Israel’s Gaza Withdrawal

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, while it had been in the works for quite a while prior to the actual withdrawal was not a popular move with many supporters of Israel particularly from the right. Some detractors say that Sharon’s decision went directly against his earlier election promises and will do nothing but hand a huge victory to terrorism. These are serious considerations indeed but Sharon did not turn into a dove over night and began destroying his beloved homeland. The Gaza withdrawal is a calculated move that in the long run will further strengthen Israel by forcing the Palestinian Authority and neighbouring Arab countries to deal with militants on their own, allowing Israel to deal with other matters and further pursue prosperity.
In announcing the "Disengagement Plan" in December 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the withdrawal was to increase security of residents of Israel, relieve pressure on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, claims that the withdrawal is the result of violent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation.
Starting Aug. 15, tens of thousands of Israeli troops oversaw the evacuation of the settlers from 21 different communities in Gaza and four smaller settlements in the West Bank. They assisted settlers with moving their belongings as well. Some Palestinian security forces also participated. On Aug. 17, settlers who did not voluntarily leave were forcibly removed and chose the option of possibly losing personal property, as per the warnings of the IDF commanders. Israeli soldiers then demolished settlers' homes.

Many, but not all, Jewish residents of Gaza believe that the land is part of what they call "Eretz Yisrael" -- Greater Israel -- and thus biblically ordained for Jews. Other Israelis believe that withdrawal will not make Israel more secure from Palestinian attack. Some settlers, backed by supporters from outside Gaza, said they would not leave voluntarily on Aug. 15, which led to violent clashes between the IDF and Israeli citizens. Public opinion polls show that around 60 percent of Israelis and virtually all Palestinians supported the withdrawal.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) will administer Gaza while Israel will continue to control its borders, coastline and airspace. The biggest change for Palestinians will be that the tight travel restrictions that Israel has imposed within the territory will be lifted. The Palestinians hope to build apartment buildings on the site of the demolished Israeli homes.

The Israeli government expects the withdrawal will reduce Palestinian attacks on Jewish citizens. The Israeli Foreign Ministry says that the withdrawal shows that Israel is willing to make significant concessions for peace. The PA, while welcoming the dismantling of the settlements, says that the withdrawal is a unilateral move designed to consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank where the majority of Palestinians live.

One argument used is that because this was a unilateral withdrawal and Israel was not pressured into it from the United States and the international community that it makes it that much worse. Sharon was not responding to international pressure. The unilateral evacuation of Gaza surprised and displeased the United States and the European countries. Which would have preferred much more to see Sharon to negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas. They wanted the deal to involve all the Palestinian territories, not just Gaza. And they wanted the whole thing to happen very slowly. To some the fact that it wasn’t supported (or created) by Washington is a bad thing. The fact is however that for years Israel has been the whipping boy of American Middle East foreign policy, with American presidents like Bill Clinton using land for peace deals and the likes to try to advance his own legacy. With the history of Israel being pressured into peace deals with the Palestinians in efforts that were not beneficial to them but rather to other countries, Sharon taking the initiative to use Israel’s sovereignty is a big deal. It asserted that Israel can stand on its own and is not always forced into these plans. A unilateral withdrawal insured that it would take place on their own terms and not be the result of an ego of an international leader.
Possibly the most important point made by those not in favor of the withdrawal is that giving up land in return for nothing gives a victory to the many extremist groups operating to destroy Israel. The argument is made that an Israeli retreat while under fire from terrorist group’s sends a message that terrorism works. The Israeli departure from Lebanon five years earlier provoked new violence, and so too will fleeing Gaza. The Palestinians may see it as the Israelis surrendering land out of fear of their terrorist attacks. Indeed, Palestinian leaders have already broadcast their intent to deploy Gaza-like aggression to pry the West Bank and Jerusalem from Israeli control. Should that campaign succeed, Haifa and Tel Aviv are next, after which Israel itself disappears. During the withdrawal period in August Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian Prime Minister, wore a T-shirt saying: "Today Gaza. Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem."

Daniel Pipes an authoritative commentator on the Middle East, and fervent supporter of Israel goes as far as to say “Israel's mistakes are not unique for a democracy – French appeasement of Germany in the 1930s or American incrementalism in Vietnam comes to mind – but none other jeopardized the very existence of a people.”

This defeatist attitude it not a healthy one, and it gives the Palestinian Authority as well as the leaders of the militant groups too much credit. The disengagement plan was not simply Sharon becoming afraid of the terrorist attacks; Israel had little enthusiasm for occupying this hellhole in the first place, but acquired it through the exigencies of the Six Day War. Sure many terrorists will claim this as a victory, some already have. But to compare this move to leaving Lebanon simply isn’t fair.

The situation is not the same as 2000 when Ehud Barak pulled out from Lebanon at a time when the Israeli government was desperately seeking a deal with Yasser Arafat with the strong coercion of the Clinton administration. Sharon has always been a fighter who has dealt punishing blows to the intifada and other Palestinian movements long before he was had even became Prime Minister. Who can doubt that he will not again if necessary? Or that the disengagement will not be just that. There are many other ways to show strength than to go on wasting resources on relatively useless settlements for no real reason.

Israel's right wing and religious parties are most opposed to the withdrawal. Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a member of Sharon's Likud Party, resigned in early August in protest, the highest-ranking Israeli official to do so. He said that withdrawal does not require reciprocal concessions by the Palestinians. While Netanyahu’s decision to resign from his post may have had ulterior motives, fellow opponent to the withdrawal Natan Sharansky resigned way back in May. Netanyahu ins tead of merely resigning in protest may have been using his timing to gain more success in a Likud party leadership race in the future. Despite this both men oppose Sharon on this matter, and may have fallen guilty of looking at it from a current perspective and not looking at the big picture.

For years Israel has been pushed into giving concessions to the Palestinians, it would be very easy to be cynical and say this is just another example a unilateral withdrawal that will only allow groups like Hamas a more permanent base under protection from the PA. However the withdrawal will be the true test on just how serious Abbas is about achieving peace or merely just another terrorist like Arafat. To many Sharon is seen as a cold-blooded war criminal, which simply is not true. If the withdrawal does only lead to more terrorism against Israel we will all know that every peace process or 'road map' simply is not workable and Sharon did just about everything he could to attain peace. If the withdrawal does end up being a complete failure one can only hope that Netanyahu or another anti-withdrawal Likud member is elected and a huge anti terror initiative is put in place. Any hopes of a Labour government being formed should be dashed, and it will be shown that a dove can simply not keep Israelis safe.

Anyone who isn’t being completely idealistic does not expect a decent democratic state to emerge in Palestine. “The almost universal consensus among experts on the region is that post-occupation Gaza will become a Mediterranean Somalia: an unstable failed state in which gangs compete for power and extremist Islam finds a sanctuary.” Failed experiences in the 1990’s to attain peace have showcased the corruption of the Palestinian leadership, and the only other viable option of any other kind of leadership comes from extremist terrorist groups, which publicly wish for Israel’s extinction. The plight of the Palestinians has brought much of the world community to realize how many fervors it has whipped up among the Muslim community, with this knowledge the world community has decided that an independent Palestinian state may quell the extremism among Muslims throughout the world. Although a Palestinian state will certainly become a center to wage war on Israel and export terrorism throughout the world.

Washington and Europe have in essence been pushing for a Palestinian state because they thought it would never really happen, Sharon called their bluff. Not only does the United States and Europe not want a militant Palestinian State, countries like Egypt don’t want it either. The Egyptians would rather have the Israeli Defense Force look after troubles on their borders than have to do it themselves. In fact Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz announced that 750 Egyptian soldiers would soon arrive to replace the Israeli Defense Forces after the IDF had left. Considering Egypt’s past problems with Islamic extremism it would have to worry them to have such a hotbed for terrorism right on their border. Other Arab countries such as Jordan would too have to be concerned considering their own relative friendliness to the west and the very recent bombings in Amman by Muslim extremists.

Through the Gaza withdrawal Sharon is forcing Arab countries and Western governments to acknowledge the Palestinian leadership is incapable of creating a state that can live at peace with anyone, not Israel, not the other Arab states, not Europe, not the world. Somebody else must govern the restless and violent Arab-majority territories west of the Jordan River. Israel has suffered four decades of condemnation for doing the job. Sharon is now resigning the task to anybody else who would like to step in and take over the job. Nobody wants to. But Egypt and Jordan may soon realize that they have no choice.

While certainly this looks like a pessimistic view of the Palestinians, history has shown it to be very true. Although with the death of Yasser Arafat most world leaders do see it as an opening for peaceful leadership within the PA. It may be possible the Palestinian leadership may have learned to create their own state they will need to focus on free elections corruption free governing that will only come as a result of nonviolent cooperation with a respect for Arab and Jewish life. If Palestinians were to quit strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in public places it would give the Israelis more motive to withdraw from occupied territories, and let the Palestinians focus their energies on building a new democratic society. Of course even if the secular Palestinian leadership will focus on such a thing they will still have to battle with the Islamic extremists who seek only to destroy Israel and to whom peaceful coexistence is not a possibility. A democratic Palestinian state will definitely not spring up over night and the only way it could ever come about is through Palestinian leadership tackling the extremist problem head on by themselves and not by the coercion of other governments. This truly will be the test for years to come, unless attacks on Israel never cease to which Israel may unleash a horrifying offensive against them. Or we will see a bloody civil war fought between the moderates and the extremists a battle in which there will really be no winner.

Another positive that may have sprung up as a fringe benefit of the withdrawal, though doubtful it would have been a major factor in the decision, is better relations with Arab countries, which traditionally hate Israel. A month after the Gaza withdrawal had taken place Pervez Musharraf the president of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan who had taken a hard-line stance against the Jewish state spoke at a Jewish is dinner in New York City. Where he sat alongside leaders of the American Jewish community and Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, and ate a kosher dinner beneath a blue-and-white banner reading 'Council for World Jewry.'
At a UN summit in September Qatar, Pakistan and Indonesia all held high-level public meetings with Israel. Musharraf even shook hands with Sharon. Qatar encouraged the withdrawal as a move towards peacemaking and concluded that Israel is not going to be destroyed. The UN general assembly gave Sharon a courteous applause upon concluding his speech in which he proclaimed "Now it is the Palestinians' turn to prove their desire for peace…the most important test the Palestinian leaders will face is in fulfilling their commitment to putting an end to terror and its infrastructures, eliminate the anarchic regime of armed gangs and cease the incitement and indoctrination of hatred toward Israel and the Jews." Although Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser Al-Kidwa could be seen sitting with his arms folded over his chest. Also in September Bahrain announced to the United States that it would be rescinding its economic boycott of Israel, other Gulf nations Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman while not officially normalizing relations with Israel have relieved some of their animosity held against with the country.

There are many dimensions to the decision to disengage from the Gaza strip, to look at the situation merely as a unilateral decision to give up a piece of land without gaining anything in return is far too simplistic. Could anyone realistically think that the so-called “godfather” of Israeli settlements Ariel Sharon could just be handing land over to people that have wanted him dead for decades? He may be getting older but the man is still very much full of fight. It’s understandable for the settlers that have been evicted from their homes to be displeased with the decision but in the big picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it’s rather miniscule. As a result of the withdrawal Israel will be able to spend more effort on increasing security for other more important territories, and force their enemies to squabble with each other. The short term benefits such as warmer relations with traditional enemies and gaining more respect within the international community which for the most part have labeled the country as a pariah have been attained quickly while the long term benefits will continue to surface in years to come.