Disengagement Blues
Israel’s disengagement from the Arab populations of Gaza and Northern Samaria is upon us. I have had mixed feelings about this event for a long time. I first expressed these feelings in writing more than a year ago. (In fact, I passed these concerns on to Senator Lieberman, who forwarded them to the State Department, where I’m certain that they were duly logged and ignored). At that time, my concern was that Israel was creating an opportunity--but that opportunities are worthless if they are not seized. I called upon the “international community,” and specifcially the EU, to play a constructive role in turning opportunity into reality. My specific proposal was that the EU, backed by various NGOs and aid organizations, purchase the villages that Israel evacuates and help turn them into model communities, not only for the Arabs of Palestine but for the entire Arab world.
Well, that didn’t happen. Instead, in a rare point of agreement between Israelis and Arabs, Israel will raze these lovely villages, local Arabs will earn money hauling the garbage, and new contractors will develop more “suitable” housing in their stead. Anyone want to bet that we won’t see sweetheart contracts let to corrupt insiders leading to substandard slum housing?
Of course, much has changed over the past year. Allah has blessed the Arabs by ending their deadly addiction to the narcotic known as Arafat. Israel crushed Arafats warriors. Iran increased its influence among the fundamentalist strain of Gazan terrorists. The Arabs held a moderately clean local election and chose Mahmoud Abbas, who might even be more concerned with the welfare of his people than with the destruction of Israel (though the jury is still out). Some of these trends are positive, others negative. Most remain ambiguous. But the “international community” remains absent.
So here’s what’s unfolding. Israel is once again making a unilateral sacrifice to demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that it wants the Arab-Israeli conflict to end, and that it is willing to accept virtually any non-suicidal risk to end it. The “international community” is pleased that the situation is quite, but remains unwilling to do anything to help move towards long-term accomodation. The Arab league remains unwilling to confront the poison inherent in their notions of Sunni supremacy, nor in the virulent, genocidal anti-Semitic rhetoric. Increasingly desperate militants are willing to accept aid from any source--including the Shiites of Iran. Abbas remains unwilling to confront terrorism in its midst. And in the name of balance, the internation press equates peaceful demonstrators with baby killers in order to show that there are “extremists” on both sides. The global “progressive” movement has finally found a forced mass eviction that it can support. The U.S. has decided that power vacuums (or at least this power vacuum) may not breed terrorism after all.
Most likely outcome: Gaza becomes a bloody mess. The ever-absent international community blames Israel.
PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://www.theinformationist.com/index/trackback/99/5tZYqzFE/
Trackbacks:
rite aid pharmaciesrite aid pharmacies
Comments:
Bruce, but what would be Israel’s advantage to stay in Gaza? Gaza is hardly a bargaining chip in peace negotiations. More so, it’s an albatros for Israeli security. An event-less pullback draws a line in the sand that most Israelis can support...as will the Bush administration. Horrible things may occur after the Gaza pullout but not because of it. And Israel will be better positioned to deal with Gazanian turmoil by taking this unilateral action. I disagree with none of your analysis but I’d still pull out the settlers. Jeff
Jews have the right to live anywhere they want. During the years of Egyptian and Jordanian occupation, illiberal laws banned the Jews from most parts of the formerly British Palestine mandate. Jews who returned to the parts of that land that Israel liberated in 1967 were doing nothing more than exercising their legitimate rights.
That said, it’s not always smart to exert every right you possess. In fact, it can be downright stupid and insulting--particularly to other folks who have also have legitimate rights. The Jews who moved into disputed territory, particularly those who chose provoacative settings (i.e., Hebron), were wrong to do so.
Now Israel is starting to correct that wrong. There is no question that Israel should pull its civilians ot of Gaza--not because they have no right to be there, but because exercising that right imperils the security of their nation.
I have explained elsewhere that for 35 years, Israel’s Labor Party asserted that a massive show of strength (i.e., Peres was the father of Israel’s nuclear program), coupled with a constant call for reasonableness, would yield reasonable negotiating partners. Likud contended that the Arabs will behave reasonably when they decide to behave reasonably, and nothing that Israel does can hasten that day--so Israel might as well just do whatever it dame pleases. Both approaches proved disastrous.
I support the Sharon plan because it might succeed. It begins from the Likud assumptions, but couples it with a new pragmatic twist--Israel must take only actions which, if written in cement, will leave it in a tenable position. Separation of the populations through strategic civilian withdrawal and the construction of a security fence serve those ends well.
Contrary to every single failed suggestion since 1937, resolution will come not through negotiation, but rather through exhaustion. Israel must position itself so that it can survive in whatever shape it exists when the Arabs finally concede its legitimacy.
The reason that I have mixed feelings here is that only Israel is doing its part. As a result, I think that disengagement will work only to Israel’s advantage. The Arabs of Palestine, the Arab league, the U.S., the EU, the “West,” and the “international community” are all sitting on the sidelines doing nothing while an opportunity fades into black. None of them will come out of this opportunity ahead.
Bruce, please clarify the source for, ”Jews have the right to live anywhere they want.” I assume you mean that Jews have the right to live anywhere they want within the split Palistinian mandate voted by the United Nations. Legally, then, who has police responsibility for Gaza and the West Bank? Jordan? But did Jordan renounce its responsibility years ago? Certainly not the Palestinian Authority...at least not yet. As occupier, Israel is then responsible, right? If my facts and logic are correct, then I agree Jews can live anywhere in the Palestinian mandate. But as a policy matter, occupying Gaza never made sense to me.
I agree that Gaza can become worse than Iraq. That the international community should implement a plan for Gaza. And that the only viable long-term solution is to free-trade Gaza to life, with the assistance of Egytians flocking to free-trade deals with Israel.
When I say that “Jews have a right to live anywhere they want,” I mean it literally: anywhere.
What seems strange is that I should have to make this comment at all. Somehow, people seem to take it for granted that there are parts of the world legitimately and appropriately off-limit to Jews. Now, I suppose that there are those who still believe in such litmus tests; I don’t. So if anyone ever tells me that there are places that Jews may not live--or in which it is legitimate and appropriate to restrict Jews’ rights to live, I must ask them to describe the parts of the world in which it is appropriate and legitimate to prohibit: (i) Christains; (ii) Muslims; (iii) Blacks; (iv) Chinese; and (v) Caucasians/those of European descent.
A coherent racial theorist should have no problem delineating how to keep all people “in their place,” by outlining regional distinctions on a map. In my mind, all of these categories are nullities. But to suggest that it is acceptable to restrict some groups but not others is simply hate-filled racism backed by no theory other than the superiority of the group to which the speaker happens to belong.
That said, these is also a legitimate question of citizenship. Given the structure of today’s world, citizens of one country are prohibited from simply showing up somewhere else, announcing that it suits their tastes, and invoking their basic human right to live where they please. If there are any principles of international law subject to broad consensus, this meaning of citizenship is among them.
So the question becomes what body of law governs Gaza? The answer is complicated. The last claimant to sovereignty over the region was the Ottoman Empire. I don’t recall the precise terms of the Treaty of Sevres off the top of my head, but the League of Nations assigned the Palestine Mandate (covering all of modern-day Israel, Jordan, Gaza, Judea, and Samaria) to the UK. The UK governed subject to Mandatory Law, a mixture of British military rule and Ottoman civil law. In 1947, the UK turned Western Palestine back to the UN, as the successor organization to the League of Nations; Gaza quickly fell under Egyptian military occupation, subject to Egyptian military rule. Egypt never claimed sovereignty over Gaza, extended Egyptian citizenship to its residents, or otherwise treated them as Egyptians. In 1967, Gaza fell under Israeli military rule--a status that persists today.
In short, the legal regime in Gaza is now a hidgepodge of Ottoman civil law, British mandatory law, and Israeli military law. None of these bodies of law use religion as a basis of either residency restriction or land development. The status of the territory remains a matter of dispute. As the administering power, Israel is bound to respect the titles and deeds issued by earlier governments--including the Egyptian military occupation. There are norms governing the development of public lands, the conversion of public lands into private use, and the condemnation of private property. I don’t know precisely what they are, nor do I know how scrupulously Israel has observed them.
These are reasonable questions for research and redress where appropriate. But they do not reach the issue of whether or not Jews have the right to live in Gaza. That right is clear. As I noted above, though, that doesn’t mean that there is wisdom in exercising that right. . .
The Arabs in Gaza and elsewhere and the rest of the Muslim world have used pressure and patience (P and P) as the means toward the annihilation of Israel. Pressure has many forms – political, cultural, economic, etc. and of course, military – direct where deemed appropriate, guerilla, random, terrorist, etc. There is no reason to assume the withdrawal from Gaza will be viewed by the Arab world as anything but a victory and an absolute vindication of their P and P approach to the ultimate dismantling of Israel. P and P has a long history in the Arab world.
Thus, there is no gain to Israel in leaving any of the infrastructure for the Arabs to exploit. It would simply make it easier to mount more attacks against Israel as fewer resources will be required to house and employ the residents of Gaza. In any event, I expect wholesale misappropriation of funds a la Arafat to continue.
I have no doubt that attacks will continue both from the Arabs and the “international community” including the United States. I expect the current administration to openly pressure Israel within six months after the withdrawal to move on with implementation of the “road map”.
I can’t disagree with any of that. We already know what the Arab world has to say--it’s been all over Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.
While we all try to be realistic, I put no faith in the foreign policy school known as “realism.” My position on the disengagement remains that Israel is acting in its own best interest. The U.S., and the West in general, is not responding in kind. Israel has nothing to gain by turning anything over to Abbas or his PA. It would have something to gain were a responsible international organization willing to assume no such responsibility.
At this point, Israel might want to take a leaf from the book of the British. When the UK washed its hands of the Palestine Mandate in 1947, it did more than simply turn it over to the UN: it abstained from the partition vote. Israel has now decided, for whatever reasons, to wash its hands of Gaza. The Israeli position on Gaza should now be clear: Israel welcomes a prosperous peaceful neighbor, but can live with an impotent tyrannical one, as well. Attacks will be met with extreme force, and what happens otherwise is no longer Israel’s concerns.
I do hope that the U.S. will have the good sense to let Gaza swim or sink on the back of its own people and their kin across the Arab world, but I am not optimistic; I too expect quick U.S. pressure on Israel to allow free mobility between Gaza and the West Bank.
I must say that I’ve many mixed feelings about the Gaza pull out, but what strengthens my support for it is the leadership of Sharon. My view on this is the same as of many--that the history shows that nothing will change for the better--however, the assurance from Sharon (well known as an advocate for strong actions) does bring some hope into light. It seems to me that the only reasonable direction for Israel to take, is to isolate itself from neighboring regions as much as possible and then to begin dealing with its own 20% arab population--which is exactly the direction Israel is taking now. These are not the times when Israel needs to protect itself from attacks coming from Golan Heights, these are the times when attacks occur within the working (in Israel) arab population.
Serge,
You’re absolutely right that things are unlikely to change. In my book, though, the best proof lies in the abysmal approach that the “international community” is taking, and the even more irresponsible garbage being thrown around in the press.
It is certainly true that Israel has been in Gaza for a long time, that the past five years have been violent, and that Israel is now leaving. Propagators of that violence are claiming a victory.
Perhaps they believe their own propaganda. There really isn’t much that anyone can do about it. The lack of factual reporting, though, suggests that some in the West also believe it. And therein lies a problem, because if this story is true, Israel’s withdrawal is the greatest reward for terror that the world has seen in a long time. If I believed for a moment that it were true, I would be out on the barricades with the protestors. So let me be blunt:
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT TERROR DROVE ISRAEL FROM THE TERRITORIES, AND YOU SUPPORT THE ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL, YOU ARE A TERROR SUPPORTER.
In fact, what actually happened--and what the press should be reporting--is that Israel offered to withdraw from Gaza in 2000 because it was the right thing to do. (Israel also made numerous other concessions, some because they were right and others because they were necessary in the context of negotiations, but they are not at issue here). Arafat rejected a state born through negotiations, and instead launched a war to eradicate the State of Israel (not to mention to feed his own ego). The war failed. Israel stands. And now Israel is withdrawing because it is the right thing FOR ISRAEL.
There really is no middle ground on this one. Either terror drove Israel from Gaza, or terror kept Israel in Gaza five years longer than negotiations would have. Which is it? If you believe, as I do, that the latter is true, report the disengagement as a defeat of terror. If you believe otherwise, at least have the decency to oppose it--or to admit that you support appeasing terrorist.
In fact, the “international community,” including the U.S., is afraid of admitting the truth--a truth, incidentally, that can be uttered while still criticizing Israel’s 1967-2000 behavior in Gaza, for those who feel that such criticism is warranted--because it is afraid of offending the terror supporters among our Arab “friends.” The press, seeking to “balance” truth against lies, seems uwilling to point out that negotiations would have gotten Israel out of Gaza five years ago.
Sharon has finally let go of Zionism’s great dream: the dream that the Jews would someday be accepted as a nation like all others, and the Jewish State as a state like all others. Numerous Zionist’s, since the movements founding, have poured enormous effort into seeking ways to gain the acceptance and cooperation of Israel’s neighbors. What Arafat’s terror war proved--and what Sharon recognized--is that it will never happen (or at least not within our lifetimes). To the extent that the terrorists want to claim victory for anything, they can lay claim to the shift in Zionist ideology: what has long been an integrationist movement is slipping into an isolationist phase. Israelis no longer ask what it will take to establish a decent Middle East--they’ve delegated that question to the U.S. Instead, they ask whether it’s possible to withdraw from the Middle East. Disengagement and separation of the populations is an excellent start.
I think you might have mistaken my point view for something it is not. All I’m saying is that “in the interest of Israel” (and I’m only concerned with the interest of Israel) there were and are only two options: to continue a never-ending “eye for eye” war with Arabs or to isolate itself with walls from the neighbors and let Arabs suffer out of their own indolence—without harming Israelis while at it. I’m not trying to show my support for the Arabs—after all, the history of Middle East shows clearly what that leads to (we all are aware that there is no “what if” here). Hence, it is my belief that Israel will be a safer place only once it physically isolates itself from Arabs. Unfortunately, Israel continues to support neighboring Arabs through its financial market and job opportunities in order to bring those people to a higher economic level. And although, it is in the interest of Israel to finance the jobs and education of many Palestinians in order to lessen the number of unemployed in that region (i.e. terrorists), it is my belief that a small country like Israel simply cannot afford to throw money around like United States does with hope that those money will bring around a change, although a country with a highly skilled labor does have a problem—it needs an unskilled labor too. Yet, it is in the best interest of Israel to isolate itself from Arabs completely—close all the markets and job opportunities to them—and let a country like United States participate in a philanthropy from the pressure of its own media. This unfortunately will not happen due to the lack of unskilled labor force unless Middle East crisis reaches a peak at which the labor problem will become downsized dramatically (or Israel changes its public system to fit the needs for the unskilled labor like United States have always done).
Serge,
I got your basic point. I should probalbyapologize for rambling a bit (or more than a bit) in my response. I absolutely see this disengagement as a step towards Israel’s promotion of its own self-interest above the welfare of its neighbors. Quite frankly, history has shown that the neighbors have never and will never appreciate Israel’s attempts to better their lot. And isolationism may work better for Israel (as you say, a small country) than it ever has for the U.S.
At the same time, though, I think that it’s important to appreciate the effect of the disengagement on Zionist ideology. As I mentioned above, an isolationist/unilateralist Israel is necessarily relinquishing the dream of normalization and integration. Precisely what this means remains to be seen, but we may have just witnessed the first act of a “selfish Zionism.” With more than a soupcon of irony, the international community seems to misconstrue this act as selfless and generous.
Next entry: Thoughts from the Road
Previous entry: Darknet on Hold