2008 Woodie Awards
Neville Chamberlain, 2005
Peace In Our Time Unlikely
Elyasaf Schwartz
Issue date: 8/31/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 4 next >
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today...We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries...I believe it is peace in our time."
-Neville Chamberlain, before a cheering crowd on 10 Downing Street, September 30, 1938.
While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not consider his policy in Gaza appeasement, he has unfortunately headed down the same road as the former British Prime Minister. In assessing the Disengagement, the most important security question is: How do the terrorists view the move? Like in 1938, the answer is one word: victory.
Having attended one of the more "intellectual" yeshivot in Israel, and accustomed to avoiding categorical statements, the following statement may come as a surprise: The world will look back and laugh. Yes, laugh. They'll laugh at the notion that Israeli leaders would trust Arabs with thwarting terror, and they will remember Shimon Peres' indignant demand that Israel provide over 40,000 weapons to the Palestinian Authority in 1993, "What, you expect Arafat to fight Hamas with sticks and stones?" They'll laugh that the Middle East's local Jihad-monger for over forty years stood on a podium with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and accepted a Nobel Peace Prize. And now, the capper: Israel has uprooted 8,500 of its own citizens, including synagogues and graves, because defending them was "untenable."
What surprised me this time was the number of Likud and right-wing Jews who supported the Disengagement. It is thus crucial to examine the points clearly and carefully. My disagreement with the left is so broad and overarching that it will surely be addressed during the course of the piece, but I will try to flesh out my points of contention with like-minded thinkers who nevertheless supported the Disengagement.
Right-wing proponents of the Disengagement have three main arguments: 1) The move allows for more easily defendable borders. 2) Disengagement solves the demographic problem of a Palestinian majority. 3)Removing soldiers is good for the following reasons: a) 15,000 soldiers will no longer have to risk their lives for 8,500 people. b) It will alleviate a tremendous financial burden.
-Neville Chamberlain, before a cheering crowd on 10 Downing Street, September 30, 1938.
While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not consider his policy in Gaza appeasement, he has unfortunately headed down the same road as the former British Prime Minister. In assessing the Disengagement, the most important security question is: How do the terrorists view the move? Like in 1938, the answer is one word: victory.
Having attended one of the more "intellectual" yeshivot in Israel, and accustomed to avoiding categorical statements, the following statement may come as a surprise: The world will look back and laugh. Yes, laugh. They'll laugh at the notion that Israeli leaders would trust Arabs with thwarting terror, and they will remember Shimon Peres' indignant demand that Israel provide over 40,000 weapons to the Palestinian Authority in 1993, "What, you expect Arafat to fight Hamas with sticks and stones?" They'll laugh that the Middle East's local Jihad-monger for over forty years stood on a podium with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and accepted a Nobel Peace Prize. And now, the capper: Israel has uprooted 8,500 of its own citizens, including synagogues and graves, because defending them was "untenable."
What surprised me this time was the number of Likud and right-wing Jews who supported the Disengagement. It is thus crucial to examine the points clearly and carefully. My disagreement with the left is so broad and overarching that it will surely be addressed during the course of the piece, but I will try to flesh out my points of contention with like-minded thinkers who nevertheless supported the Disengagement.
Right-wing proponents of the Disengagement have three main arguments: 1) The move allows for more easily defendable borders. 2) Disengagement solves the demographic problem of a Palestinian majority. 3)Removing soldiers is good for the following reasons: a) 15,000 soldiers will no longer have to risk their lives for 8,500 people. b) It will alleviate a tremendous financial burden.