Yes, Yes, Yes

Yesterday the Disengagement Plan Implementation Law was passed by the
Knesset by a vote of 59-40, with many Likud members voting against their own
Government. But, Sharon had a majority with the support of Labor and other
left-wing and Arab members. Now the die is cast and there is no turning
back, and there will be no referendum. Apart from the fall of the
Government due to a defeat on the budget vote, the disengagement from Gaza
will go ahead, notwithstanding the opposition of the settlers and various
right-wing groups, and with or without PA coordination.
The three most significant events in the recent history of the Middle East
have been the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians (that led to
the intifada), the US-led invasion of Iraq and the current Disengagement
Plan of PM Sharon (I exclude events such as the death of Arafat over which
we had no choice). Hands up those who supported each of these. If you did
you are at least consistent. But there are many who supported Oslo and not
disengagement, and there are many who opposed Oslo but supported the war on
Iraq. One could say that anyone who opposed Oslo but supported the war on
Iraq and now opposes disengagement (No, Yes, No), is a true right winger,
while a left winger would have supported Oslo, but opposed the war on Iraq
and supported disengagement, (Yes, No, Yes). These formulae define the
essential differences between the right and left around the world in
relation to the Middle East and Israel. The problem gets more complex when
you have people who answer "No, Yes, Yes," or "Yes, Yes, No."
This reminds me of an unlikely comparison that occurred in relation to the
Japanese in America during WWII. After being arrested and interned in
camps in California and elsewhere, those Japanese who were American citizens
were faced with a choice. They were presented with a questionnaire that
asked them if they were loyal to the US, if they wanted to retain their
American citizenship, and if they wanted to volunteer to fight in the US
forces. This split the Japanese into two main camps, those who having been
interned in US camps decided that they wanted nothing more to do with
America, and those who not only wanted to remain American, but wanted to
show their loyalty by volunteering to fight. In other words there were the
"No, No, No" and the "Yes, Yes, Yes" and some "No, Yes, No" etc. As it
turned out the Japanese battalion that was subsequently organized (in a
segregated US army) fought very bravely for the Allied cause.
I find myself in a bind, since I am a Yes, Yes, Yes (3Y), which indicates
that I am neither fully right, nor fully left. Further it indicates that I
am literally a "yes-man," in other words I go along, I support whatever
policy the US or Israeli Governments have at the time. In a way this
disappoints me in that it shows that I am not motivated by a clear ideology.
For example, Natan Sharansky is a No, Yes, No, in other words he is
ideologically right-wing and is against the disengagement plan, just as he
opposed Oslo. I supported Oslo, at least until it became embarrassing, when
Barak started begging Arafat at their last meeting at Taba, and it was clear
that Pres. Clinton hoped it would save him from being remembered as the
friend of Monica.
Now I support the disengagement plan, even though I see a lot of merit in
some of the arguments of the other side. And many other former opponents of
Oslo and supporters of the war against Iraq also support Sharon's policy,
including Daniel Pipes and other known hawks and neo-cons. They regard it as
a clever way, as I do, of taking the initiative from the Palestinians, and
giving up something not worth fighting over anyway. When we come to the
large settlements in Samaria and Judea, the southern West Bank, that is
where the real battles will be fought, either between Israel and the
Palestinians or within Israel itself if the disengagement continues that
far. Then I will change from Yes to No.