 |
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 26, 2005
With disengagement just weeks away, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has insisted that "when the Israelis withdraw from Gaza, it cannot be sealed or isolated." In other words, Israel should not disengage from Gaza after Disengagement.
Now, I am not a big fan of the Disengagement process, but even I have to admit it could have one thing going for it: disengagement. However, the more we learn about the Disengagement the more it seems like the worst sucker deal in human history.
Between 1967 and 2003, Israeli policy was one of 'engagement'. Until 1993, this meant providing municipal, health and educational services to Gaza (and West Bank) residents in the hope that, since they'd never had it better, they would lead quiet and productive lives. We were wrong.
By 1993, we had become 'enlightened'. We listened to the Arabs, and decided they had a point. How can they be expected to provide health care and educate their youth when they are trying to rid themselves of a hated 'occupier' who was wickedly providing health care and educating their youth? If only we left them alone to do their thing (but still provided them with jobs and taxes), there would be peace. You can just imagine Palestinian Authority monthly meetings: "Abdul, do we have enough time and euros to provide health care and education? We don't? Bus bombings and black Mercedes? The whole monthly budget? Again?! No, no problem, just asking." We tried that but, again, we were wrong. Dead wrong.
By 2003, it became obvious that the Arabs were far more interested in slaughtering Jews than educating their youth, than building up their infrastructure, than achieving peace. In fact, there seems to be nothing that they prefer to slaughtering Jews. The only thing that would please them more than our mass suicide would be if we left our belongings neatly itemised and the keys in the ignition for when they take over our houses.
So, Ariel Sharon -- and much of Israel -- decided to give up on Gaza. Hence the Disengagement: we get on with the business of being a first-world nation with health care, a working phone service, and fast internet on our side of the fence, and they do... ah, sheesh, ah... whatever it is they do on their side of the fence (apart from slaughtering Jews). If they build an Arab Singapore in Gaza, mabrouk -- good luck to them.
I personally would love to see an iPod with "Made in Gaza" on the back -- at least you could finally get something to strap to yourself that didn't come with a detonation cord and the promise of 72 virgins. Equally, if they build a C-list third-world dictatorship where honor-killing and wife-beating are the national sports, they will at least fit in perfectly at the Arab League.
That's the beauty of Disengagement -- the only point where even the orange-shirted opponents have to shrug and say, "You know what, he has a point": it will no longer be Israel's problem. You want to beat your wife? Knock yourself out (yeah, I know). You want to 'honor kill' your daughter because she has a mind of her own? Ekhpat li lama? What do I care?
You want to run around firing into the air and blaming the West because the milk is off? You do that, baby. Hey, it's your house, and if you want to crap on the living room floor, go right ahead -- I sure as hell wouldn't. It's no longer our problem.
Now Dr Rice is telling us that she is pleased with the Disengagement, but we mustn't disengage.
Not to labor the point -- but if the US won't allow us to disengage, why are we Disengaging? If you take the Disengagement out of disengagement, what are you left with?
The State Department can take its pick -- we can either disengage and leave the Jewish communities of Gaza ("Disengagement"), or not.
If not, and Gaza is still our problem, then we must be allowed to deal with it as we see fit. Bitter experience has shown that the best way to keep the Arabs from slaughtering us requires soldiers, tanks, bases, watchtowers, checkpoints, closures and the occasional missile through a window. To help defray the cost of this giant military undertaking, we may as well have a viable (and world-leading) agricultural enterprise in the region. (I nominate the Katif area -- it's a lovely and productive piece of real estate (since the Israelis arrived) and already set up and delivering high-yield agriculture.)
It's either lock-the-door-and-throw-away-the-key disengagement or it's keeping and defending the admirable communities of Gush Katif and keeping the Arabs out of there. Condi, you can take your pick but you can't expect us to Disengage without disengaging.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
