|
Plans big assault { March 25 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11927-2002Mar24.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11927-2002Mar24.html
Israel Plans Big Assault If Truce Talks Fail
Army and Government Back Aggressive Action
By Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 25, 2002; Page A01
JERUSALEM, March 24 -- As the United States tries to mediate a
truce in the Middle East, Israeli military planners are preparing for a
major assault on Palestinian cities, towns and refugee camps that
would be broader and deeper than the offensive undertaken earlier this
month, according to Israeli officials.
The officials, speaking on condition they not be identified, emphasized
that they intended to give every chance for the cease-fire negotiations
under the U.S. envoy, Anthony C. Zinni, to succeed. But they
expressed pessimism that the talks would lead to a durable end to
violence and terrorist attacks against Israelis.
If the talks fail as Palestinian violence continues, there is widespread
and growing support both in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government
and in the army for what one official called a "comprehensive military
confrontation" with the Palestinians.
"The next days might be crucial, because if we don't succeed [in the
cease-fire talks], we may come to the conclusion that there is no hope,
and we have to choose the other way," said one highly placed Israeli
official.
The Israeli warnings seem designed both to prepare domestic and
international public opinion for a new round of bloodshed, and to
induce the Palestinians to crack down on militant groups and accede to
Israel's terms for a truce. However, previous warnings have been met
with Palestinian threats and attacks. Western criticism of Israeli
aggression has generated sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
Sharon's dilemma is that as Israeli and Palestinian casualties have
soared in recent months, his popularity has plummetted.
Overwhelmingly, opinion polls show that Israelis do not believe the
74-year-old leader has a strategy to extricate the country from one of
its deepest crises. When Sharon pleaded with Israelis last month to
prepare for a drawn-out struggle, his ratings dipped further. When he
also announced last month that his policy was to inflict heavy losses on
the Palestinians so they would drop demands unacceptable to Israel,
some moderates in his coalition rebeled. His foreign minister, Shimon
Peres, has warned repeatedly that there is no military solution to the
conflict.
Still, during the past 18 months of Israeli-Palestinian clashes, which
have been characterized by a steady escalation of violence on both
sides, Israeli officials have frequently telegraphed their punches, as
they appear to be doing again.
For instance, early last year, top Israeli generals and officials began
speaking openly about the possibility of thrusts into Palestinian-held
territory -- a scenario that was then considered drastic. When Israeli
forces made their first incursion, there was an international outcry,
including harsh criticism from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
Over time, however, the incursions became routine.
Early this year, senior officials started talking about raids on
Palestinian refugee camps, which until then had been regarded as
dangerous and off-limits. On Jan. 21, for instance, Sharon said Israel
would adopt "totally different tactics" if the Palestinians fired
homemade rockets into Israeli territory, which they did five days later.
On Feb. 28, the army attacked the Balata refugee camp near the
northern West Bank city of Nablus. In subsequent days, several other
camps were attacked -- including the largest, Jabalya, in the Gaza
Strip -- in the widest Israeli offensive in the Palestinian areas since
1967.
The army has acknowledged that the two-week offensive, in which
more than 150 Palestinians were killed, achieved at best only part of
the desired result. Although several thousand Palestinians were
rounded up, virtually all of the most-wanted militants eluded capture.
Some weapons were seized, and suspected rocket-making workshops
were destroyed, but the Palestinians still have plenty of arms, and last
week fired a rocket from Gaza into Israeli territory.
The Israeli assault also appeared to do little or nothing to dent the
Palestinians' will or ability to attack Israelis. In the week since Israel
withdrew from the last major chunks of Palestinian territory it had
retaken, there have been almost daily suicide bombings, shootings or
attempted terrorist attacks.
Now, the talk is of more aggressive military action.
Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, the army chief of staff, said Israel's offensive
was incomplete. Other officials have noted that the Israeli attacks had
an effect in stopping the flow of would-be terrorists out of areas
occupied by the army. There is a widely held view in the Israeli army
and security circles that the only way to stop terrorist and other
attacks on Israelis is to occupy the Palestinian areas where the
attackers live and operate -- though even that provides no guarantee,
officials acknowledge.
"Let me remind you that during the week of our operation in Ramallah,
there was no terrorist attack that came out of Ramallah," said a senior
official, referring to the Palestinians' unofficial capital in the West
Bank. "And in the days since our withdrawal there have been several
attacks [from the city], some of which we succeeded in preventing
and some of which we did not."
Officials are reluctant to reveal the details of the military plans, other
than to say they could involve the army driving deeper into Palestinian
cities, towns and refugee camps than it did this month, staying
considerably longer and hunting down more suspected militants.
But the officials are mindful that there are limits. No one in a position
of power in Israel is seriously considering a complete and indefinite
reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza, carpet-bombing Ramallah
or destroying the Palestinian water and electricity systems, a senior
official said. Officials also acknowledged that Israeli planners are
sensitive to the political constraints on an all-out offensive, including
the fear of igniting a regional war and the likelihood of criticism by the
United States.
In Washington, a sharp escalation in Israeli attacks would likely be
seen as undermining the Bush administration's efforts to muster Arab
support or acquiescence for a campaign against Saddam Hussein's
government in Iraq. In Israel, an escalation could destabilize Sharon's
coalition government, which includes moderates as well as hard-liners.
Moreover, even some proponents for a major new Israeli offensive
say they doubt it would end Palestinian attacks, and could even play
into the hands of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. "Our dilemma
is that all the Palestinians have to do to win is to survive," said one
Israeli official. "That makes them a very hard enemy, but it doesn't
mean you don't fight them anyway."
Nonetheless, the officials made clear that Israel could not long
maintain what they regard as its current posture of restraint, which has
been in place for about a week. Under the informal rules of Israel's
restraint, the army has not stopped operating. But Israel has refrained
from launching air attacks in retaliation for Palestinian suicide
bombings.
Israeli newspapers have also reported in recent days that Sharon has
told the Bush administration to expect an escalation if no cease-fire is
achieved. For instance, Shimon Schiffer, arguably Israel's
best-connected political reporter, wrote in the newspaper Yedioth
Ahronoth today that when Vice President Cheney visited Israel last
week, Sharon "reached an agreement" with him that if Zinni's mission
fails, Washington would support Israeli strikes on the Palestinians.
U.S. officials did not deny the report.
It is unclear when the Israelis would launch a fresh attack, but it
probably would not occur while Zinni remains in the region.
Tonight, the fourth meeting in a week of Israeli and Palestinian
security commanders under the former Marine Corps general ended
without any agreement. Another meeting was scheduled for Monday.
The two sides disagree over the timetable for a truce, and over Israel's
demand that Palestinian militants be arrested. The Palestinians are
demanding that any truce be followed by a swift resumption of political
negotiations that would include a freeze on all construction of Jewish
settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel refuses to tie the truce
talks to the prospect of political concessions, which Sharon believes
would constitute a reward for 18 months of renewed Palestinian
violence over continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza Strip.
As Israel prepares for the next phase of fighting, many in Sharon's
hard-line Likud Party have promoted the option of a devastating attack
that would topple Arafat's Palestinian Authority and root out what
Israelis call the "infrastructure of terror." Among the advocates is
Sharon's foremost rival within Likud, former prime minister Binyamin
Netanyahu, a likely challenger for the leadership of the party and the
government later this year or next year.
One of Sharon's most important coalition partners, the ultra-Orthodox
Shas party, has added its support to a broad assault on the
Palestinians. "They need to be the ones who cry uncle, not us," the
party leader, Interior Minister Eliahu Yishai, told the newspaper
Maariv. "I am a moderate person, and if I say this is the solution, then
the situation must really be dire."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
|
