FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How Israel Provoked Hamas

by Alexander Cockburn

“Arafat is guilty of everything here.” Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon declared on television Monday night. “Arafat has made his strategic choices: a strategy of terrorism.” In sync with these fierce words, Israeli forces launched attacks close to the Palestinian leader’s house and destroyed his helicopters, an onslaught that the US government conspicuously failed to condemn.

So, in the wake of the last suicide bomb attacks launched by Hamas, the sky is now the limit for Israeli reprisals: the killing of Arafat, and, not so far down the road, perhaps forced expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank. In other words, the substitution of untrammeled military repression by Israel’s forces, and a deaf ear by the US to all Palestinian calls for fair dealing. Write FINIS to all efforts across the past 35 years to secure a just settlement in Israel and some measure of satisfaction for Palestinian aspirations.

But to be honest about it, is not that exactly what militant Israelis like Ariel Sharon have wanted all along? Can anyone claim with a straight face that Sharon and those like him actually want a just peace that would see an end to Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the rise of a Palestinian state in any guise other than pathetic little Bantustans ringed by Israel’s security forces?

There are those in Israel who outlined clearly a couple of weeks ago Sharon’s plan to force matters exactly along the lines they have now taken.

Alex Fishman is the main commentator on security matters for Israel’s largest mass circulation paper, Yediot Achronot, a publication with right-of-center politics. Fishman is known for his excellent contacts in the military. On Sunday, November 25, Fishman issued a prediction based on the recent assasination on November 23 by Israel’s security services of the Hamas leader, Mahmud Abu Hunud. It was featured in a box on the newspaper’s front page.

It began, “We again find ourselves preparing with dread for a new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line [Israel’s pre-’67 border].” Since Fishman was entirely accurate in this regard, we should mark closely what he wrote next. “Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman’s agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line, of the kind perpetrated at the Dolphinarium [discotheque in Tel-Aviv].”

Fishman stated flatly that such an agreement did exist, even if neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas would admit to it in public. “It is a fact,” he continued, ” that, while the security services did accumulate repeated warnings of planned Hamas terrorist attacks within the Green Line, these did not materialize. That cannot be attributed solely to the Shabak’s impressive success in intercepting the suicide bombers and their controllers. Rather, the respective leaderships of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas came to the understanding that it would be better not to play into Israel’s hands by mass attacks on its population centres.”

In other words Arafat had managed to convince Hamas to curb its suicide bombers. This understanding was shattered by the assassination of Abu Hunud. “Whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu Hunud,” Fishman continued, ” knew in advance that that would be the price. The subject was extensively discussed both by Israel’s military echelon and its political one, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation. Now, the security bodies assume that Hamas will embark on a concerted effort to carry out suicide bombings, and preparations are made accordingly.”

Ever since September 11 Israel’s leaders followed with deep trepidation the building of the coalition against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The months of studious indifference displayed by the Bush administration towards the Middle East’s crises suddenly gave way to President Bush’s abrupt, post September 11 statement that he had always nourished the dream of a Palestinian state.

Consequently the prime task of the Israeli government and of its suppporters here has been to turn back any serious pressure for accomodation with even the most modest of Palestinian demands. In parallel the faction mustered around deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle has been to push for the US to reopen direct hostilities with Iraq and settle accounts with Saddam Hussein, once and for all.

The Wolfowitz-Perle group knows perfectly well that any serious new confrontation with Saddam Hussein would probably be a prolonged and bloody affair. There is no Northern Alliance ready and eager for US intervention in Iraq. The Shia in the south remember well what happened in 1991 when they rose against Saddam and the US stood by while Saddam methodically slaughtered them. The Kurds know that a post Saddam regime might move against them, with similar US indifference. If the US acted as supervisor and guarantor for an invasion by Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, the military and diplomatic consequences would be both bloody and far-reaching.

It’s clear that the Wolfowitz-Perle group is equable in the face of such uncertainties, since whatever the ghastly consequences for ordinary people in Iraq the one outcome that would be certain is that Israel would be resoundingly confirmed in its status as the United States’ prime ally and client in the region, even as the post-September 11 coalition with Islamic countries falls apart. Small wonder they rapturously echo Sharon’s denunciations of Arafat as a man of terror even though they, being smart people, probably don’t need Alex Fishman to explain how the real game is actually being played.

These are the stakes. They’re far larger than the present tragi-comic efforts to assemble a coalition to run Afghanistan, and there isn’t much sign thus far that President Bush understands that comic-book advisories such as “You’re for us or against us” do not, in this situation, really apply.

Alexander Cockburn’s Guillotined! and A Colossal Wreck are available from CounterPunch.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 01, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Hillary: Ordinarily Awful or Uncommonly Awful?
Rob Urie
Liberal Pragmatism and the End of Political Possibility
Pam Martens
Clinton Says Wall Street Banks Aren’t the Threat, But Her Platform Writers Think They are
Michael Hudson
The Silence of the Left: Brexit, Euro-Austerity and the T-TIP
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Marx on Financial Bubbles: Much Keener Insights Than Contemporary Economists
Evan Jones
Ancillary Lessons from Brexit
Jason Hirthler
Washington’s Not-So-Invisible Hand: It’s Not Economics, It’s Empire
Mike Whitney
Another Fed Fiasco: U.S. Bond Yields Fall to Record Lows
Aidan O'Brien
Brexit: the English and Welsh Enlightenment
Jeremy R. Hammond
How Turkey’s Reconciliation Deal with Israel Harms the Palestinians
Margaret Kimberley
Beneficial Chaos: the Good News About Brexit
Phyllis Bennis
From Paris to Istanbul, More ‘War on Terror’ Means More Terrorist Attacks
Dan Bacher
Ventura Oil Spill Highlights Big Oil Regulatory Capture
Ishmael Reed
OJ and Jeffrey Toobin: Black Bogeyman Auctioneer
Ron Jacobs
Let There Be Rock
Ajamu Baraka
Paris, Orlando and Turkey: Displacing the Narrative of Western Innocence
Pete Dolack
Brexit Will Only Count If Everybody Leaves the EU
Robert Fantina
The First Amendment, BDS and Third-Party Candidates
Julian Vigo
Xenophobia in the UK
David Rosen
Whatever Happened to Utopia?
Andre Vltchek
Brexit – Let the UK Screw Itself!
Jonathan Latham
107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators
Steve Horn
Fracked Gas LNG Exports Were Centerpiece In Promotion of Panama Canal Expansion, Documents Reveal
Robert Koehler
The Right to Bear Courage
Colin Todhunter
Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of “Shameful White Men of Privilege”
Eoin Higgins
Running on Empty: Sanders’s Influence on the Democratic Party Platform
Binoy Kampmark
Who is Special Now? The Mythology Behind the US-British Relationship
Mark B. Baldwin
Russia to the Grexit?
Andrew Wimmer
Killer Grief
Manuel E. Yepe
Sanders, Socialism and the New Times
Franklin Lamb
ISIS is Gone, But Its Barbarity Still Haunts Palmyra
Mark Weisbrot
A Policy of Non-Intervention in Venezuela Would be a Welcome Change
Matthew Stevenson
Larry Cameron Explains Brexit
Cesar Chelala
How Tobacco Became the Opium War of the 21st Century
Joseph Natoli
How We Reached the Point Where We Can’t Hear Each Other
Andrew Stewart
Skip “Hamilton” and Read Gore Vidal’s “Burr”
George Wuerthner
Ranching and the Future of the Sage Grouse
Thomas Knapp
Yes, a GOP Delegate Revolt is Possible
Gilbert Mercier
Democracy Is Dead
Missy Comley Beattie
A Big F#*K You to Voters
Charles R. Larson
Mychal Denzel Smith’s “Invisible Man, Got the Whole World Watching: a Young Black Man’s Education”
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Four Morning Ducks
David Yearsley
Where the Sidewalk Ends: Walking the Bad Streets of Houston’s Super-Elites
Christopher Brauchli
Educating Kansas
Andy Piascik
The Hills of Connecticut: Where Theatre and Life Became One
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail