Prime minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and some areas in Northern Samaria, in the West Bank, has caused a deep rift within Israeli society.
Sharon’s detractors claim that the prime minister has reneged on his promises to his electorate and that, therefore, he should go back to the people either by calling a referendum on his plan or by calling for fresh elections.
To his opponents, Sharon’s supporters adduce a seemingly simple and persuasive argument: Sharon stated, openly and explicitly, during the last election campaign, that “painful concessions” would be needed to achieve peace. Indeed, he made it clear he was in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Thus, his supporters assert, what Sharon is currently proposing is nothing else than the implementation of his election promises.
To be sure, Sharon did say that peace would entail “painful concessions.” He even went against the majority of his own Likud party by supporting the idea of a Palestinian state. However, he never said that these “painful concessions” would be made unilaterally. Further, he spoke about making these concessions in order to achieve peace. Thus, he was apparently referring to a scenario in which an agreement would be signed and peace finally achieved. This is not the case.
Indeed, Sharon lambasted the then Labor Party’s leader, Amram Mitzna, for proposing a much more modest unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
Sharon may be right that his plan is in Israel’s best interest, but he is not right in suggesting it constitutes a fulfillment of his election promises.
It must be said that, notwithstanding the growing opposition from the right in general, and the Likud in particular, Sharon has bravely defended his plan, knowing only too well the political price he may be paying for doing so.
Still, it must also be added that conceptually Sharon has been neither original nor innovative.
The first Israeli politician to propose a unilateral withdrawal from Palestinian-held areas was Labor Member of the Knesset Haim Ramon. Claiming there was no Palestinian partner to deal with (when such a stance was hardly popular in the left and center-left), Ramon, an experienced and astute politician, argued that Israel had to shape its own future by withdrawing unilaterally from most of Gaza and the West Bank. Indeed, he even proposed erecting a barrier to defend Israel’s citizens and separate Israel and Israeli-held territories from the Palestinian areas.
Ramon’s vision is currently becoming Sharon’s policy. Interestingly enough, Ramon is the most enthusiastic supporter of Sharon’s plan within Israel’s Labor Party.
There is a further argument adduced by some of Sharon’s opponents, which merits special mention.
By withdrawing unilaterally, so they contend, Sharon is conveying the impression to the Palestinian terrorist groups that they managed to force Israel out of Gaza. This can only spell disaster for the future, they stress.
They have a point – but up to a point.
The Palestinian terrorist groups may well claim that Israel has been expelled from Gaza. Israel’s unrelenting military blows against terrorists and their bases leaves little room to doubt that Sharon has no intention of withdrawing waving a white flag. Rather than the Hamas chasing Israel out of Gaza, Israel is chasing the Hamas further away from its civilian centers.
To be sure, much of the rhetoric of Sharon’s detractors tends to be ideological in nature, on occasion bordering on the ridiculous – like the call, by a Habad Rabi, to put Sharon on trial on the basis of the same law which allowed Israel to try Adolf Eichman; or the accusation by a lady member of the Knesset belonging to the National Religious Party that Sharon was the only leader in the world aiding al-Qaida.
Nevertheless, on a more rational basis, some argue that Israel has already tried, with scant success, as a result of the Oslo Agreement with the PLO, to withdraw from Gaza. So what’s new? Why try it again?
True, Israel did withdraw from Gaza and Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority has been ruling in the area ever since. But Israel’s settlements had been left intact, by mutual accord, pending a final settlement. Sharon’s current plan envisages the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in Gaza. By doing so, it is hoped, Israel’s army won’t have to divert its precious resources into defending isolated settlements in Gaza and thus will able to re-deploy to within Israel.
Sharon’s plan may not change considerably the realities on the ground, but it may change the way Israel deals with them.
Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum is a journalist and political analyst based in Israel. He has been published in a variety of newspapers and holds a doctorate degree in Modern History from Oxford University, where his doctoral thesis was on the international relations of the Middle East. Additionally he holds a masters degree in international relations from Cambridge University and obtained his first degree in history at Tel Aviv University.
