In a historic vote, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s cabinet recently approved, in theory, his unilateral disengagement plan, paving the way for Israeli troops and settlements to be removed from the Gaza Strip, and tentatively allowing the possibility of Egypt and the international community to assume security responsibilities in the vacated areas.
I understand some of the reasons Sharon would no longer want to govern Gaza – an area Levi Eshkol, who captured the Strip in the 1967 Six Day War, once called “a bone in my throat.” The pros of ending the “occupation” of neighborhoods of hostile Palestinians, brought up on Arafat’s anti-Israel propaganda and whose status as “refugees” has been so cruelly maintained by the Arafatist cause, may indeed outweigh the cons.
The military situation in the region is far different now than it was when Israel first captured the territory. In a time of advanced satellite technology and reconnaissance, Sharon and the Defense establishment seem to have concluded that Israel no longer needs Gaza as much as it once did to enhance its security position.
The area, in certain ways, may even be an Israeli Defense Forces liability, as we saw a few weeks ago when 13 Israeli troops lost their lives following tank explosions while on a mission in Gaza.
And the current situation with the Palestinians and their 3-year-plus intifada simply cannot go on. It’s obvious there’s no Palestinian partner with whom to negotiate – realistically there won’t be until at least the current generation passes and a new generation of democratically elected leaders really, truly give up terror over a long period of time.
But Israel cannot wait for the Palestinians to come to grips with themselves. Sharon clearly feels withdrawing, building a fence and separating is the best route for now. And he touts as a resulting diplomatic triumph Bush’s landmark declarations that Israel can retain some West Bank settlements and that Palestinians must give up the right of return for refugees – their formula for flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians and essentially destroying the Jewish state by population genocide.
And there’s so much information I am not privileged to that Sharon is likely taking into account as well.
At the same time, opposition leaders have legitimate criticisms. Withdrawing in the face of violence can be seen by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a victory for terrorism, and it may embolden them to continue their bloody struggle to achieve their stated goal of “driving the Jews into the sea.”
The opposition envisions a Hamas takeover the minute Israel vacates. That is why it’s so important for Sharon to completely obliterate the terrorist infrastructure from Gaza before a single settlement or soldier is removed. They also see it as a waste for Israel to give up Gaza, one of its main bargaining chips for “nothing in return” from the Palestinian side.
And I really feel for the 7,500 settlers, who were basically placed in Gaza by Sharon himself. Their ultranationalist ideology has been upheld by Israel for years, with more government subsidies and institutional protections designated to them than any other population segment in the Jewish state, and their removal from Gaza, if it really happens, is going to be immensely painful.
One part of the plan that needs to be changed, though, is the shortsighted stipulation for an Egyptian and international contingency to take over security in Gaza, even if some Israeli soldiers are allowed to remain. Removing settlements is one thing, but believing that anyone but Israel can protect the Jewish state, or that Israeli soldiers won’t be hampered by an international force, is quite another.
The very reason the IDF has had to operate recently in Gaza is because of Egypt’s stinging refusal to prevent terrorists from constructing weapons-smuggling tunnels from the Egyptian side of the border into the Rafah refugee camp. And this from a country with a signed peace agreement with Israel.
One must ask whether Sharon appreciates the virulent anti-Semitism coming from Egypt’s state-controlled media, or the extreme anti-Israeli pulse of the Egyptian street. His plan should not allow a country to control security in Gaza whose government sponsored a TV miniseries on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the dangerous, age-old anti-Semitic diatribe, and whose ministers actively promote the idea that Jews use Christian and Arab blood to bake matzos for Passover.
And I can’t comprehend how Sharon thinks an international force in Gaza can be any more effective. The international community, as represented by the United Nations and the European Union, has been openly hostile to Israel for decades, passing resolution after unbalanced resolution condemning Israel every time it dares to defend itself.
Has Sharon forgotten the international community’s absurd cries of “war crimes” after Israeli troops risked going house to house to confiscate weapons caches in Jenin in 2002, losing 23 of its soldiers while 45 Palestinians (mostly gunmen), and not the “500” the Palestinians claimed, were killed?
What of the U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, who for years openly allowed themselves to be exploited by Hezbollah to commit terrorist attacks against Israel, culminating in the outrageous incident in which the United Nations, Israel discovered, hid crucial information about three IDF soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah in Lebanon using possible U.N. cover. The esteemed international body went so far as to obstruct Israel’s attempts at investigating the crime scene to glean important information on the status of its soldiers.
This is the organization that is going to protect Israel in Gaza?
These parts of the plan – allowing for others to be responsible for Israel’s security – must be changed if unilateral disengagement is to enjoy any level of success. It would be disastrous to implement a flawed plan that could lead to regional instability and an international incident should Israel need to carry out military operations in Gaza in the future.
Fortunately, Sunday’s vote gives Sharon until March to cement the details of unilateral disengagement, after which it will be submitted for further cabinet approval.
It is crucial that this monumental move by Israel, led by one of its most heroic personalities, be carried out in a way that truly creates peace for the citizens of the region, and not again the illusion of peace that we have so bitterly tasted before.
Aaron Klein previously conducted interviews with Yasser Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami and leaders of the Taliban.
