Retreat from Gaza
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Daniel Mandel
http://www.meforum.org/article/709
Since December 2003, Ariel Sharon has astonished friend and foe alike,
embracing the very idea he opposed in the elections that confirmed him
in power in January 2003.
The idea is "unilateral disengagement," whereby Israel, without a peace
agreement, withdraws its military and civilians from the territories administered
by Israel since the 1967 war -- in this case, the Gaza Strip. The Labor
opposition's Amram Mitzna lost badly campaigning on this very platform,
coming in for incisive criticism from not a few figures, not just among
the governing Likud, but from a bevy of informed Israeli observers. To
cite just two:
Historian Michael Oren: "The minute you pull out of Gaza you signal
to the Arabs that you're in retreat. It's a huge victory for the Palestinians.
Palestinians will have huge celebrations in Gaza. You think they'll sit
down and talk after that?"
Respected centrist journalist, Yossi Klein Halevi: "If unilateral withdrawal
could happen in a void, it would be the right decision But it is not happening
in a void . . . The psychological implications are to reinforce the post-Lebanon
withdrawal perception in the Arab world that we are a defeatist society
and with enough pressure we'll simply withdraw."
Indeed, Ariel Sharon himself could not have been clearer at the time:
"A unilateral withdrawal is not a recipe for peace. It is a recipe for
war."
If these criticisms are correct, then unilaterally withdrawing from
Gaza is a victory for terrorism; bloodshed is likely to flow from it, and
Sharon of all people must know it.
What, then, is Sharon's rationale? According to his supporters, both
right and left, the withdrawal represents Israel seizing the initiative,
setting its own lines of defense, and preempting noxious diplomatic initiatives
from Israel's ill-wishers. But all this looks doubtful. True, the Israel
Defense Forces will be relieved of the onerous duty of defending isolated
Jewish communities in a sea of enemies, but its absence from Gaza will
also afford Palestinian terrorist groups a freer hand for mounting further
attacks. And an initiative that stimulates the aggression of terrorists
will not be altered by its originating in Jerusalem, as the terrorists
themselves make clear.
Thus, Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, has opined, "all the Israeli
statements about a withdrawal from Gaza Strip are due to the Palestinian
resistance operations. We are completely confident that as the Hezbollah
Organization managed to kick the Israeli forces out of Lebanon, the Palestinian
resistance will kick them out of the Palestinian territories, and we will
continue our resistance."
A top Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar, concurs: "Very simply,
nobody can deny that if Israel is going to leave the Gaza Strip and part
of the West Bank, that was because of the intifadah, because of the armed
struggle, because of the big sacrifices of Hamas for this goal."
Add to this that the current cease-fire is giving terrorists a breather
from ducking into bunkers and dodging Israeli drones, all the while recouping
for another round.
All indications, then, are that the terrorists will be the leading
beneficiaries of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, appearing vindicated
in asserting that terrorism first and foremost is the way. When the cease-fire
collapses, as it must, foreign offices the world over will be clamoring
for still more diplomatic motion and will take a dim view of resumed Israeli
counter-terrorism measures. If setting the agenda, securing one's own,
and preempting dangerous diplomacy is the idea behind the Gaza withdrawal,
Israelis are likely to be disappointed.
Indeed, it could be said that Sharon is pursuing this doomed initiative
as a result of diplomatic defeat. The "road map" peace plan was always
going to serve as a guarantor of Palestinian malfeasance. Devised by the
European Union, United Nations, the Russians, and the US State Department,
the road map is to lead to a Palestinian state regardless of what Palestinians
do.
Ingenious explanations can be offered for Israel's actions, but only
one fits all the facts -- the Israelis are punting, grasping for a solution
that is all the more enticing for looking like what in other circumstances
might be sound policy. Instead, it has the savor of panic and defeat, made
worse by delusive rationalization.
The Israelis are in the unpleasant position of making do with policies
they opposed at the ballot box. But the United States is in no such position.
Americans are fighting the same Islamist terrorist groups. The Bush administration,
which looks like it's rewarding the unreconstructed Palestinian Authority
with levels of aid not even contemplated by Bill Clinton in his more expansive
moments, should think twice about supporting policies that weaken its best
Middle Eastern ally while emboldening the terrorists it is also fighting.
It is not too late for a dose of good sense.
Daniel Mandel is associate director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia
and author of "H.V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover
Zionist."
Boston Globe
May 2, 2005
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a