Israel's daily newsmagazine
   Israel's daily newsmagazine
| home |   security |   politics |   diplomacy |   anti-semitism |   culture |   travel |   views | today's weblog  
 
Security > "Disengagement" Plan

   



 
Sign up for free!

E-mail
 
         
    Subscribe    
         










Moshe Dann , a former asst. professor of History (CUNY), is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem.
moshedan@netvision.net.il
Previous views
Oslo III: Ariel Peres, Shimon Sharon and the end of Zionism
The economics of disengagement
The immorality of the Left
The angst of apathy
Demographics and democracy

 
"Disengagement" moves ahead
By Moshe Dann   June 22, 2004


In a special meeting with foreign journalists organized by the Government Press Office on Sunday, a senior government spokesman admitted that Israel had taken a strategic decision not to try to eliminate Palestinian terrorism. Since there was no one with whom to negotiate and the status quo was not acceptable, the government had decided to withdraw unilaterally and he laid out the time table for Israel's "disengagement policy."

By the end of October, 2004, the government hopes to pass a law in the Knesset that will allow for the evacuation of all Jews from the area of the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the Shomron. During the next few weeks, before any Knesset approval, incentives will be offered to its Jewish residents in the form of "down-payments" as part of compensation offer; no specific amounts were presented. All decisions will be finalized by March, 2005 and by September 15, 2005 the Jewish communities in Gaza will be no more.

According to the spokesman, the Jews will be offered two choices: monetary payment, or relocation in agricultural communities in the Negev paid for by the government. These moves will be coordinated with the international community who will provide economic investments for the Palestinians.

No decision has been made, he said, about what to do with the nearly two dozen Jewish communities. Israel prefers to turn the buildings and infrastructure over to a "reliable third party" who will insure that it will not be used to further terrorism. The spokesman refused to say which institutions would be responsible or how Israel would maintain accountability. He did not answer if Israel would consider UNRWA as an acceptable intermediary. Nor did he explain where the money for this vast undertaking would come from in Israel's already strapped economy.

The spokesman said that Israel was relying on Egypt self-interest to stop the smuggling of weapons, something that has not been done up to now. He believes that Egypt will help to prevent a terrorist state from emerging in the wake of Israel's retreat in an effort to prevent support for Egyptian terrorists.

He would not say, however, what might happen if Egypt simply refused to cooperate and closed its border with Gaza. He admitted that if Israel remained in the tiny strip between Gaza and Egypt (the "Philadelphia corridor") it would be open to terrorist attacks. The Egyptians have repeatedly said that they would oppose any Israeli incursions into Gaza in response to terrorist attacks.

The spokesman did not speculate on what Israel might do if rocket and mortar attacks continue against Israeli towns, nor what would be the response to Palestinian terrorism. He also refused to speculate on who would be responsible for security when Israel leaves.

He said that Israel would rely on Egyptian "guarantees" that weapons would not be smuggled into Gaza but refused to suggest what Israel would and could do if this was not the case. "We hope it won't be," he said vaguely.

He agreed that the Palestinian leadership does not want peace, and during the last 80 years has always preferred terrorism and violence to negotiated settlement. This has not changed, he said. "They do not accept Israel's right to exist."

Given this assumption, the spokesman did not explain how unilateral withdrawal and removal of Jewish communities would enhance Israel's security. In fact, he admitted that Israel was taking significant risks. In doing so, he suggested, Israel was countering two excuses that Palestinians presented for not fighting terror: (1) they won't fight other Palestinians as long as Israel remains in Gaza, and (2) they won't risk a civil war among Palestinians.

The spokesman implied that if these conditions were met, some "responsible" Palestinian leaders would prevent terrorism. He did not address statements from all Palestinian leaders that terrorist organizations would be included in the future government in Gaza and would continue to be funded through the Palestinian Authority.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.


 Talk Back! Respond to this view



Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.

 
  | about |   partners |   sponsor |   donate |   news |   subscribe |   contact |