Pro & con disengagement
Last week I had the opportunity to chat with a couple of people who are strongly against Sharon's Disengagement Plan. They gave very good reasons for their opposition, namely: (i) it will be giving a victory to the terrorists, (ii) Israel is withdrawing under pressure from the rest of the world who don't give a damn about us anyway, (iii) once we have withdrawn from Gaza there will be continuing pressure to withdraw from everywhere else, (iv) Israelis who have settled in Gaza for 30 years are being "racially transferred" against their wishes, (v) withdrawing from Gaza will not stop suicide or rocket attacks on Israel, etc. I felt that they argued their case well and it was certainly impossible to persuade them otherwise.
But, there are two mistakes that I think people who oppose the Disengagement Plan make that need to be addressed. First, that there are serious issues of Israeli policy and security that are justified by the Plan, it is not merely a "withdrawal" or an "appeasement", but a carefully considered decision of the Israeli Government. According to the official Govt. Record of April 18, 2004 here are the reasons for the Disengagement Plan:
"Israel is concerned to advance and improve the current situation. Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement, based on the following considerations:
i. The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation.
ii. The plan will lead to a better security situation, at least in the long term.
iii. The assumption that, 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 cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel.
iv. The relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria (as delineated on Map) will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions.
v. The hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to break out of the cycle of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue.
vi. The process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
vii. The process of disengagement is without prejudice to the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Relevant arrangements shall continue to apply.
When there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue."
The second issue is that opponents of the Plan believe that this is somehow undemocratic, that a PM who was elected on a right-wing platform of giving security to Israelis should not embark on what they consider to be a left-wing policy. But, this is not undemocratic at all. Any leader is justified in changing his policies according to changing circumstances. Do you think that Bush should have resigned rather than invade Iraq, because it had not been part of his platform, or PM Blair, whose support for the Iraq War was very unpopular in Britain? Once elected it is perfectly democratic for a leader to follow an unpopular policy, until he is democratically replaced. However, in this case the policy of Disengagement from Gaza, is almost certainly supported by the majority of Israelis. It is a minority of former right-wing supporters of PM Sharon who are disenchanted with him. But, it is often the more right-wing politicians (such as Nixon or Begin) who can implement policies that left-wing politicians could not, but that in the end are necessary (such as recognizing Communist China or withdrawing from Sinai, respectively). The disengagement from Gaza is just one such policy.
But, there are two mistakes that I think people who oppose the Disengagement Plan make that need to be addressed. First, that there are serious issues of Israeli policy and security that are justified by the Plan, it is not merely a "withdrawal" or an "appeasement", but a carefully considered decision of the Israeli Government. According to the official Govt. Record of April 18, 2004 here are the reasons for the Disengagement Plan:
"Israel is concerned to advance and improve the current situation. Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement, based on the following considerations:
i. The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation.
ii. The plan will lead to a better security situation, at least in the long term.
iii. The assumption that, 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 cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel.
iv. The relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria (as delineated on Map) will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions.
v. The hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to break out of the cycle of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue.
vi. The process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
vii. The process of disengagement is without prejudice to the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Relevant arrangements shall continue to apply.
When there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue."
The second issue is that opponents of the Plan believe that this is somehow undemocratic, that a PM who was elected on a right-wing platform of giving security to Israelis should not embark on what they consider to be a left-wing policy. But, this is not undemocratic at all. Any leader is justified in changing his policies according to changing circumstances. Do you think that Bush should have resigned rather than invade Iraq, because it had not been part of his platform, or PM Blair, whose support for the Iraq War was very unpopular in Britain? Once elected it is perfectly democratic for a leader to follow an unpopular policy, until he is democratically replaced. However, in this case the policy of Disengagement from Gaza, is almost certainly supported by the majority of Israelis. It is a minority of former right-wing supporters of PM Sharon who are disenchanted with him. But, it is often the more right-wing politicians (such as Nixon or Begin) who can implement policies that left-wing politicians could not, but that in the end are necessary (such as recognizing Communist China or withdrawing from Sinai, respectively). The disengagement from Gaza is just one such policy.
posted by Jack Cohen at 6:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home