The infrastructure of terror
By Danny Rubinstein

The importance of Meshal's statements is that they provide a rather clear picture of the infrastructure of Palestinian suicide terror. It is built more on the existence of numerous volunteers, surrounded by a supportive community, and less on commands and the technicians who prepare the explosives. In other words, the pressure to carry out attacks comes mostly from below, from the suicide volunteers, and less from above, from the leadership making decisions at their meetings.

Therefore, defense against these actions must not focus on the construction of fences and barriers, raids, arrests, targeted killings, and punishments like the destruction of houses, which sometimes bloat terror, rather than reducing it.
[more]

Sharon's perception of time
By Akiva Eldar

Disturbingly, there's at least one indication that Ariel Sharon really thinks time is on his side: The prime minister clings to his belief that "a million Jews" will immigrate to Israel, and defuse the demographic threat to the Jewish state. Nary a meeting with wealthy, visiting Jews goes by without Sharon preaching to his guests about immigrating to Israel.

The troubling thing is that when a leader believes time is on his side, he has no reason to try to change reality. Yitzhak Shamir, who was sure the passage of time would strengthen the vision of Greater Israel, formulated the doctrine this way: "In the end, the Arabs will get used to the situation."

That doctrine brought about the first intifada, the struggle against the Oslo process (before the first terror attack), and various ploys to evade negotiations for a final status agreement. The camp that believes "time is on our side" accuses the left of succumbing to a "now-ism" that erodes Israel's bargaining ability. Let's give them another year or two (say those who believe that time is on our side), and ignore doomsayers, such as the former head of the Shin Bet security service, and the Israel Defense Forces will win the contest. Let's get rid of a heretic like Yossi Beilin, and the Palestinians will rid themselves of Yasser Arafat. Remove a defeatist like former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, and Arafat will be replaced by a leadership that will happily lap up the fenced-off Bantustan that Sharon will so generously offer.
[more]

Background / Unsettling the West Bank - Sharon's Altalena

This Thursday, all eyes will be on Ariel Sharon as he addresses the annual Herzliya Conference on Israeli strength and security, waiting for the prime minister to lift the mantle of secrecy from a plan that he may or may not have decisively formulated for the future of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Whether Sharon drops a political Daisy Cutter or merely buzzes his listeners, fueling further speculation, may in the long run be altogether irrelevant. He may have already made his most crucial utterances, in meticulously abstract statements he has already, and with precision, let slip.

The man who spent his political life settling the West Bank has, in a matter of four words, unsettled the Israeli right, effectively driving a wedge between largely religious settlers and largely secular senior hawks.

The words, as incendiary as they were vague, were embodied in Sharon's recent hints that in the absence of a workable peace process, he was considering taking "unilateral steps," including "moving settlements."
[more]

Sharon's hopeless vision

As feared, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's speech on Thursday, December 18 at the Herzliya Conference provided very little hope for 2004. Sharon acknowledged there will be a Palestinian state, thereby recognizing Israel cannot control all the land between the river and the sea, but said nothing about the size of the Palestinian state. He offered no tangible vision for the Palestinians to latch on to which suggested that after decades this man is now addressing Palestinian concerns seriously.

The Israeli prime minister moved because he is rapidly being cast as intransigent and because even the Likud is beginning to recognize that at some point in the very near future it will have to decide between democracy and apartheid. Pushed back on his heels, Sharon tried to gain the upper hand by speaking the language Washington has come to know well in the last year -- that of unilateral action.
[...]

Very dangerous times are ahead. Sharon said he would wait just a "few months" before taking unilateral action. Without an unexpected negotiating breakthrough, this would mean his taking action at a time when the United States was distracted by the 2004 election season. There is virtually no chance that Mr. Bush would take significant time from campaigning to tell Sharon he will not tolerate his running roughshod over the Palestinians and what was to be their state.

Sharon, then, is on his way to implementing a great portion of what he wants for Israel. As for Palestinians, a bantustan awaits.
[more]