“The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians… effectively this whole package called a Palestinian state has been removed indefinitely from our agenda.” Dov Weinglass, Prime Minister Sharon’s bureau chief

The Israeli leadership is no longer interested is maintaining the façade that has accompanied 37 years of brutal colonial rule. Weinglass’s remarks confirm that Sharon’s unilateral “disengagement plan” from Gaza is really a scheme to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and to crush all hope of implementing the abortive Road map.

Weinglass’s comments reinforce the belief that Israel never seriously entertained the idea of accepting the (internationally agreed upon) 1967 borders or of allowing a Palestinian state to take shape. The ruse of Oslo should now be strikingly apparent. For eight years during the “so-called” negotiations, Israel resisted the objectives of the plan; building more settlements and “Israeli only” roads, while pretending to the world that an honest effort was being made for peace. It was an Oscar winning performance choreographed in great part with friends in the United States.

Weinglass’s remarks signal that there’s no reason to pretend any longer. Sharon’s plan has been tacitly endorsed by the Bush administration (despite Bush promises to assist the Palestinians in achieving statehood) emboldening Israel to continue marauding as they please.

“And all this with … a presidential blessing,” Weinglass beamed, acknowledging the implied support of the Bush administration.

Weinglass reflects the triumphal feeling that now pervades the Sharon camp. The disengagement plan is moving forward without a hitch and the checkered flag is in full view. For the Palestinians, however, the situation grows more desperate with every passing day. Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza has raised concerns about a looming humanitarian crisis. Al Jazeera reports that, “Over 80 Palestinians have been killed, including 24 children, since the Israeli army stormed northern Gaza last Tuesday… The Israeli offensive has left 316 Palestinians, including 110 children, injured.” UN aid agencies have been prevented from delivering food and water to the besieged areas even though 50,000residents are in a state of “deep crisis” with many Palestinians unable to leave their homes for fear of being killed by snipers.

It’s a familiar story and one that we have seen faithfully executed throughout Iraq.

According to a recent UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency) report, “poverty among Palestinians was set to rise to 72% this year, following increased food insecurity in the wake of Israeli operations.”

The report notes that: “Economic options for Palestinians are disappearing and coping mechanisms for the community are nearly exhausted. Malnutrition rates have increased…education standards have slumped…and UNICEF reports a marked increase in psychological disorders among Palestinian children.” Still Sharon’s plan is moving ahead inexorably with feint regard for the human suffering it is generating. The current hostilities are being prosecuted under the rubric of “fighting terrorism”; justifying the killing of civilians and demolition of homes. The unstated intention is to establish more effective security barriers and to disrupt Palestinian society. The guiding principle for Israel’s depredations has always been (as Moshe Dayan admitted) “If we make life miserable for the Palestinians they may just leave.”

US support for Sharon’s latest onslaught has been predictably overwhelming. Not only has US Ambassador John Danforth exercised his veto power by voting against a UN resolution demanding that Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip (the 29th such veto the US has proffered on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis), he also held forth on the floor of the UN about the “lopsided and unbalanced” character of the resolution. Danforth was only too eager to use his rhetorical skills (as an ordained minister) to defend the unnecessary killing of Muslims in Gaza.

The Democrats have been similarly supportive of Sharon’s invasion. During Tuesday’s vice presidential debates, candidate John Edwards provided the obligatory prostrations in front of an audience of 45 million Americans; pledging his undying allegiance to the Middle East’s foremost military government. Such demonstrations of loyalty have become commonplace in American political theater.

The UN resolution which calls for “the immediate cessation of all military operations in the area of northern Gaza” was, in fact, a moderate attempt to stop the killing and restore a fragile peace to the region. It’s revealing that the Bush administration considers even minor constraints on Israel’s preemptive attacks to be a violation of their basic rights to self defense. This bodes poorly for any future process that condemns the application of force.

Never the less, the combination of Israeli aggression and US support is quickly changing facts on the ground as well as the sensibilities of the Palestinian people. Palestinians are increasingly beginning to accept the notion of a “one state solution.” Rather than pressing for the elusive promise of “statehood”, more and more Palestinians see the apartheid system that is emerging before them and are tilting towards the only viable option; assimilation into the Israeli state.

Michael Tarazi commented on this in a New York Times article: “Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state.”

At present, 25% of Palestinians approve of this remedy, but as the situation deteriorates, and hunger and deprivation become more widespread, it is expected that many more will see the handwriting on the wall.

Although, a clear majority of Israelis prefer a negotiated settlement, the recalcitrance of the Israeli leadership is steering the nation towards an unavoidable and historic compromise. The future of apartheid regimes is always doubtful. Societies that divide themselves along religious and racial lines will inevitably invite the moralizing attention of the world community. The role of “pariah” is fraught with pitfalls of boycotts and international condemnation. Sharon is establishing a paradigm that will ultimately buckle beneath the weight of its own injustice.

---