 |
Dr. Aaron Lerner is co-founder of , Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
|
|
|
|
By Dr. Aaron Lerner
August 5, 2005
It remains unclear if the Jewish terrorist attack in a Druze community in Israel will be successfully exploited to put an effective end to what little debate there has been regarding the planned Israeli expulsion-retreat from Gush Katif and northern Samaria.
If it does, we may very well find that the various false assertions frequently repeated by the Sharon team will succeed in becoming accepted truths. Here are two:
"The disengagement is a step to promote peace"
The planned retreat in no way promotes peace as it is a retreat -- not part of a negotiated peace. In point of fact, the Sharon team, by retreating, is throwing away priceless negotiating "chips" -- thus creating a situation that in future negotiations Israel will have less to offer the Palestinians. Thus, rather than promoting peace the retreat may lead to a situation that Israel doesn't have enough chips left to offer to make peace with the Palestinians.
To make matters worse, turning Gaza and northern Samaria into a "freebie" has only whetted Palestinian appetites for more Israeli concessions, making it even less likely that they will accept either a workable deal or every seriously address the need to honor the security and other obligations they have ignored over the course of Oslo.
Retreat from Gaza also serves to threaten regional stability by directly involving neighboring countries in what may very well turn into a terror center whose activities leave Israel no choice but to respond. Arab involvement in post-retreat Gaza increases the possibility that necessary Israeli defense operations unintentionally lead to clashes with Arab states.
"Implementation of disengagement is a victory for Israeli democracy."
Ariel Sharon brought his Likud Party a landslide in an election where the absolute top issue was if Israel should unilaterally withdraw. Sharon's strongest TV ad was the one in which he termed rival Mitzna a "novice" for suggesting unilateral withdrawal. True, Sharon said that there would be "painful sacrifices" for peace -- and while some voters understood that "pain" meant some settlements might have to be disbanded it was clear to them that this would only be within the framework of a final status agreement -- and this only after the Palestinians honored their obligations.
If Mitzna had won then retreating would be honoring the voice of the People. But Sharon trounced him.
It is hardly a victory for Israeli democracy that the democratically elected representatives of the People approved the disengagement plan in complete and total defiance of the anti-retreat mandate their constituents gave them.
The truth may not be able to stop a program proposed for unknown reasons and approved by elected representatives who voted on the basis of personal rather than national interests. But, hopefully, recognizing the truth will make it that much easier to pick up the pieces when this reckless program blows up in our faces.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
