I’ve been asked by a few how things are here in Israel with the disengagement starting up. Another asked for “my take” on it. The first question is easy: I have to make reminders for myself to go watch the news to learn about it each day. I drove into Jerusalem this morning and I saw no signs that life was not as normal there. At Yad HaShmonah tonight there is a wedding (some of you know Rinat), and that won’t be affected. I’ve read in the news that there are roadblocks in the southern part of the country to prevent protesters from reaching Gush Katif, but there is no sign of that around Jerusalem. In other words, I wouldn’t know if you didn’t tell me.
Neve Dekalim city plaza
Regarding disengagement, I never presume to tell Israelis what I think, nor do I wear ribbons, put on bumper stickers, or go to marches. Though we’ve lived here ten years, we are not citizens and recognize that this significantly affects how one views it all. But I don’t mind commenting to my American students, who are the primary readers of this blog. My thoughts are somewhat conflicted, and it might be best to just make some simple statements that I believe to be true.
1. I believe that Ariel Sharon is the best one in this country to make this decision. He understands the issues from both sides. He also can get a majority to agree with him on this decision.
2. I don’t think that Gush Katif (see my visit in April) is an integral part of modern Israel. That is, I don’t think the land there is necessary for the Israeli population or economy. Corollary to that, I’ve been asked how this ties in to the biblical promise of the land to Abraham. While I do believe that that promise was unconditional, I do not believe that at any point in time Israel can demand the enjoyment of that promise. It’s clear in biblical history that God would take away parts (or all) of the land because of disobedience. I don’t think Israel can claim a right to that land over other peoples right now because of that promise. I do believe that God will give Israel that land (and much more) in the future.
Home in Gan Or
3. The Palestinians are claiming that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is a retreat because of the terrorism of the last five years. They are right. Why didn’t Israel withdraw in 1999? Because the pressure was not on. After years of suicide bombers and missile attacks, Israel wants to reduce that and thinks that this is one way.
4. To the Muslim, a retreat is a sign of weakness and is to be followed by more pressure to force more retreats. This withdrawal is the first, not the last.
5. Sharon is implementing a “final peace” unilaterally. He has seen that 38 years (since ’67) have resulted in no progress with the Palestinians, and he intends to bring about a compromise, even if the other party is unwilling to talk. He is doing this by separating Palestinians from Jews, by 1) withdrawing from Gaza; 2) building the partition wall in the West Bank. The Palestinians are screaming to the world that this is what is going on; the Israelis are denying it. The Palestinians are right.
Synagogue in Gadid
6. Such a unilateral, non-negotiated settlement might in fact be the only way to have anything. The demands of the Palestinians simply are impossible for Israel to meet. Arafat’s rejection of Barak’s offer in 2000 was one example of that. Thus, if you’re going to live in a non-negotiated state (as with the last 38 years), Israel has decided that it can be a better non-negoiated state than what they currently have. And what they are bringing about, with time, will become a de facto “solution.”
7. I suspect that Israel will agree, in future talks, to change parts of the wall line, but a relatively small section. Thus they will get most of what they want, and losing a little is to be expected. By “what they want,” I am referring to the majority of Israelis who live on the coastal plain between Ashdod and Haifa and don’t give a rip about the Israeli communities in the West Bank but simply want to be able to go to the mall without being blown up.
Synagogue in Gadid
8. Israel has negotiated two peace treaties with Arab peoples: Egypt (’78) and Jordan (’94). Both of those were fundamentally different than the current process with the Palestinians. In those treaties, Israel came from a position of strength. With the Israelis, both now and in the Oslo agreement of 1993, they are looking for security after devastating terror wars. It didn’t work in 1993; I’m not optimistic that it will work this time.
One of the sensible voices in the Arab-Israel conflict is Daniel Pipes. His latest words on the withdrawal are here.