So who won this battle?
The classic answer is: the winner is the side which remains on the battlefield after thefighting is over. By this measure, the Palestinians won.
But this was not an ordinary battle, and this is not an ordinary war, but rather the armeduprising of a conquered people against the conqueror, so the rules are quite different.
It would be better to apply the test of objectives. What was the objective of the invasion ofBeit-Jala? Was it achieved?
The objective was to put an end to the shooting at Gilo. That failed altogether. After the IDFoccupied a part of Beit-Jala, Gilo suffered machine-gun and mortar fire from Bethlehem,which lies beyond Beit-Jala, thus making Beit-Jala irrelevant.
True, the withdrawal took place after an understanding on a cease-fire was achieved. Buteverybody knows this understanding is not worth the paper it was not written on. First,because it was not achieved in a face-to-face meeting and was not written down. Second, whenall the Palestinian territories have turned into a red-hot pressure-cooker, no Palestinianleader can possibly promise a real cease-fire. A small group of fighters is sufficient torenew the firing. And any incident – the assassination of a Palestinian leader, the killing ofPalestinians somewhere else – will be enough to push such a group into action.
If so, why did Sharon decide to withdraw his forces? Why did he ask his henchman, Shimon Peres,to supply a pretext for the retreat?
Very simple: after the force “conquered” Beit-Jala, Sharon suddenly realized that he had gothimself into a trap. By opening machine-gun and mortar fire from Bethlehem, the Palestiniansinvited the IDF to enter the holy town, whose name evokes a profound echo in the hearts of everyChristian in the world. That is just what Sharon doesn’t need: pictures of Israeli tanks infront of the Church of Nativity, the birthplace of Jesus Christ.
Sharon had to choose between invading Bethlehem and leaving Beit-Jala. He decided towithdraw in the darkness of night. From now on he will take care not to enter the same trap againand this will practically give the Palestinians a free hand to shoot from Beit-Jala. Theoperation, like ,amy others, achieved the opposite of its objective.
That’s generally what happens when a colonial army tries to suppress a popular uprising. It isenough to look at the young face of the new chief of the Fatah forces in the Bethlehem area. TheIsraeli Chief-of-Staff, General Mofaz (in his triple capacity as prosecutor, judge andexecutioner) “liquidated” the former chief, a quite moderate person. His place was taken by amuch bolder and more energetic youngster. Conclusion: When one assassinates a leader, hisplace does not remain empty. It will be filled by a younger, more extreme fighter.
The invasion itself took place without a battle, from which a stupid commander may draw theconclusion that one can invade any place without resistance. That could prove a costlymistake. In 1975, a Syrian armored column entered the town of Sidon (Saida) in Lebanon in orderto destroy the PLO. The column was badly hit in the streets. The next invasion of a Palestiniantown by the Israeli army, or the one after the next, or the one after that one, will be met byroadblocks and armed guerilla resistance. The suicide bombers, who are trying now to blowthemselves up in discotheques, will blow themselves up under the tanks. It’s only a matter oftime.
The question remains: why Gilo? Why does this neighborhood, of all places, draw fire?
Well, for those who do not know: exactly 31 years ago, on August 30, 1970, the Israeligovernment expropriated 2700 dunams of private land from Beit-Jala, Beit-Tsafafa andSharafat for “public purposes”. Only a small part of the land was ostensibly acquired withmoney, generally it was acquired by counterfeiting documents or by straw-men posing asArabs. Some of the owners petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court, but to no avail. The Giloneighborhood was established on this land.
The inhabitants of Beit-Jala consider Gilo a settlement sitting on their land. At Camp-Davidthere seemed to be a chance that the Palestinians might agree to give up Gilo and the otherJewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem in return for all the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalembeing returned to the future Palestinian state. Ehud Barak aborted the idea.
An Israeli general said on television: “Gilo is a part of our capital. Would the British havetolerated shooting at London?” To which the answer could be: “If the British were to annexBelfast to the London municipal area, the IRA would probably shoot at it, too.”