May 27, 2005 – We have frequently discussed Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in these pages, and we continue to rely both on Prime Minister Sharon’s strategic vision and our feeling that there are no better alternatives to the disengagement that would accomplish as much for Israel’s safety and security.
Rather than hearing a reasoned argument about this issue, we instead watched the people on both sides of this debate divide themselves into groups that are controlled by emotional extremes. This puts Israel at risk. Civil disobedience, which is advocated by the right, is self-destructive and unconscionable. The seething hatred on the left for Israelis who live beyond the 1967 borders is truly vile and beyond understanding. Meanwhile, Arik Sharon is demonized by both sides, and the Arabs look on with no small amount of optimism and satisfaction.
All good analysis is comparative, which means we take things we know and attempt to put them into a current context, but neither side here goes beyond citing examples they need to support their point. Gaza, to those on the right, is Lebanon, which it is not. The left sees Gaza of piece with the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan, and it is not. What Gaza is, is a problem, which except for transfer of all of its hostile Arab residents or disengagement, isn’t easily resolved. It’s not widely known, but Israelis would accept the solution of transfer for belligerent Arab populations in other parts of Israel, but rightly, they don’t see it as a solution when they look at Gaza. That only leaves the disengagement or the status quo.
All one has to know about the status quo is that it creates Israeli casualties at an extremely high rate which in and of itself is a source of great resentment inside Israel. The topography in and around Gaza doesn’t afford protected positions for Israel’s soldiers or civilians, making them constantly vulnerable to the hostile population around them. Arik Sharon knows this, and has turned to strategic disengagement as his answer. At the same time Sharon disengages, he is reasserting Israel’s claim to the areas around an indivisible Jerusalem, Ariel, the Golan and several other places that might be contested.
Yes, Gaza should belong to Israel. It is historically bound to Israel and the Arab claim outside of possession is thin. But as we’ve pointed out before, Israel’s recognition of the rights engendered by current possession allows her to use the same reasoning for other lands she holds. This only adds to her strong moral, legal and historical claim to those places. The very same principle of possession that Israel is affording the Arabs of Gaza can be used by her to assert her claims elsewhere.
Israel’s existence is not pinned to Gaza, and above all else, Israelis need to turn their attention to the greater threats that confront them in the world today; Iran being foremost. A united Israel could continue to act in its own self-interest in the absence of a credible partner for peace and will have established the precedent of acting unilaterally to do so.
The internal bickering in Israel has to stop. The right has to realize that Gaza is going to go and must overcome its own obstinacy allowing them to rejoin Israel’s middle and help Sharon solidify Israel’s hold on its population centers. As Sen. Lieberman recently pointed out, the pressures for further concessions by Israel after Gaza will be immense, and a divided Israel makes itself even more vulnerable. The left too must once and for all put its animus aside and seek out ways to work with those that it has demonized for years. A first step would be to lose the word "settlers" and deal with each situation on its merits, allowing all Israelis to be treated the same.
Israel has pulled together as a people many times in her short history. She can do it again now, and the need (while not as clear and present in the eyes of many), is just as great. One needs only to look beyond Gaza to see the confrontations to come.

–nrg

Comments are closed.