To understand this complex issue some background information is essential. In June 2004 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his plan to disengage from Gaza.
This is how the office of the Prime minister described the political and security implications of his government’s decision: “The State of Israel is committed to the peace process and aspires to reach an agreed resolution of the conflict based upon the vision of US President George Bush.
The State of Israel believes that it must act to improve the current situation. The State of
Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a two-sided peace process. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of revised disengagement (hereinafter” the plan), based on the following considerations:
1) The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, the State of Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. The purpose of the plan is to lead to a better security, political, economic and demographic situation.
2) In any future permanent status arrangement, there will be no Israeli towns and villages in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas, which will be part of the State of Israel, including major Israeli population centers,
cities, towns and villages, security areas and other places of special interest to Israel.
3) The State of Israel supports the efforts of the United States, operating alongside the international community, to promote the reform process, the construction of institutions and the improvement of the economy and welfare of the Palestinian residents, in order that a new Palestinian leadership will emerge and prove itself capable of fulfilling its commitments under the Roadmap.
4) Relocation from the Gaza Strip and from an area in Northern Samaria should reduce friction with the Palestinian population. The completion of the plan will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
5) The process set forth in the plan is without prejudice to the relevant agreements between the State of Israel and the Palestinians. Relevant arrangements shall continue to apply.
6) International support for this plan is widespread and important. This support is essential in order to bring the Palestinians to implement in practice their obligations to combat terrorism and affect reforms as required by the Roadmap, thus enabling the parties to return to the path of negotiation. “
Anti-disengagement forces claim that the process that led to the government disengagement decision was undemocratic. They point out that Sharon refused a
national referendum, and that he ignored the Likud referendum that opposed the
disengagement. Likud minister Ehud Olmert rejects that, claiming that the government decision to withdraw was fair and must be obeyed.
The anti-disengagement forces press the point that the January 2003 election won by Sharon in a landslide was due to his rejection of the disengagement plan proposed by Labor candidate Amram Mitzna. They contend that 69 elected Knesset Members (of the 120 seats Knesset), came from the right-of-center parties opposed to disengagement. They charge moreover, that the October 2004 Knesset vote on disengagement in which the government won 67 to 45 (in favor of disengagement) was due to the Arab votes.
A closer look at the Sharon government declared reasons for withdrawal do not conform to the test of reason or history. The current government in partnership with the political left, claim that the expulsion of the Jewish community in Gush Katif will bring Israel closer to becoming more a democratic state and demographically Jewish. The demographic factor is a non-starter however, considering that Israel was always in an inferior demographic situation. In 1948, just prior to the War of Independence Arabs outnumbered Jews 3-1. Jews and Arabs lived in much closer proximity than they do now.
First Israeli PM David Ben Gurion was not deterred however from declaring Jewish independence and fighting Arab aggression in spite of the odds and, without Western support.
If demographic considerations are of paramount importance then Israel should also give up the Galilee where the Arabs count for over 50% of the population. And, why stop there? Judea and Samaria must also be abandoned because Arabs outnumber Jews there 10-1.
More serious yet, Arab-Israeli citizens will comprise 40% of Israel’s population in 20 years due to their much higher fertility rate. Using the Sharon government Gaza logic, Israel will need to reduce its borders even further by 2025 to accommodate an Arab majority.
Sharon’s promises made to the Judea and Samaria and Gaza Council that Gaza would be the last Israeli withdrawal, and that Israel will absorb Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria, are simply deceptive. For the record, President Bush never endorsed the idea and in fact, declared on numerous occasions that any territorial changes to the 1949
Cease-Fire agreements would have to be resolved by both parties (Palestinians and Israel). It is highly unlikely that the International community will accept Israeli annexation of Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria, and the same can certainly be said for the Arabs.
It is true that there is no partner for peace? Recent history however, bears out the fact that unilateral withdrawals especially under fire will only whet the apatite for increased, terrorism, and the continued armed struggle for the “liberation” of all of Palestine. Former Israeli Security Services chief Avi Dichter supports this view. Both Dichter and C-O-S Moshe Yaalon admitted that the Palestinians consider the unilateral disengagement a victory for terrorism or as the Palestinians put it “the armed struggle.”
Outgoing I.D.F. Chief-of-Staff Lt.General Moshe Yaalon noted that: “there is high probability of a second war of terror by Palestinians after Israel’s pullout from Gaza” and that any future Palestinian state “will be a state that will try to undermine Israel.”
Making Gush Katif “Judenrein” will strengthen Palestinian resolve to fight until all Jews are “evacuated” if not killed. In the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal, Kassem rockets and mortars will be targeting Israeli Southern Israeli cities including Ashkelon and Ashdod. Will the Israeli government then “evacuate” the Negev? Hamas fighters have already announced to the press and in Mosques that the Jews “are fleeing under fire.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will not strip Hamas of its weapons and risk a civil war. And should that happen and Israel re-enters the Gaza Strip, an international outcry will ensue. In the meantime, Israel’s much opted for foreign investment by governments, corporation and private financing will not be realized because of continued Palestinian terrorism.
Finally, Sharon’s forced expulsion of Jews from Gaza following the previous expulsion of some of same people from Yamit, who were resettled by the government in Gush Katif, will deal a deathblow for Zionist idealism and pioneering spirit.
The unilateral withdraw from Lebanon encouraged the Hezbollah’s aggression and Arafat’s Intifada. A unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will not bring peace; it will, instead, invite increased Palestinian aggression. Gush Katif may not be sacrosanct, and in
the context of a true peace with a reliable partner an Israeli pullout may be acceptable. But, to destroy the Gush Katif community, the members life’s work-their green and hot houses, their beautifully landscaped properties, their export industry, their synagogues
and cemeteries (where victims of Arab terrorism are buried, among them the Hatuel family of a pregnant mother and her four little girls), all in exchange for nothing, is not merely Sharon’s folly, it is a tragic mistake.
What then are Professor Degani’s findings regarding disengagement” Four months ago 58% sided with the government’s disengagement plan, today only 51%. As to the question of “if a referendum was held today on the disengagement how would you vote” 41% would vote for it 36% against, and 23% were not sure. According to Professor Degani many respondent who supported the withdrawal had lots of reservations about it, and the 23% that were not sure tended to be even more skeptical about the withdrawal.
Asked about the security situation following the unilateral withdrawal” 34% answered that it will be WORSE, 33% better, 15% same and 18% no opinion. On a following question, “what is the major reason for the unilateral withdrawal” 33% answered because there is no partner for peacemaking, 46% not to endanger our soldiers, and 28% as a message of peace.
In response to Yavin”s question about a conclusive assessment Degani replied: “ the anti-disengagement forces are a steady and growing while the supporters of disengagement are less firm in their convictions.”
In conclusion, Eran Sternberg, Gush Katif spokesperson, had this to say: “in the last election the people of Israel made their decision (oppose the disengagement) and it is the ballot box not the shifting polls that reflect the public will. The people of Israel declared then (at the elections) that the destiny of Netzarim (Gush Katif) is the same as Tel Aviv”s.”
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.israpundit.com/nav-commenters.gif)
said:
ISRAEL'S UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM GAZA
By: Joseph Puder. Joseph Puder is the founder and Executive Director of the Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI).
(This is an excellent review of disengagement leading to the conclusion that Israel should stay put. It contrasts with my argument Death in Gaza that Israel is better off, out. The key question is, "Will Israel be in a better position to stop the violence from outside using artillary and planes rather then from inside using intelligence and considerable manpower?")
Israel’s channel One TV presented last week a special program on the hitnatkut- the Hebrew term for withdrawal from Gaza. The program, hosted by the left-leaning Haim Yavin (produced a journalistic video that exposed the “evil” of Israeli occupation) included various segments and perspectives. One piece dealt with the Jewish residents of Gush Katif, and in another segment an Arabic speaking reporter interviewed Arab-Palestinians from Gaza about the withdrawal as well as a Hamas commander. The major thrust of the broadcast was Yavin’s interview with Professor Degani of the Israel Cartographic Institute-a institute that conducts public opinion surveys.
To understand this complex issue some background information is essential. In June 2004 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his plan to disengage from Gaza.
This is how the office of the Prime minister described the political and security implications of his government’s decision: “The State of Israel is committed to the peace process and aspires to reach an agreed resolution of the conflict based upon the vision of US President George Bush.
The State of Israel believes that it must act to improve the current situation. The State of
Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a two-sided peace process. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of revised disengagement (hereinafter” the plan), based on the following considerations:
1) The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, the State of Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. The purpose of the plan is to lead to a better security, political, economic and demographic situation.
2) In any future permanent status arrangement, there will be no Israeli towns and villages in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas, which will be part of the State of Israel, including major Israeli population centers,
cities, towns and villages, security areas and other places of special interest to Israel.
3) The State of Israel supports the efforts of the United States, operating alongside the international community, to promote the reform process, the construction of institutions and the improvement of the economy and welfare of the Palestinian residents, in order that a new Palestinian leadership will emerge and prove itself capable of fulfilling its commitments under the Roadmap.
4) Relocation from the Gaza Strip and from an area in Northern Samaria should reduce friction with the Palestinian population. The completion of the plan will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
5) The process set forth in the plan is without prejudice to the relevant agreements between the State of Israel and the Palestinians. Relevant arrangements shall continue to apply.
6) International support for this plan is widespread and important. This support is essential in order to bring the Palestinians to implement in practice their obligations to combat terrorism and affect reforms as required by the Roadmap, thus enabling the parties to return to the path of negotiation. “
Anti-disengagement forces claim that the process that led to the government disengagement decision was undemocratic. They point out that Sharon refused a
national referendum, and that he ignored the Likud referendum that opposed the
disengagement. Likud minister Ehud Olmert rejects that, claiming that the government decision to withdraw was fair and must be obeyed.
The anti-disengagement forces press the point that the January 2003 election won by Sharon in a landslide was due to his rejection of the disengagement plan proposed by Labor candidate Amram Mitzna. They contend that 69 elected Knesset Members (of the 120 seats Knesset), came from the right-of-center parties opposed to disengagement. They charge moreover, that the October 2004 Knesset vote on disengagement in which the government won 67 to 45 (in favor of disengagement) was due to the Arab votes.
A closer look at the Sharon government declared reasons for withdrawal do not conform to the test of reason or history. The current government in partnership with the political left, claim that the expulsion of the Jewish community in Gush Katif will bring Israel closer to becoming more a democratic state and demographically Jewish. The demographic factor is a non-starter however, considering that Israel was always in an inferior demographic situation. In 1948, just prior to the War of Independence Arabs outnumbered Jews 3-1. Jews and Arabs lived in much closer proximity than they do now.
First Israeli PM David Ben Gurion was not deterred however from declaring Jewish independence and fighting Arab aggression in spite of the odds and, without Western support.
If demographic considerations are of paramount importance then Israel should also give up the Galilee where the Arabs count for over 50% of the population. And, why stop there? Judea and Samaria must also be abandoned because Arabs outnumber Jews there 10-1.
More serious yet, Arab-Israeli citizens will comprise 40% of Israel’s population in 20 years due to their much higher fertility rate. Using the Sharon government Gaza logic, Israel will need to reduce its borders even further by 2025 to accommodate an Arab majority.
Sharon’s promises made to the Judea and Samaria and Gaza Council that Gaza would be the last Israeli withdrawal, and that Israel will absorb Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria, are simply deceptive. For the record, President Bush never endorsed the idea and in fact, declared on numerous occasions that any territorial changes to the 1949
Cease-Fire agreements would have to be resolved by both parties (Palestinians and Israel). It is highly unlikely that the International community will accept Israeli annexation of Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria, and the same can certainly be said for the Arabs.
It is true that there is no partner for peace? Recent history however, bears out the fact that unilateral withdrawals especially under fire will only whet the apatite for increased, terrorism, and the continued armed struggle for the “liberation” of all of Palestine. Former Israeli Security Services chief Avi Dichter supports this view. Both Dichter and C-O-S Moshe Yaalon admitted that the Palestinians consider the unilateral disengagement a victory for terrorism or as the Palestinians put it “the armed struggle.”
Outgoing I.D.F. Chief-of-Staff Lt.General Moshe Yaalon noted that: “there is high probability of a second war of terror by Palestinians after Israel’s pullout from Gaza” and that any future Palestinian state “will be a state that will try to undermine Israel.”
Making Gush Katif “Judenrein” will strengthen Palestinian resolve to fight until all Jews are “evacuated” if not killed. In the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal, Kassem rockets and mortars will be targeting Israeli Southern Israeli cities including Ashkelon and Ashdod. Will the Israeli government then “evacuate” the Negev? Hamas fighters have already announced to the press and in Mosques that the Jews “are fleeing under fire.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will not strip Hamas of its weapons and risk a civil war. And should that happen and Israel re-enters the Gaza Strip, an international outcry will ensue. In the meantime, Israel’s much opted for foreign investment by governments, corporation and private financing will not be realized because of continued Palestinian terrorism.
Finally, Sharon’s forced expulsion of Jews from Gaza following the previous expulsion of some of same people from Yamit, who were resettled by the government in Gush Katif, will deal a deathblow for Zionist idealism and pioneering spirit.
The unilateral withdraw from Lebanon encouraged the Hezbollah’s aggression and Arafat’s Intifada. A unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will not bring peace; it will, instead, invite increased Palestinian aggression. Gush Katif may not be sacrosanct, and in
the context of a true peace with a reliable partner an Israeli pullout may be acceptable. But, to destroy the Gush Katif community, the members life’s work-their green and hot houses, their beautifully landscaped properties, their export industry, their synagogues
and cemeteries (where victims of Arab terrorism are buried, among them the Hatuel family of a pregnant mother and her four little girls), all in exchange for nothing, is not merely Sharon’s folly, it is a tragic mistake.
What then are Professor Degani’s findings regarding disengagement” Four months ago 58% sided with the government’s disengagement plan, today only 51%. As to the question of “if a referendum was held today on the disengagement how would you vote” 41% would vote for it 36% against, and 23% were not sure. According to Professor Degani many respondent who supported the withdrawal had lots of reservations about it, and the 23% that were not sure tended to be even more skeptical about the withdrawal.
Asked about the security situation following the unilateral withdrawal” 34% answered that it will be WORSE, 33% better, 15% same and 18% no opinion. On a following question, “what is the major reason for the unilateral withdrawal” 33% answered because there is no partner for peacemaking, 46% not to endanger our soldiers, and 28% as a message of peace.
In response to Yavin”s question about a conclusive assessment Degani replied: “ the anti-disengagement forces are a steady and growing while the supporters of disengagement are less firm in their convictions.”
In conclusion, Eran Sternberg, Gush Katif spokesperson, had this to say: “in the last election the people of Israel made their decision (oppose the disengagement) and it is the ballot box not the shifting polls that reflect the public will. The people of Israel declared then (at the elections) that the destiny of Netzarim (Gush Katif) is the same as Tel Aviv”s.”
Posted by Ted Belman at August 3, 2005 10:48 AM