksa,
a vigilante group made up of disaffected members of Fatah and the PA's intelligence
forces. The
hit was popular among local Palestinians, who loathed Mekki -- and others of
his ilk -- for his corruption, arrogance and womanizing. But wiser Palestinian
heads see in his murder a sign that the struggle for liberation from Israeli
rule is being replaced by a struggle for power within the regime.

Given such a scenario, the Palestinians could hardly be in worse shape to confront
the "Sharon era." And eighteen years after he was forced to resign from office
because of Sabra and Shatila -- and 16 to 20 points ahead in the polls -- Sharon
could hardly be in better shape.

Especially as there is no evidence at all to suggest he has changed his ways.
 In an interview in early January with a Russian-language radio station in
Israel, Sharon reminisced about the methods he had used in Gaza in the 1970s.
He plowed vast "security roads" through the refugee camps, shot dead any Palestinian
suspected of nationalist activity and conquered the Strip locale by locale.
"I succeeded in bringing quiet to Gaza for ten years," he recalled. Would he
use the same methods today? "Today the situation is different," he said, but
"the principles are the same principles."

* Graham Usher, a Middle East correspondent for The Economist and Middle East
International, is the author of Dispatches From Palestine: The Rise and Fall
of the Oslo Peace Process (Pluto).






MiD-EasT RealitieS  -  http://www.MiddleEast.Org
                Phone:  202 362-5266
                Fax:  815 366-0800
                Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject SUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject UNSUBSCRIBE



Reply via email to