Posted on 05/17/2004 7:43:47 PM PDT by yonif
Were it not so reminiscent of the anti-Semitic canard about Jews ruling the world, the idea would be laughable: that 200,000 settlers – more than half of them children – dictate policy, and Israel's 6.5 million other citizens are helpless against them. Yet a surprising number of opinion leaders have made this claim since the Likud rejected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan.
"Once again, it has become clear that the settlers set Israel's agenda," declared a Haaretz editorial. The nation is in "shock," wrote columnist and historian Meron Benvenisti, over "the power of a few thousand settlers to force their will on millions of people." Added columnist Amir Oren, "With all due respect to both National Security Councils [Israeli and American], and one could also add the United Nations Security Council, the only place where decisions are made is the Yesha Council of settlements."
Nor is this idea confined to the far Left. Likud cabinet minister Tzipi Livni said after the referendum that her party had been taken over by "alien elements." And columnist Ari Shavit, a usually thoughtful centrist, penned a lengthy rant declaring that settlers would come to regret their "stranglehold on the government's neck" and "the violent act [they] perpetrated against middle-of-the-road Israelis" in the referendum because now "the majority understands that the relationship between it and the minority tyrannizing it is one of ruler and subject Because after the disengagement referendum, one thing is clear: It is either the Israelis or the settlers."
No one would deny that the settlers waged an energetic and effective campaign. On top of the standard posters and brochures, thousands of them volunteered their time to meet personally with tens of thousands of Likud members and explain their objections to disengagement. In short, they did exactly what concerned citizens in a democracy are supposed to do – they tried to persuade the public. And had disengagement supporters invested one-tenth that effort, the referendum's outcome might have been different. That they did not is hardly the settlers' fault.
But for all their efforts, the settlers did not hold a gun to anyone's head. If their campaign succeeded, the reason lies not in their magical powers of persuasion but in the disengagement plan itself.
First, it must be remembered that 925,000 people – almost every third Israeli voter – cast their ballot for Likud just a year ago, when Likud – and Sharon – ran against Labor's proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, arguing that it would endanger Israel's security by rewarding, and therefore encouraging, terrorism. It is hardly surprising that 60,000 of those people – the approximate number that voted against disengagement in the referendum – still believe what they believed last year, despite the prime minister's change of heart. And this is especially true given that Sharon never explained his U-turn. Instead, he arrogantly demanded that voters trust him without explanation.
SECOND, GEOGRAPHY played a role. While narrow majorities approved the plan in some northern and central cities, in the south – a Likud bastion – overwhelming majorities voted against: 86 percent in Netivot, for instance, and 69 percent in Sderot, Ofakim, and Ashkelon. The reason is simple. Currently, settlers in Gaza endure daily barrages of gunfire, mortar shells, rockets, and bombs, since they are the most accessible targets. But withdrawal would make the Negev the new front line, with many southern towns in easy shelling distance of northern Gaza. And while many settlers chose to live at the front and are willing to accept the consequences, Negev residents did not and are not. As Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal said, "I am not prepared to sacrifice my citizens for Sharon."
Finally, there were the details of the plan. Mina Tzemach, one of Israel's premier pollsters, repeatedly surveyed Likud members before the referendum. Afterward, she reported an interesting discovery: The more people knew about the plan, the less they liked it. And indeed, reasons for skepticism abounded.
Bret Stephens argued in this paper, for instance, that the plan was about improving security, not about improving Israel's image. But the plan itself said otherwise – twice.
"The disengagement move will obviate the claims about Israel with regard to its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip," it declared. And later: "Upon completion of the move there will be no basis for the claim that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory."
Yet the plan also stated that Israel would continue to control Gaza's airspace, seacoast, and land borders, this being necessary to prevent the export of suicide terrorists and the import of long-range weapons that could devastate southern Israel. But as long as nothing and no one can enter or leave Gaza without Israel's consent, the world is rather unlikely to declare Israel's responsibility ended.
Moreover, while many Israelis like the idea of complete separation from the Palestinians, the plan provided no such thing. It expressly promised that Palestinians from Gaza would continue to work in Israel, while Israel would continue to supply Gaza with water, electricity, gas, and fuel.
Then there was the pledge of foreign "advice, aid, and instruction" for the Palestinian security forces, even though the last few years have proven that such assistance is far more likely to be employed against Israel than against the suicide bombers. Or the decision to give the settlements' physical assets to the Palestinians without financial compensation – merely reserving "the right to ask for consideration" of their economic value under any future peace deal, even though, with the assets already handed over, Israel would have no recourse should the Palestinians refuse.
And this is without even mentioning the plan's security drawbacks, ranging from proving that terrorism pays to forfeiting on-the-spot intelligence capabilities.
Despite their impressive campaign, defeating the plan was never in the settlers' power. Only the plan itself could do that.
The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.
Ping.
They are not "settlers" but "resettlers. The occupation of Judea and Samaria must end! The Arabs must leave.
<< They are not "settlers" but "resettlers. The occupation of Judea and Samaria must end! The Arabs must leave. >>
FRom your lips to G-d's ear!
[And PM Sharon's!!]
Blessings -- Brian
But then, HaShem has only ever needed no more than a handful. Just check your Jewish history.
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~
Such a deal.
Sheik...Your Comment is so WORTH Repeating:
"They are not "settlers" but "resettlers. The occupation of Judea and Samaria must end! The Arabs must leave."
And I couldn't agree with You more!
It's way Past Time for the Arab - Islamic SQUATTERS to GO BACK From whence they came...Back to their Arab Countries and Lands!
ISRAEL should re-turn these SQUATTERS IMMEDIATELY to their ORIGINS.
There's a BIG Problem though...Their Home Countries and Their Own People...DO NOT WANT THEM BACK.
Hmmmm...I Wonder WHY???
And PING to this thread...Very Interesting!
bttt
Haven't the faintest..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.