Disengagement illusions

Haaretz ^ | April 20, 2004 | Nadav Shragai

[yonif]

The Supreme Being is a legitimate, indeed desired, player in the mosaic that makes up daily life in Gush Katif. The 4,016 Qassam rockets and mortars that landed in the area, causing relatively few casualties and little damage, could not defeat the residents' spirits. Nor did the al-Batr missile sow despair with its relatively large, five-kilo, warhead that landed on the Zadok family's roof in Neve Dekalim. Only destruction. In Kfar Darom, Hannah Bart, a paralyzed victim of a terror attack, gave birth to a healthy baby. Everyone is convinced it is a miracle. In Atzmona, the residents are taking loans to continue developing their thriving farms as if there's no evacuation on the horizon.

But these people are not cut off from reality. They understand politics, are well-informed about the political and military reality, and are not deceiving themselves. The real illusion they regret is the disengagement plan, which regards the destruction of their homes and their expulsions as something formative, from which something real will emerge. With much regret and anxiety, they are correct.

It was the withdrawal from Lebanon that created the Palestinian awareness that led to the second intifada, which should be known as the "Oslo War." Former Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samiya, thinks so, as do a long list of distinguished past and present senior IDF officers. The disengagement from Gush Katif will be perceived by the Palestinians as an Israeli escape, and will refill the sails of terror with wind. More densely populated areas in the south of the country will be exposed to long-range Palestinian weapons - not only the Gush Katif and western Negev, but also the area encompassing Sderot to Ashkelon. When that happens, will we reconquer Gaza?

Another terror region will open up in northern Samaria, and Israel will find it very difficult to preserve its intelligence and operational capabilities in the territories that are evacuated. Those who doubt this should take a look at recent history, the history of "Oslo," which still smashes us in the face nearly every day. The terror state that already exists in the Palestinian Authority areas will only upgrade its capabilities. And if that's not enough, then according to the disengagement plan, Israel once again agrees that in coordination with it, "the Palestinian security forces will be granted guidance, aid and training for fighting terror." If that's not an illusion, then what is?

But the mother of all these illusions is the cornerstone on which Sharon is basing his public relations strategy against the disengagement opponents. Evacuating Gush Katif, he says, will save the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. In other words, we're cutting off a branch or two to save the entire tree from dying.

The truth is the precise opposite. It won't take long, maybe weeks or perhaps months, after the evacuation (or perhaps the destruction) of one of the most successful settlement areas in the country, until the pressure on Israel to evacuate more "blocs" increases. That evacuation, as far as the Palestinians, the U.S., and certainly some leftist elements like Peace Now are concerned will grant legitimacy to the demand to evacuate more settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. For those who have forgotten, Gush Katif is also a settlement bloc. It could also be connected to Israel, just like Ariel, if the government wanted.

Even the argument that the U.S. promised to recognize, or has already recognized, the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria is a fable. Secretary of State Colin Powell hurried to clarify this weekend that President Bush's letter does not a priori determine that settlement blocs will remain under Israeli control in the future. But that clarification was unnecessary. It was self-evident from the commitment Sharon undertook to free construction in the settlements, including the large settlement blocs, which he pretends to "rescue;" to redefine, in coordination with the U.S., the new constriction line for the settlements, including the large blocs; and to evacuate dozens of outposts, some of which, meanwhile, have been turned into settlements. And the U.S. vetoed the original intention to resettle the Gush Katif residents in Judea and Samaria.

And here's another petty matter: the political graveyard, where the minister of history buries friendly statements by American presidents to Israel, is already populated by quite a few such watersheds. Bill Clinton, for example, provided Ehud Barak with exactly the same merchandise that Bush is now giving Sharon. Bush, how embarrassing, even made sure to say in his letter to Sharon that the fact that he doesn't expect Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders is practically an historical fact: "all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion," wrote Bush. The main difference between all the previous presidential declarations and the one given by Bush is that no Israeli prime minister in the past ever considered initiating a unilateral withdrawal, and certainly not during a war, just to win such a statement from the U.S.

[yonif]

Ping.

[bogdanPolska12]

Thanks Yonif for a ping info.