THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 102, may 20, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
SHOULD ISRAEL FORSAKE GAZA? WOULD ISRAEL'S WITHDRAWAL
FROM GAZA HELP BRING ENDURING PEACE TO THE MIDDLE EAST?
By Asaf Romirowsky
FULL STORY:
On Sunday, May 2, 2004, Ariel Sharon faced what may have been his biggest challenge. His right-leaning Likud party rejected
"unilateral disengagement" from the Gaza Strip, even after the full blessing of President Bush on April 14. The majority vote of "no"
that emerged from the party referendum revived one of the most divisive scenes Israel has seen in a while. Indeed, the rejection of
disengagement may have saved Israel from the fireworks of more than 20 years ago, when Israel withdrew from a settlement in the
Sinai peninsula called "Yamit."
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historical visit to Jerusalem in 1979 was a dramatic shift in Arab-Israeli relations. As part of the
eventual Egyptian-Israeli agreement, then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin returned the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel
conquered during the 1967 Six Day War.
When Begin was elected in 1977, the Israeli settler movement saw one of their own become the head of government. For the settlers,
leaving Sinai under the Camp David agreements meant evacuating Yamit – a settlement that came to be known as the Jewish capital
of Northern Sinai. That evacuation dismayed members of the settler movement, Gush Emunim, and many of them stood strong in the
face of the Israeli army, which was sent to forcibly evacuate them.
Today, with the prospect of unilateral disengagement from Gaza, many of those same settlers who were forcibly relocated to the Gaza
Strip after the 1979 peace treaty fear that they will once again be relocated from their homes.
The question is: would it be worth it? Does the transfer of the settlements in the Gaza Strip really act as a catalyst for achieving peace
between Israel and the Palestinians?
As the defunct Oslo peace process demonstrated, far-reaching territorial concessions on the part of Israel does not necessarily bring
peace. During the last round of peace talks in 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to uproot the majority of Israeli
settlements and withdrawal from over 90% of the disputed territories, the Palestinians balked. This suggests disengagement from
disputed territories will not get to the root of the problem. Rather, before disengagement takes place, peace requires permanent
acknowledgment from Palestinians that they peacefully accept Israel's existence.
Some might say that Israel gained peace from its withdrawal from the Sinai.The cold (perhaps frigid) peace between Israel and Egypt is,
of course, even after 25 years, still far from perfect. Egypt has withdrawn its ambassador from Israel, and Mubarak refuses to visit Israel.
Trade between the two countries is minimal. In addition, Egypt still portrays Israel as she did pre-1979 – as an enemy. As professor
Shlomo Avineri of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem writes, "The Egyptian press, mainly under government control, is scathing in its
depiction not only of Israel and Zionism, but also of Jews in general, with state TV presenting vitriolic anti-Semitic programs; Egyptian
academics, artists, and sport teams refuse to visit Israel; no Israeli has ever been invited to an Egyptian university; and Egyptian
schoolbooks continue to present Israel in the same way as when the two countries were at war." [1]
Israel and Egypt are able to have peace because there is a border between the two countries and they are two territorially separate states.
Palestinians and Israelis do not have such a luxury. Despite negotiations for a two-state solution, the Palestinians ultimately seek all of
Israel as their own and every proposed border is seen by one side as an attempt to take more land from the other.
Sharon no doubt recognizes that the Palestinian Authority under Yasir Arafat is not Egypt under Anwar Sadat – or even under Hosni
Mubarak. The conflict will continue as long as Palestinians refuse to accept the idea of comprimise for a two-state solution. Thus, the
Israelis must impart the message that it would be better for Palestinians to work on finding new political leaders and working with Israel
to secure a compromise peace. For Palestinians to reach that conclusion, Israel needs a strategy that forces them to recognize that
terrorism will not bring them rewards. That means among others things a sustained war on the Palestinian terror groups that disrupts
operations, ruins their morale, and keeps their leaders (while they live) looking over their shoulders. Anything less will be a failure,
which is why unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is inherently risky.
Notes:
[1] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=
p=1006953079865
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Israeli-Arab Conflict
The Middle East & the Arabs
Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
More on Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
War & Peace in the Real World
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
May 5, 2004
The original version of the article appeared in FrontPageMagazine.Com
and
can also be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum.