Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pressed the flesh with Dubya this week, collecting his vaguely qualified endorsement of the unilateral “disengagement” plan that would complete the project of dispossession forced upon the Palestinians for the past 39 years. The plan, originally proposed by Sharon, seeks to redraw the borders of Israel to encompass major settlement blocks in the West Bank and virtually all of East Jerusalem, while securing the Jordan valley and dividing the Palestinian population into isolated cantons, cut off from one another and from Jerusalem, their cultural, political, and economic hub. It officially throws all relevant UN resolutions out the window from 242 forward, allowing Israel to claim land it seized in the 1967 war — land that is clearly not part of the State of Israel, illegally occupied by the IDF since 
that time. Bush’s reservation about the disengagement plan is really just a diplomatic chimera — he would like to see the same result achieved with some level of participation by the Palestinians. What they term being a “partner in peace” is really just taking part in your own oppression.
There’s no question but that the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza is illegal, and that any Israeli settlements built within those areas violate international law, aside from being so plainly unjust that any 5-year-old could see it. And yet it continues, with the support of our government and both major political parties. And like any occupying power since Roman times, the Israeli government has attempted to replace direct rule of the territories with some form of proxy rule, via compliant (and bribe-friendly) local agents. During the years prior to the first intifada, Tel Aviv tried to accomplish this by imposing collaborationist Palestinians as local officials, mayors, etc., while working to undermine the influence of the PLO. In fact, Israeli intelligence had a hand in getting Hamas established as a component of this divide-and-rule strategy. The Palestinian uprising in 1987-91 demonstrated to Israel that, even with a severely marginalized PLO, Palestinian nationalism could not be countered through the use of individual quislings. Then came Oslo.
Indeed, the brilliance of the Oslo Accords was that they co-opted Arafat and the PLO as that long sought-after colonial administration, in the form of the Palestinian Authority. The PA was charged with handling security (Israeli security) while the development of Israel’s colonial infrastructure in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and (to a lesser extent) Gaza continued at a steady pace. In return, the PA would distribute all aid and tax moneys (minus graft) and Arafat could call himself “president”. This gave us the spectacle of his overfed lieutenants living opulently amongst the 
unspeakable squalor that was Palestinian society, while the superimposition of the Israeli settlement infrastructure continued unabated by this sham peace accord, through both Labor and Likud administrations. Though virtually unknown to the American public (which has underwritten much of this construction), Israel’s project in East Jerusalem and the West Bank has been an inescapable reality for Palestinians, its trajectory very clearly discernable. They see the Fatah-dominated PA as an accomplice in this, at worst, or as an institution too ineffective and self-serving to stop the land grab, at best. Recall, too, that Abbas (Abu Mazen) was chosen by Sharon, and that more popular Fatah figures were kept from competing (some by remaining in Israeli jails). That’s largely why Hamas won the legislative elections — because they are obviously not in the pocket of Israel.
One thing hasn’t changed: there can be no peace without justice. We ignore this fact at our own peril.
