Déjà voodoo

Updated It was said of Americans that we seem to think "What we've done hasn't worked, so let's do it again, only harder." Based on events at the end of the week, Israel seems to have caught that particular disease.

Friday's order by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for all Israeli officials to cut ties with the Palestinian Authority and to seal the Gaza Strip until the PA takes "the necessary steps to curb and stop terrorism," in the words of senior Shron aide Ranaan Gissin, is, hopefully, foolish and short-sighted. I say hopefully because the alternative is that it's being done knowingly and cynically, which would be worse.

What did they expect? That the instant Abbas was elected, even before he was inaugurated, everything would change? Perhaps they did, since a senior officer at the Israel Defense Force's General Staff told Haaretz (Israel) that

"[b]efore the elections, the Palestinians told us that [Abbas] is trying to achieve calm through dialogue. That did not work. In the meantime, the elections are over, terrorism continues as usual, and the [Palestinian] Authority has done nothing."

Note that the time in which it was proved that dialogue "did not work" was four days. Would that governments would determine violence "does not work" so easily.

In any event, Abbas had said he was going to negotiate with the militants, mainly Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, to stop the violence. He had said he wasn't going to forcibly confront them, the unspoken but well-understood meaning being that he wasn't going to trigger a civil war among Palestinians, which is what such a confrontation would likely cause. Even without that confrontation, the risk still exists: Jane's noted this week that

a sharp rift has now developed between Hamas and Islamic Jihad that threatens further confrontation and could undermine Palestinian efforts to restore calm and the rule of law in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

That tension makes Abbas' task all the harder and the need for caution all the greater. (Which would remain true even if he had the forces to confront them effectively, which he doesn't.) So what, exactly, did Israel expect?

The Sharon edict was unexpected because it seemed to allow the militants to distort the Israeli-Palestinian agenda before Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, could even form a new government.

Seems to me I said something like that just the other day. But of course there's more to it.

Officials said Sharon's actions were intended to protect his plan to pull Israeli settlements out of Gaza, which he cannot do politically under Palestinian fire.

So the suggestion is that this is more a cynical political move to make the withdrawal a free act of victory rather than one carrying any trace of defeat. Which I've also noted. (Note that there is no contradiction between being cynical and foolish. One of the meanings of "too clever by half" is being too clever for your own good.)

Even with all that, there's still something beyond it, and this is where it does become foolish to the point of willful blindness if not worse:

Sharon also appears to be trying to puncture Western optimism over the death of Yasser Arafat and the election of Abbas while emphasizing Israel's bottom line for progress: Israel will not negotiate while its citizens are being attacked. Sharon has been pressured by the European Union and the Israeli left to give Abbas early talks about a Palestinian state to strengthen him, but Sharon aides and the military believe that this is a mistake made in the Oslo accords of 1993 and not to be repeated.

That is, even though Oslo produced several years of at least relative calm, giving legitimacy to any Palestinian leader is a "mistake" even though that very legitimacy is what Abbas needs to convince Hamas and the rest that negotiation is a productive alternative to violence. That is, Israel's declared policy is to deny Abbas the very thing he needs to get Israel what it's declared policy says it wants.

Can they really be that dense? Can they really be that foolish? Can they really be that short-sighted? Can they really, honestly, expect that a still-weak, still-battered Palestinian Authority can shut down terrorist groups when Israel has been unable to do so in all this time? Can they really, honestly, truly believe in the face of decades of experience that demanding all violence stop before any kind of talks can even begin is a viable, even a sensible, demand? (Imagine if the US told the Sunni resistance in Iraq "Lay down your weapons, stop all attacks, and once we're convinced you've done that, well, we'll talk - no promises, mind you - about other things but if there's any attacks after that, the deal is off." What do you think the reaction would be?) Can they really, honestly, truly, genuinely be convinced that doing the same damn things they've done all along will now produce a different response?

Can they really, honestly, truly, genuinely, actually believe all that? Do they really want peace?

And if you maintain the answer is yes, as I know some of you do, can you at least understand why I am suspicious of their motives?

Footnote: Okay, maybe they can be that dense.

The complete closure of Gaza - the Rafah checkpoint with Egypt was already closed due to damage from explosives placed in a tunnel under the terminal - is intended to put pressure on Palestinian leaders and militants as food and other supplies become scarce, Israeli officials said. The hope is that popular anger with the effects of the attack helps Abbas convince the militants to at least begin an immediate cease-fire.

The central Karni checkpoint is used for merchandise, medicine and food. General Avi Kochavi, who commands the Gaza Division, told Israel Radio: "For a reason that is not clear to us, they are making every effort to destroy our every attempt to allow the Palestinians, their own people, to lead easier lives."

Leaving aside the blatantly racist "ungrateful darkies" crap, do they really think that closing down Gaza and producing a food shortage (which reinforces my argument that Israel is turning Gaza into a gulag) is going to get people angry at the militants?

Oh, my.

Footnote to the Footnote: Speaking of creating food shortages, does anyone else old enough to do so remember how we were all outraged when during the Nixon administration food aid got described as "another tool in the kit of American diplomacy?" Can anyone, anyone at all, really claim to defend the deliberate creation of hunger as a weapon of intimidation or manipulation? Anyone?

Updated with Yet Another Footnote: The Daily Star (Lebanon) for Friday says that

[s]ensing a growing yearning for calm among ordinary Palestinians, Hamas is open to stopping violence against Israel, a top official in the militant Islamic group said Thursday. ...

Sheik Hassan Yousef, top Hamas leader in the West Bank, said the group is not trying to destroy Israel. The comments were a marked departure from Hamas' usual calls for elimination of the Jewish state. A halt in attacks by Hamas, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israelis during four years of conflict, would give newly elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas an important boost in his efforts to restart peace talks.

However, the article also notes that despite being among the group's founding members, Yousef is regarded as a relative moderate and other leaders are usually more rigid in their stances. As a result, "Israelis were skeptical" and one analyst described Yousef as having a reputation for "piping off."

Still, I'm reminded of the fact that during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis there was a day when the White House received a conciliatory message from Khrushchev only to receive a harsh and threatening one shortly thereafter. Wisely, the Kennedy team decided to respond to the first letter and act like they had never gotten the second one, reinforcing the conciliatory statements. It was smart then; it would be smart now to welcome Yousef's statements rather than dissing them.