 |
David Dreilinger and IPF Staff is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization with a singular purpose: to support active and sustained American efforts aimed at resolving the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
|
|
|
|
By David Dreilinger and IPF Staff
May 27, 2005
Some people are worried. They point out that public support in Israel for the disengagement plan plummeted to 56% in April. They also cite the increasing levels of violence and terrorism in the Gaza Strip, including the most recent Hamas-initiated barrage of mortars on Israeli settlements and the renewed firing of Kassam rockets at Sderot, an Israeli city within the Green Line. At the same time, Right-wing opponents to the disengagement plan are becoming more desperate, and chatter about Jewish terrorism against Palestinians or a Muslim holy site, is increasingly prevalent.
Making matters worse, Israel appears logistically unready for the withdrawal from Gaza. The government bureaucracy is moving so slowly in setting up homes for the setters about to be evacuated that Prime Minister Sharon felt the need to visit a construction site last week to exhort the various government agencies to expedite their work.
But that is only half the problem: only a fraction of the Gaza settlers have applied to the Disengagement Administration for compensation and help with relocation, making the government's task substantially more difficult. As Sever Plotzker wrote pessimistically in Yediot Ahronoth, "eighteen months after the [disengagement plan] was raised and three months before its implementation, nothing, on the civilian level, is ready". Only the IDF is prepared."
On the Palestinian side, it appears that the fragile ceasefire is in danger of disintegrating, while its architect, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, seems to be steadily losing influence. Palestinians thought the replacement of Arafat by Abbas, and Abbas' rejection of terror, would lead both the United States and Israel to be more forthcoming with support.
That has not yet happened and Abbas is paying the price. In fact, Hamas appears poised to gain control of the levers of power in the Gaza Strip and perhaps even the Palestinian Legislative Council in upcoming elections. Some Israelis have already started discussing a potential "third intifada," led by a politically and militarily empowered Hamas, which could follow on the heels of the Gaza withdrawal.
As a result, both sides are talking about delays. Fearing a sweeping Hamas victory, the PA wants to postpone the legislative elections until Fatah candidates have a better chance of winning. In Israel, some security officials have reportedly advised suspending the disengagement plan until arrangements for settlers are made and the PA is able to take security control over the Gaza Strip. Not surprisingly, the plan's Right-wing opponents have seized on this recommendation, hoping that an indefinite delay of the plan could lead to its cancellation.
According to a report in Maariv, Sharon preempted any questions about a delay in the disengagement plan in a discussion with reporters, saying: "I want to make it clear: Disengagement will be carried out precisely at the date that was set and in accordance with the plan and timetable decided upon, on August 16 or 17."
The United States is doing its part to meet that deadline as well. President Abbas is in the US this week for meetings with President Bush -- the first meeting between Palestinian and American heads of state in the White House in five years -- where Bush is expected to support Abbas in his political war against Hamas.
Although Abbas has not forcibly dismantled the terrorist organizations, he has taken important steps towards consolidating the PA security forces and eliminating corruption in their ranks. General William Ward, appointed by President Bush in February to oversee the reform of the Palestinian security services, acknowledged last week that much work remained to be done, but that "the Palestinian Authority has taken essential steps to... restructure its forces."
Gaza withdrawal will happen, not just because most Israelis want it to (and a democratically elected government approved it), but also because the United States sees it as a first step toward reactivating the Roadmap and achieving President Bush's vision of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security." In short, neither the US -- nor Prime Minister Sharon -- will let the plan disappear, despite the opposition and the logistical obstacles. Sharon made that clear in his speeches throughout the week.
Still, despite the Bush-Abbas meeting and Sharon's determination to withdraw settlements and troops from Gaza and a small part of the West Bank, Israeli and American policymakers recognize that the disengagement is not going to be executed under optimal circumstances. But they also remember that the absence of optimal conditions is the reason the plan was developed in the first place.
Sharon conceived of the plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip in late 2003 because he felt that with Yasser Arafat leading the PA, he did not have a serious partner for negotiations. In the speech in which Sharon introduced the disengagement plan, he declared his refusal to wait "indefinitely" for the Palestinians to reorganize their political system. For Sharon, unilateral withdrawal was a way to get around the political and military impasse.
By almost all measures the situation today is better than it was in 2003. Mahmoud Abbas, despite his limitations, is truly dedicated to the peace process and a two-state solution. There is no reason to think that because Abbas may have more work to do in establishing control over the West Bank and Gaza, the disengagement plan should be halted or delayed. A coordinated withdrawal with a responsible PA would certainly be preferable to a purely unilateral exit from the Gaza Strip because the PA would be able to provide stability and control violence in Gaza after the pullout. But, as Sharon is quick to point out, the viability of a Palestinian partner cannot determine Israel's defense strategy. Disengagement is good for Israel, whether the PA takes over the evacuated greenhouses or not.
Sharon and Bush know that. The disengagement plan is as important for Israel today as it was two years ago. The evacuation of settlements will not be easy. But neither was the withdrawal of troops from Lebanon in 2000. Israelis want no repeat of the appearance of a withdrawal under fire but with five years of relative quiet on the northern border, and the end of the almost daily loss of life there, few, if any, Israelis regret that they are out of Lebanon, no matter how clumsy the withdrawal was. A few years from now, they are likely to feel the same way about Gaza.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
