2008 Woodie Awards
The Danger of Disengagement
Elyasaf Schwartz
Issue date: 12/6/04 Section: Opinion
One of the amazing phenomena of Ariel Sharon's Disengagement Plan has been its ability to transcend party lines, and to garner not only a majority of Knesset votes, but seemingly the support of most of the populace as well.
What I fail to understand is what sets this plan apart from the classic "unilateral concession" the right-wing has so long disparaged. How can a country that has for the most part acknowledged Oslo as a mistake suddenly herald the Disengagement Plan as the next great peacemaker? At least in Oslo, some reciprocity was demanded.
This awkward repositioning, and the general feeling I get talking with Likud members who support the disengagement, leads me to believe that few expect it to bring a lasting peace. Rather, most view the disengagement as simply expediting an inevitability; it is a raising of arms of sorts, a capitulation.
Several legitimate arguments are made in favor of disengagement. One is that Israel cannot rule over the Arabs forever. Another is the assertion that if Israel keeps Gaza, Palestinians may in time outnumber Israelis and demand the right to vote.
Nevertheless, while these are serious considerations, disengagement from Gaza is not the right move. Disengagement would be an outright show of victory for the terrorist organizations that have continuously targeted Gaza with Kassam rockets and infiltrators. Israel's retreat would be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and perhaps it is. What would happen when terrorists turn their attention to settlements in the West Bank? Will we have the fortitude to put our foot down then? You can be sure that terrorists will make that decision a very difficult one.
Let us imagine what the political climate would be after the disengagement. Will the Palestinian shahids lay down their arms and exchange suicide belts for suspenders? Or would there be a rejuvenated jihad against the now weaker infidel?
Furthermore, even if Israelis reach the negotiating table, the status quo will have become post-disengagement. Any demand from the Palestinians would have to be met by yet another concession.
Realistically, I see no possible gain coming from a unilateral disengagement. It merely changes the status quo and encourages terrorists to continue the violence and murder.
Some have cited the monetary issue as a reason for disengagement, saying it is not worth the expenditure on the army for so few people. I am baffled by this argument. A country has an obligation to protect its citizens. Since when does monetary cost become an issue? Although not perfectly parallel, imagine an example in which the United States decides to disengage from a crime-ridden area because maintaining a sufficient police presence is too costly.
What people fail to realize is that if today it's Gaza, tomorrow it's settlements in the West Bank, and if we keep conceding, one day it will be Tel Aviv. Some say statements like this are classic fear politics and right-wing propaganda. I feel that anyone who has so quickly forgotten the lessons of 1967 and 1973 is being naïve.
Israel should demand a reform in the Palestinian educational system before any negotiations take place. In the convoluted political environment in which we deal, this suggestion seems almost ridiculous. The pre-negotiation stipulations always mandated some sort of Israeli withdrawal. Almost forgotten is the notion that Israel was attacked and then emerged, amazingly, victorious. Yes, victorious. Does it constitute so much chutzpah for Israel to demand that a jihad against its existence not be indoctrinated in Palestinian children? Is it too much to ask of Palestinian youth organizations like those run by Hamas to stop glorifying suicide bombers?
Looking at the political landscape, a Palestinian state may be inevitable; but it is clear that these are not the conditions under which it should occur. It is unfair to both the Israelis and the majority of Palestinians -- who are just trying to feed their families -- to grant such viability to terrorism as a political means. It encourages no reform in the Palestinian education system, and gives no incentive for terrorists to lay down their arms. Israel is choosing to disengage from a Gaza now festering with terrorism and weapons-smuggling. These problems will only increase if it presses ahead with the plan.
Elyasaf Schwartz is a junior at Yeshiva College
What I fail to understand is what sets this plan apart from the classic "unilateral concession" the right-wing has so long disparaged. How can a country that has for the most part acknowledged Oslo as a mistake suddenly herald the Disengagement Plan as the next great peacemaker? At least in Oslo, some reciprocity was demanded.
This awkward repositioning, and the general feeling I get talking with Likud members who support the disengagement, leads me to believe that few expect it to bring a lasting peace. Rather, most view the disengagement as simply expediting an inevitability; it is a raising of arms of sorts, a capitulation.
Several legitimate arguments are made in favor of disengagement. One is that Israel cannot rule over the Arabs forever. Another is the assertion that if Israel keeps Gaza, Palestinians may in time outnumber Israelis and demand the right to vote.
Nevertheless, while these are serious considerations, disengagement from Gaza is not the right move. Disengagement would be an outright show of victory for the terrorist organizations that have continuously targeted Gaza with Kassam rockets and infiltrators. Israel's retreat would be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and perhaps it is. What would happen when terrorists turn their attention to settlements in the West Bank? Will we have the fortitude to put our foot down then? You can be sure that terrorists will make that decision a very difficult one.
Let us imagine what the political climate would be after the disengagement. Will the Palestinian shahids lay down their arms and exchange suicide belts for suspenders? Or would there be a rejuvenated jihad against the now weaker infidel?
Furthermore, even if Israelis reach the negotiating table, the status quo will have become post-disengagement. Any demand from the Palestinians would have to be met by yet another concession.
Realistically, I see no possible gain coming from a unilateral disengagement. It merely changes the status quo and encourages terrorists to continue the violence and murder.
Some have cited the monetary issue as a reason for disengagement, saying it is not worth the expenditure on the army for so few people. I am baffled by this argument. A country has an obligation to protect its citizens. Since when does monetary cost become an issue? Although not perfectly parallel, imagine an example in which the United States decides to disengage from a crime-ridden area because maintaining a sufficient police presence is too costly.
What people fail to realize is that if today it's Gaza, tomorrow it's settlements in the West Bank, and if we keep conceding, one day it will be Tel Aviv. Some say statements like this are classic fear politics and right-wing propaganda. I feel that anyone who has so quickly forgotten the lessons of 1967 and 1973 is being naïve.
Israel should demand a reform in the Palestinian educational system before any negotiations take place. In the convoluted political environment in which we deal, this suggestion seems almost ridiculous. The pre-negotiation stipulations always mandated some sort of Israeli withdrawal. Almost forgotten is the notion that Israel was attacked and then emerged, amazingly, victorious. Yes, victorious. Does it constitute so much chutzpah for Israel to demand that a jihad against its existence not be indoctrinated in Palestinian children? Is it too much to ask of Palestinian youth organizations like those run by Hamas to stop glorifying suicide bombers?
Looking at the political landscape, a Palestinian state may be inevitable; but it is clear that these are not the conditions under which it should occur. It is unfair to both the Israelis and the majority of Palestinians -- who are just trying to feed their families -- to grant such viability to terrorism as a political means. It encourages no reform in the Palestinian education system, and gives no incentive for terrorists to lay down their arms. Israel is choosing to disengage from a Gaza now festering with terrorism and weapons-smuggling. These problems will only increase if it presses ahead with the plan.
Elyasaf Schwartz is a junior at Yeshiva College