Diversion tactics

---

Launching peace initiatives is one of the favourite pastimes of Israeli leaders. Only recently, Peres and Barak came up with a plan that brought nothing new to the table. Not to be outdone, former defence minister Shaul Mofaz penned another so-called peace plan. A Palestinian state, Mofaz suggested, can be created on 40 per cent of the West Bank, with Israel keeping control of current Jewish settlements. According to the plan, Israel may carve off 20 per cent of the West Bank for security reasons. The Palestinian state envisioned by Mofaz will be disarmed and Israeli troops would be deployed on its borders.

Israel, apparently, hasn't changed any of its three "No's": no to the return of refugees, no to withdrawal from Jerusalem, and no to withdrawal from the entire land seized in 1967.

The Israeli government has just come up with another plan, its third in one week. American officials have just relayed the Israeli proposals to the Palestinian Authority. According to the plan, Israel would withdraw from Zone A areas (now run by the Palestinian Authority), turn Zone B areas (now run jointly by the Israelis and Palestinians) into Zone A areas, and turn parts of Zone C areas (now run by the Israelis) into Zones A and B areas. Israel also promises to release 400 Palestinian prisoners, remove some roadblocks, improve conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank, and make a partial freeze on settlements, excluding those in Jerusalem.

Without getting into further details, it may be helpful to recall that all "lofty" initiatives made by Israel are little more than variations on Yigal Allon's "autonomous rule" plan of 1967. The dozens of initiatives made since then, before and after Camp David, are little more than reproductions of that same old plan, the last three initiatives no exception. In a sense, Allon's plan was preferable, for back then the West Bank was not yet filled with Jewish settlements.

Israel is regurgitating old ideas and will keep doing so. Given the existing balance of power, one cannot expect Israel to recognise the national rights of the Palestinians, or the Syrians, or the Lebanese for that matter. And Israel is not going to accept the Arab Peace Initiative, unless it comes under considerable pressure to do so.

But how can we put pressure on Israel? Israeli activist Latif Drori offers valuable insight into this matter, one not shared by many Israelis. He says that Israel reacts only to force and will not engage in peace until its leaders feel that the occupation is becoming too costly in human and economic terms. According to Drori, peace cannot be achieved unless acts of hostile resistance succeed in changing Israel's mind.

Drori is Israeli, not Palestinian, not Arab, not Muslim and not Christian. And his words are backed by history. Israel used to deny the existence of the Palestinian people. Then it changed its position, as did the rest of the world. Why? Because the Palestinians engaged in resistance, armed and otherwise. Had that resistance continued after the first Intifada then a fully sovereign Palestinian state would not have been so remote a possibility as today. Action changes people's minds.

What Drori says has been proven by all revolutions against foreign occupation. Occupiers never give back the land seized unless they suffer great losses in terms of men, materiel, morale and money. This is how Vietnam won the war, and this is the only path known for national liberation.

The Algerian revolution changed things. The 1968 battle of Al-Karama changed things. And the 1973 War changed things. In more recent years, resistance groups repelled Israel repeatedly, in 2000 and 2006 in Lebanon and a few months ago in Gaza. In a recent speech, Hassan Nasrallah said that 18 years of struggle have produced victories and 18 years of negotiations have produced nothing but failure. Truer words have not been spoken.

The Israeli initiatives are nothing more than diversion tactics, gimmicks meant to confuse the Arabs until Israel gets what it wants.