Rabbi Moshe Reiss
Why
the Disengagement?
Why
Did Sharon called
the ‘father’ of the settlements, decided on disengaging from Gaza.
The
political benefits are doubtful and problematic,
certainly for Sharon: leaving Gaza is likely to increase rather than
decrease
pressures on Israel to withdraw from additional territories--witness
the
international community's insistence on viewing disengagement as a
stage in the
roadmap; and, by definition, there will be no Palestinian quid pro quo
for
Israeli’s unilateral gesture. Sharon
was never a
Messianic in favor of the Greater Israel
thesis; he was a nationalist Zionist and a General interested n Israel’s
security – he still is both. Keeping the settlements in Gaza
has not added to Israel’s
security.
The
disengagement has some security gains: it
shortens and rationalizes the defensive lines, no longer requires
protecting
the Gaza settlements which have been
staggering
in terms of treasure as well as lives; 100 soldiers died protecting the
Gaza
settlers. The settlers are now out of
harms way. They
were nothing more than hostages to the Palestinian terrorists. The
‘costs’ are
balanced by projecting, in the eyes of Palestinian militants, weakness
by
withdrawing and thereby encouraging a new round of terrorism in the West Bank. The same was said of the Lebanese
disengagement, but it did not occur. The Hizbollah attacks of Northern Israel have largely stopped. There are
economic benefits, too:
disengagement is good for Israel's
economy. This is partly based on it seeming as being part of a peace
process
and is followed by tranquility--neither of which is a sure bet.
If Israel
did not disengage at some point within the next few years there will be
more
Muslims that Jews in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
According to Professor Sergio Della Pergola of the Hebrew University
given the number of non Jewish Russians and foreign workers the
population of
Jews between the river and the sea is 49.3%; other estimates are 50.3% (Haaretz, Aug. 11). The strategy of the Gaza
disengagement is to reduce
by 1.3 million fewer Palestinians under direct or indirect Israeli rule. “It will stem our slide down the slippery
slope toward the South Africanization of the conflict with the
Palestinians.
The demographic rationale overshadows all the other reasons, many of
them
doubtful, for disengagement, and justifies the move regardless of the
possible
drawbacks” (Bitterlemons July 4).
Israel cannot
remain Jewish and a democratic state ruling a significant number of
Arabs let
alone a majority of non-Jews. Either Israel opts for a two state
solution or eventually there will be a bi-national state established
with a
Jewish minority. The disengagement is a major step towards a two state
solution.
The
settlers who are primarily Messianic Zionists do
not accept that position. Neither do some members of the Palestinian
Authority.
Minster of Planning, Ghassan Khatib, has stated “that after all a
‘human being
is a human being regardless of his religion of race”. He favors a
bi-national
state.
The Israel
disengagement from Gaza
provides an opportunity and a danger. The opportunity for the
Palestinians is
the ability to rule themselves in Gaza
without Israeli interference or control. The danger lies if chaos
ensues and
terrorism into Israel
continues.
Upon
completion of the disengagement Israel
will face the question of what to do next. In view of the government's
current
political composition it is likely there will be several opposing
stances on
the subject. Those who objected to the disengagement will demand that
nothing
further be done at least until Israeli trauma is reconciled. This would
be
consistent with Dov Weinglass (senior advisor to Sharon)
statement that “The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel
to park conveniently in an
interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political
pressure.
It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the
Palestinians;” a rigorous maintenance of the status quo. Continuing he
said “The
disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is
the
bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula
so that
it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is
actually
formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary
so that
there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
Formaldehyde
is as we all know is a liquid in which dead bodies are preserved.
On
the other hand the Labor Party, the coalition
partner as well as the International community will demand the renewal
of peace
process with the Palestinians, based on the roadmap.
What
will Sharon
do? The security wall will result in 50-60,000 Jewish Israeli on the
wrong side
of the wall. Some of the extremists like in Gaza will wish to remain; but the
result
seems obvious. The wall is creating a short term border, those of the
wrong
side will soon enough realize their lives and their children’s are in
danger.
What the Gaza
disengagement proved is that the government will make decisions based
on what
the security that the majority decides.
While
polls tells us that Benjamin Netanyahu will
become the next leader of the Likud another tells us that 60-70% of the
people
backed the disengagement and 89% felt the security forces had handled
it well.
Will Sharon
try
to form a grand coalition with Peres and Labor and with Lapid and
Shinui? Too
much of the short term (six months) – primary dates in both the Likud
and
Labour parties - will be based on domestic politics. And then we have
the Palestinian
elections in January 2006.
The
State of Israel
proved that it could reverse
an error. What the disengagement proved is that the State of Israel
as hoped for by the original
Zionists can be a normal state.
To
paraphrase Elie Wiesel “Gaza
is one chapter in a book entitled
‘Peace’.”