<< Prev || עברית || Français || Русский || Next >>

Appendices

Israel's security since the Oslo Accords (3/5)

The first Sharon government
7 Mar 2001 ‐ 28 January 2003

The Israeli public was disillusioned with the Oslo process and by a decisive majority of 63%, elected Ariel Sharon. Sharon was perceived as a militant and a fighter[25] and as someone who could restrain the "monster," but he two lacked a strategy to get out of the process. The bitterness he received from the left during his tenure as defense minister in the Begin government and his ouster from his role and the simple fact that he really did not have an ideological alternative to the Oslo process led Sharon to form a unity government with the Labor Party[26] with Shimon Peres as foreign minister and Binyamin Ben-Eliezer as defense minister, and to continue walking along the path of Oslo.

From "Restraint is Power" to "Defensive Shield"

The first year of his government was characterized by a wave of mass murder, unprecedented suicide and terror attacks, and total collapse of the sense of security on the Israeli street. Sharon responded with "a policy of restraint" and coined the phrase "restraint is also part of strength." Sharon apparently understood that every reaction would work against him. Even the massacre at the Dolphinarium[27], where 21 Israelis were murdered, did not bring about any significant change. However, the Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya and the killing of 120 Israelis in a single month ‐ March 2002 ‐ forced the Sharon government to change its policy and reoccupy the territories which had been handed over to the security responsibility of the Palestinian Authority[28] in the Oslo Accords.

The terrorist infrastructure established in Judea and Samaria was destroyed, but Israel refused to regain sovereignty over the territory. The principles of Oslo remained unchanged (as did the Palestinian Authority).

The overthrow of the Twin Towers

On September 11, 2001, suicide bombing attacks also hit the sponsors of the agreements: the US[29]. The attacks on the Twin Towers, and US President George W. Bush's presidency, who was a conservative and sympathetic president, eased international pressure on Israel. In the relative quiet achieved from Operation Defensive Shield through the end of its term, Sharon's government was able to successfully stabilize the economy and rehabilitate the tourist industry, which suffered severe damage during the period of terror.

The separation fence

Still, heavy domestic pressure was exerted on Sharon to build the separation fence between Israel and the "Palestinians". Whether it was through his military expertise and his understanding that terrorism does not stop with fences, or whether it was based on the understanding that the results of the construction of the fence would be primarily political rather than security, and would pave the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state as Israel withdrew to the fence ‐ Sharon opposed its building at the beginning of his government. At the same time, he succumbed to the pressure of the left and switched to active support for it, while presenting its construction as the crowning glory of his security achievements.

Thus, the Oslo supporters again bypassed the "obstacle" of a democratic regime. Where they failed to impose the borders of 67 on the Jewish majority by means of a political decision – they did so by means of a so-called security decision – a decision that bypasses public debate and the choice of the majority.

The separation fence was completely political[30]. The route of the security fence was eventually adjusted to the route of the Green Line with the addition of a direct cost of NIS 4.7 billion beyond the cost of the initial route, which was already built in many places and subsequently dismantled. The original plans to build a fence adjacent to the terrorist strongholds – the Palestinian cities – were quickly abandoned, and it was decided to transfer them in most places to go around the Jewish settlements and isolate them from the surrounding area. The forces assigned to the security of the fence were large, but most of the activities to prevent terror continued to be carried out by IDF forces, the Shin Bet security service and the Border Police who were deep in the territory.

Instead of bringing support to Israel, which had actually withdrawn to the 1967 borders, the construction of the fence has led to increased international pressure on Israel, and its beginning to accuse it of apartheid, and the fence has become the ultimate symbol of occupation.

The second Sharon government
28 October 2003 ‐ 18 December 2005

The Disengagement Plan

Sharon devoted his second term to completing the dramatic turn in his life. His declaration on the eve of the elections that "the law of Netzarim is like the law of Tel Aviv"[31] soon turned into a declaration[32] of a willingness to unilaterally withdraw from parts of Yesha while evacuating Jewish settlements[33]. Sharon fully adopted the new logic of Oslo. He understood that he could not offer a political alternative to the Oslo process, but as a leader, he sought to find a way to move it forward, the "bulldozer"[34] who was the defender and builder of the land became a bulldozer of retreat and destruction. Unable to satisfy the "monster" or to defeat him, Sharon chose the only option in which he could leave the frozen Oslo process for a moment and show "progress" – the option of unilateral withdrawal[35].

"Thanks to the disengagement plan, there is no criticism of Israel's resolute activity against terrorism,"[36] Sharon told those who warned of the danger of abandoning Gaza to terrorists and their missiles. He repeated Yitzhak Rabin's reaction to criticism of the Oslo Accords for handing over weapons to the PLO.

Neither the leaders of the left nor of the right, all of whom adopted the logic of Oslo, understood that the outcome of the implementation of the agreements would not legitimize Israel's self-defense, but would do the opposite, and undermine Israel's legitimacy to defend itself. After all, if recognized the just position of the enemy and unilaterally withdraw from the entire area, you merely prove by doing so that the Arabs' claim to the ownership of the land of Israel has always been correct, and that presumably, justice is on their side even now.

As farfetched as it may sound, it was the Americans who vehemently opposed the disengagement plan. The Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks was preoccupied with eradicating terrorism on a global scale, and in this situation, Israel's flight, not to mention the leadership of the greatest fighter against terror ‐ Sharon, without even an agreement was seen by them, with justice, as the collapse of the Western world's front position in the face of the Muslim terrorist assault. Sharon was forced to invest great efforts in obtaining cooperation and future commitments from the US administration in implementing the Israeli withdrawal plan[37].

Referendum of Likud members

As a significant factor in the Likud movement, the Manhigut Yehudit, from which Zehut emerged, succeeded in getting Sharon to announce a referendum among Likud members to decide on the question of the disengagement plan.

On 2 May 2004, the referendum was held and opponents of the withdrawal won a majority. Sharon acknowledged the loss but, backed by the media and a mobilized justice system[38], Sharon announced that he had no intention of listening to the referendum that he himself initiated.

The expulsion of the residents of Gush Katif and northern Samaria was scheduled to take place on the day after Tisha B'Av 5768 (15 August 2005).

The results of the disengagement

The razing of the Jewish communities to the ground, the expulsion of their residents and the complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip[39] have turned Sderot and the communities in the area that has since become known as "the Gaza Envelope" into a hell of terror by firing thousands of bombs and rockets[40] – an area that has expanded as the range and effectiveness of the missiles in the hands of the organizations who took over the area has increased. In exchange for maintaining relative quiet; i.e., only occasional rocket fire ("drizzle"), the Gazan monster demands a variety of benefits from Israel. For years, Israel has supplied Gaza with trucks of cash[41], and even today also supplies it with free electricity and free water[42], concrete and iron, which are also used to build terrorist tunnels[43], fertilizer for agriculture which is used in the manufacture of explosives, and other goods – and of course the gallons of blood shed by soldiers and civilians killed in "rounds of fighting", which are repeated once every two years or so.

On January 4, 2006, at the height of the election campaign, Sharon suffered a stroke from which he did not wake up, and his deputy Ehud Olmert took his place.

[25] To Sharon's credit were his impressive military achievements as commander in war, the elimination of terror in the Gaza Strip for 17 years of relative quiet, the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon to Tunisia, and his activities and opinions as a minister and Knesset member.

[26] Sharon paved the way for a convention according to which the right needs the left in its government not from political coalition need, but rather to legitimize its rule, in the absence of a political message different from that of the left.

[27] 01 June 2001

[28] According to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians were given security control, the implementation of which was entrusted to "the Palestinian security forces" in part of the area, which was called "Area A". This category includes, first and foremost, all Palestinian cities handed over by Peres to Arafat immediately after Rabin's assassination. This Palestinian control constituted a barrier to the entry and operation of the IDF in these areas.

[29] This was not the first major suicide bombing attack against the United States, but until the attacks of the Twin Towers, the Americans themselves had not internalized the fact that war was being conducted against them.

[30] At the beginning of the planning of the fence, its route was intended to serve the security purpose for which it was built without reference to the Green Line, but mainly to the principle of separation between the Palestinian and Jewish populations. By means of the High Court of Justice, the left-wing parties, led by Peace Now, succeeded repeatedly in pushing the separation fence to the route of the Green Line on the basis of claims of disproportionate harm to the Arab population and dubious claims of private ownership. Thus, the fence, perceived by the left as the greatest threat to the vision of a Palestinian state, became the fortification of the Green Line and the border between the State of Israel and the planned Palestinian state. Fifteen years later, its construction has not yet been completed.

[31] Against Amram Mitzna's platform from the Labor Party he was competing with, which included a moderate unilateral withdrawal from the isolated settlements in the Gaza Strip, starting with Netzarim.

[32] At the 2003 Herzliya Conference

[33] Thus, Sharon created a precedent of dismantling Jewish settlements with no compensation in return for a peace agreement.

[34] "Bulldozer" was the nickname that stuck to Ariel Sharon during his military service.

[35] Many blame the destruction obsession on Sharon's need to remove the stranglehold of criminal investigations that threatened to bring him down at the time. The forgiving attitude he received from the media, which did little to report on the acts of corruption he was charged with, reinforces the claim that "the depth of the uprooting matched the depth of the investigation ..." as Zvi Hendel, then Deputy Minister of Education, said. In any case, it was the Oslo consciousness within which the prime minister acted that directed him in the first place to this "solution."

[36] From Sharon's speech at the 5th Herzliya Conference, 2004

[37] It is important to remember this fact when Israel's withdrawals are blamed on external pressure. It is withdrawals which bring pressure on us, and not vice versa.

[38] And perhaps out of fear of renewed criminal investigations against him and the price that the system could cost him and his family -- investigations that were "surprisingly" frozen during the implementation of the disengagement plan.

[39] From Gaza itself, Israel withdrew almost immediately after the signing of the first Oslo agreement, which was then called the "Gaza and Jericho First" Agreement.

[40] As well as sniper fire and the direct launch of missiles, and the digging of attack tunnels.

[41] The direct supply of cash actually ended in 2010, but funding continued through other channels.

[42] The PA generally does not pay for the electricity and water it consumes from Israel. Israel occasionally collects part of the debt from the tax revenues it collects for the PA.

[43] Findings on the ground and analysis of consumption data conducted after Operation Tzuk Eitan showed that a large part of the Gaza Strip's electricity consumption was used to dig the many terrorist tunnels. The consumption of cement and fertilizers in the Gaza Strip also far exceeded that of civilian construction and agriculture. The large differences between imports and consumption are the quantities directed to terrorism.