 |
Doron Kescher , originally from Emek Hefer, is currently based in the Asia-Pacific region, working for a corporate advisory firm. A fluent English and French speaker, he has spent much of his time since September 2000 explaining the current conflict to non-Jewish work colleagues.
|
|
|
|
By Doron Kescher
January 24, 2005
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's current proposal to unilaterally withdraw (retreat) from Gaza is a cringe-worthy notion that burns into the core of most Zionists. The opposition to the proposal stems not only from the oft-quoted reasons but from a deeper, more basic conviction.
Most pundits assume that the Israeli opposition to the retreat stems from giving up land, homes and infrastructure. Others posit the notion that there is a strategic facet: that the Israeli army should not retreat under fire. Or that there is a Biblical element, that Jewish land should not be given to Arabs who in most cases are indigenous to Egypt, the Hijaz or Iraq. These are all valid points in opposition to the retreat, but they do not go to the core of the matter. After all, land, homes and infrastructure were given up in the culturally significant Sinai in 1982, when Jews were forcibly removed from their homes.
The Gaza pullout is hugely controversial because -- unlike 1982 -- Israel is receiving nothing tangible in return for the retreat from Gaza. Not even a scrap of paper.
There is no peace treaty, no promise of quiet, not even a responsible government or army to take over in Gaza. All Prime Minister Sharon is offering is the ludicrous belief that if we leave the Gazan Arabs alone (as we did in 1994) they will see the benefits of peace and turn into Norwegian-style pacifists. As September 2000 showed, this is an unfounded assumption, and the settlers justifiably object to having their lives and communities torn apart for no tangible benefit to the Nation they love.
In fact, given the experience of 1994-2000, there is every reason to believe that the Gazans will (continue to) embrace Islamic extremists committed to Israel's total destruction, and turn rockets onto anything in their reach. Post-retreat, their rocket range will include the major cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, their major industrial facilities, and the whole northern Negev region. Most 'settlers' in Gaza moved to these remote towns close to hostile populations in order to bolster the security of the State of Israel, and to cement a centuries old attachment to the Holy Land. Being uprooted for the purpose of enabling yet more murderous attacks on Jews adds insult to injury to the Gazan Jews.
Perhaps in 2 years, if new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has proved that he's a true partner for peace, and there is a watershed change in Arab Gazan society, there may be scope for considering a pullout from Gaza as part of a comprehensive conflict-ending deal. But a unilateral retreat of the type being proposed now is just plain nuts.
Sharon and his neo-leftist sheep, rather than the Jews of Gaza, should go home.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
