Show description

The Bush administration was sympathetic to Sharon’s right-wing Likud Party to a degree unusual even by partisan US standards, and this regard had increased after ‘9/11’ and Sharon’s efforts to portray his counter-insurgency measures in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of the global war against terrorism. Sharon, therefore, had every reason to expect a cordial reception from his host, and yet a certain disquiet preceded his meeting. Four days earlier at the same venue, Bush had hosted the new Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen.

Whether imposed or negotiated – and whether it comprises 53 or 90 per cent of the West Bank – a PSPB remains totally consistent with Sharon and Drobles’ 27-year-old master plan for preventing Palestinian ‘territorial and political continuity’. It would reduce the PA’s actual role to that of a vast municipality: a ‘functional’ payer of salaries and provider of services. This is why the state would necessarily be ‘provisional’, and not only because of the fluidity of its borders. Under these conditions, it could never be economically viable, politically independent, internally democratic or territorially sovereign.

Auguries of this future can be seen in the mortar attacks the militias have employed against the settlements in Gaza and Israeli towns abutting Gaza’s border. qxd 29/11/2005 14:26 Page 26 T H E W E S T B A N K WA L L Armed struggle is not an inevitable development. For now Hamas is observing a ceasefire and, say its leaders, is prepared to give negotiations and international diplomacy another chance to end the occupation. But three factors could bring about a revival of armed struggle. One is for Israel to resume its policy of assassinating Hamas and other Palestinian leaders.