 |
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
July 14, 2005
There was a time when I railed against Ariel Sharon's euphemistically named "Disengagement Process," to evacuate Jews from Gaza in return for illusory international kudos and 'peace' with the terrorists sworn to our obliteration. I thought it was the dumbest idea at the worst possible time. It was surrendering under fire. It was proving that terrorism works. In short, I believed that the idea had no merits, and should not go ahead.
But I now admit that I was wrong. I have seen the light.
The Disengagement Process, as painful as it might be, is -- unfortunately -- necessary. It is the only way.
The 7,000 Jews of Gaza, surrounded by 1.4 million Arabs, are outnumbered almost 200 to 1. To be sure, the Jews of Gaza are pioneering heroes who have suffered much and achieved even more. They have endured armoured convoys, the constant threat and frequent realization of suicide bombings, shelling by mortars and rockets, and periodic infiltration by murderous armed terrorists. But is it really worth it? To defend their communities, it takes thousands of soldiers and millions of shekels every year. The majority of Israelis want the settlements evacuated and the burden lifted.
It therefore makes sense to evacuate Gaza, and several Samarian settlements which, owing to their isolation and difficulty to defend, must also be evacuated. By withdrawing from the Gaza settlements, Israel will be able to save lives and money.
In fact, if I were to criticise Ariel Sharon, it would be for not going far enough.
There are other settlements in similar predicaments, whose defense is too difficult and too costly. Sharon must build on the momentum of the Gaza Disengagement by withdrawing from all such unviable settlements.
We must be intellectually honest enough to follow Sharon's policy to its logical conclusion: chief among these unviable, isolated settlements is Israel.
Surrounded by 300 million Arabs, Israel's 5 million Jews are outnumbered 60 to 1. Even within the settlement (Israel), Jews constitute less than 80% of the population. If one includes the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza (i.e. mandatory Palestine and the Golan Heights), Israel's Jews are the majority by the slimmest of margins (50.1% of the population according to one survey). To defend this island of Jews in a sea of Muslim Arabs, Israel spends over $9 billion dollars per year -- almost a tenth of its Gross Domestic Product, and forces its youth to endure 18-36 months of compulsory military service. (By contrast, the United States spends only 3.3% of its GDP on defense and pays its volunteer army a decent salary.)
Using Ariel Sharon's logic, there is no difference between Israel and Gush Katif. As a Jewish democratic state, Israel is unviable. It has no future. And, as with Gaza, public opinion in the Middle East is solidly behind Sharon on this one: you can be sure there would be no orange t-shirted protestors blocking highways in Cairo or Damascus to protest the removal of Jews from Tel Aviv. It is time to make, as Ariel Sharon says, "painful concessions." Israel should disengage already, pack up and get out.
After the Gaza Disengagement, the Sharon government should enact an Israel Disengagement policy. The Jews of Israel can be relocated to more secure locations like Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Five Towns, Finchley, Golders Green, Outremont, Snowdon and the Marais.
What right-minded country would not welcome these tough, intelligent and hard-working refugees? In almost 60 years, Israelis have achieved so much. Their glorious achievements with meager resources shame their Arab neighbors. They have built the only first-world economy in the Middle East, the only democracy in the Middle East, the only liberal, Western society in the Middle East, and enjoy the best health care in the Middle East. They have defended their nation against impossible odds and mountainous difficulties. They have done so with ingenuity and creativity, sacrifice and determination. At the same time, Israeli resourcefulness and skill has contributed far above its weight in agriculture, medicine, physics, literature, computing, the defense industries and aviation.
Within a generation, as with Rhodesians, the Israeli accent would be a quaint oddity. The term "Israel" would be just a curious entry in older peoples' passports, like South Vietnam or Danzig (wow, my spell-checker doesn't even recognize Danzig -- point proven!).
While this may seem far-fetched now, it must be recalled that the evacuation of territories is not a new phenomenon. Could anyone in Koenigsberg in 1913 have believed that the city would one day be entirely Russian and over 270 miles from the nearest German territory?
Israel is at a crossroads.
We can either accept that Ariel Sharon is right about the untenable position of the Gaza settlements, and apply his logic to all settlements (including Israel), or we can decide that in spite of the difficulties, as Jews -- the indigenous inhabitants of this land -- we have a right lihyot am chofshi be'artzeinu ("to be a free nation in our own land," the words of Israel's Hatikva national anthem).
If we decide the former, then it is time to end this spectacular, yet ultimately foolish experiment. Israel, like Gush Katif, must be evacuated. We gave it a good shot, but we can see the writing on the wall.
If we decide the latter, then it is time to fight*. We must fight the Sharon government's misguided policy on Gaza, and topple the Sharon government before it is too late.
It is a very real case of fight or flight -- the very survival of Israel is at stake.
------
* In light of the Sharon government's ludicrous and undemocratic attempts to stifle all opposition -- even legitimate opposition -- to its policies, I wish to clarify what I mean by 'fight.' The Sharon government must be toppled through fresh elections or by the Likud Party deposing him internally. Physical opposition to the Disengagement, which may include non-violent and non-dangerous civil disobedience, must cease at the instant that an IDF soldier or policeman's hands touch a protester. If the choice is between Jewish civil war and the nightmare of evacuating all Jews from Israel, my choice is for the latter.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
