NEW YORK: Writing in The New York Times (IHT Views, June 10), Ariel Sharon unveils thefundamental idea that defines his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is anapproach whose implications should awaken Israelis, and those in the internationalcommunity who so far haven’t got it, to what Sharon has in mind for his fellow countrymen and forthe Palestinians, not to speak of outside powers with important interests in the region.
With an audacity that is breathtaking, Sharon offers an entirely new formulation of thekeystone of all Middle East peace initiatives since the 1967 war – the UN Security Council’sResolution 242 of 1967. In the face of the resolution’s explicit affirmation of ” theinadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, ” Sharon proposes that 242 intendedto grant Israel rights to the West Bank and Gaza that are equal to the Palestinians’ rightsformally recognized by the United Nations in 1947.
Resolution 242 affirms Israel’s right to ” secure and recognized boundaries. ” Sharon’sunspoken assumption is that it was 242’s intention to allow Israel to construe ” secureborders ” as applying not to minor adjustments to a pre-existing border but as giving Israellicense to claim large parts of the West Bank and Gaza, if not all of them, on security grounds.Ergo, Sharon concludes, the West Bank and Gaza are not territory occupied by Israel’smilitary but territory whose ownership – in principle, all of it – is ” in dispute. ” Sharon isthus informing the international community that Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza is ona par with that of the Palestinians.
The international community had better take heed, for the implications of this idea are asmind-boggling as they are predictable. Given Israel’s control of all of the territories, andgiven its overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians, there should be littledoubt about the outcome of this contest of Israeli and Palestinian ” rights. “
One might think that Sharon’s notion of the rights conferred by 242 on Israel is so outlandish,not to say so pernicious in consigning an entire people to permanent homelessness, that thereis little danger that he will be allowed to act on it.
But that would be a big mistake. Sharon’s latest fantasy about 242 is no less absurd than was hisproposition that he could get Palestinians to end their violent resistance to Israel’soccupation without offering a political framework that holds out the promise of meetingminimal Palestinian national aspirations if they end the violence. Although there are fewexamples of peace talks that did not take place concurrently with continued fighting betweenthe parties, whether in the Balkans, Ireland or Vietnam, the United States bought intoSharon’s idea, to its subsequent chagrin.
Sharon then came up with an equally absurd idea that a peace process with the Palestinians mustawait the transformation of the Palestinian Authority into a democratic, transparent andaccountable set of institutions. Of course, God only knows how long this will take, but Sharonis a patient man. Not only did Washington embrace this transparent ploy to delay a politicalprocess, but it enlisted Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two paragons of democracy and transparency,to pressure Yasser Arafat to change his ways.
As director of an international Task Force for Palestinian Institution Building that isfunded by the European Commission and the government of Norway, by far the largestcontributors to Palestinian institutions, I welcome Washington’s belated support forreform of the Palestinian Authority’s institutions. Until recently, Washington could nothave been less interested in the subject. The task force’s efforts to mobilize pressure onArafat to reform the Palestinian Authority by establishing the rule of law, respect for humanrights and a separation of powers were seen by many in the previous administration asinterfering with efforts to get Arafat to deal harshly and effectively with the terrorists. Aformer senior State Department official recently said: ” I don’t think we really cared aboutdue process. Due process often means letting the bad guys go. “
Instead, the effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority was measured by the United States “in terms of whether it increased Israel’s sense of its security. “
Sharon’s interest in the Palestinian Authority is not its democratic character but itseffectiveness in eliminating terrorists and terrorism against Israel. The lesstransparent such efforts, the more effective they are likely to be. For this purpose a GenghisKhan is a far better president of the Palestinian Authority than a Thomas Jefferson.
Yet Sharon had no difficulty getting U.S. and international support for his idea. There isevery reason to believe that he will be equally adept at getting Washington to buy into hisformulation of Resolution 242, a formulation that, for all practical purposes, erasesPalestinian rights to the West Bank and Gaza.
Sharon’s remarkable creativity in producing ever new obstacles to the initiation of apolitical process has so far been matched by the international community’s gullibility.
Equally remarkable has been his audacity in the way he invokes history in support of hispolicies. Considering his opposition to Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, insistingthat Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem was nothing but a ruse to get Israel to lower itsdefenses; to the Madrid peace conference in 1991; to Oslo in 1993, and to the peace treaty withJordan in 1995 – preferring a continuation of violence over peace agreements in every one ofthose instances (not to speak of the war in Lebanon that he personally initiated by deceivinghis own government and prime minister in 1982) – one would think Sharon would not have thechutzpah to invoke these milestones to justify his opposition to a peace process with thePalestinians. If he does so anyway, it is because he counts on people’s ignorance of historynot to ask the obvious question: Where would Israel be today had it followed Sharon’s advice inall of these previous instances?
It is a question that one hopes George W. Bush and his advisers will ask themselves when theyconsider the contours of a new U.S. peace initiative that the president has promised toannounce.
Henry Siegman, The writer, a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.