2008 Woodie Awards
Israeli Disengagement
A Flaw Corrected
Michael Brenner
Issue date: 4/18/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 4 next >
I had the opportunity to read a very impassioned and heartfelt article concerning the Israeli disengagement plan in the March 29, 2005 issue of The Commentator. The author made an impressive case for a modified disengagement from Gaza. However, I would like to address several flaws in his particular plan. The following are common to many arguments which have been published by students as well as scholars. I come not to argue pro or con, but to explain away six unwarranted assumptions or nuances which might have been overlooked. They are:
* The nature of our current war.
* Demographic engulfment.
* Political situation.
* Conquest of territory.
* Guerilla warfare through the ages.
* Agreement on principles and past weakness.
Israel's current war against the Palestinians, I posit, has a unique nature that was not applicable to Israel's previous wars. From 1948-1982, Israel was in a constant state of war to legitimize itself as a state and to perpetuate its survival. However, at present, Israel is no longer in a state of "clear and present danger." The various splinter groups of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. do not have the conventional forces needed to significantly threaten Israel's integrity or its future existence. I in no way condone the terrorism of the Palestinian militants, nor am I belittling the memory of those that have perished since the farce "Jerusalem Intifada" was started by Yassir Arafat in 2000. I also agree that the current Intifada is in some small way hurting Israeli society, but this is also not substantial enough damage to warrant comparing the current situation to the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s. Israel will be around for many years into the future, no matter how many suicide bombers the Palestinians try to deploy or the continued denouncement of Israel by the European Union. If Moshe Segal was alive today, he would agree that survival of the Jewish people would not be best suited by a "hagava" approach.
* The nature of our current war.
* Demographic engulfment.
* Political situation.
* Conquest of territory.
* Guerilla warfare through the ages.
* Agreement on principles and past weakness.
Israel's current war against the Palestinians, I posit, has a unique nature that was not applicable to Israel's previous wars. From 1948-1982, Israel was in a constant state of war to legitimize itself as a state and to perpetuate its survival. However, at present, Israel is no longer in a state of "clear and present danger." The various splinter groups of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. do not have the conventional forces needed to significantly threaten Israel's integrity or its future existence. I in no way condone the terrorism of the Palestinian militants, nor am I belittling the memory of those that have perished since the farce "Jerusalem Intifada" was started by Yassir Arafat in 2000. I also agree that the current Intifada is in some small way hurting Israeli society, but this is also not substantial enough damage to warrant comparing the current situation to the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s. Israel will be around for many years into the future, no matter how many suicide bombers the Palestinians try to deploy or the continued denouncement of Israel by the European Union. If Moshe Segal was alive today, he would agree that survival of the Jewish people would not be best suited by a "hagava" approach.