Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza is a mixed signal at best. The return of Gaza to the Palestinian authority, prima facie, is a good development for those that long for peace worldwide. However, web spun by reality is a tad more intricate than simple arithmetic.
First on the line is public perception. Is the withdrawal really a step taken towards peace or is it due to pressure applied by the Palestinian extremists. If it is wholly attributed to peace, then it is something to be celebrated by everybody. Perhaps not by the groups that opposes the pullout but sacrifice needs to be made. If terrorist pressure is the cause, then it is something the Palestinian and Muslim extremists to celebrate.
In truth, I suspect Ariel Sharon is accounting for both factors. He himself has said, this withdrawal will increase Israel security. In context of the two factors, withdrawal improves Israel’s reputation to the world audience and more importantly, to moderate Palestinian. A pullout also reduces the possible conflicts in Gaza.
Yet, many has stressed that Gaza is a start, not the end. That comment comes after one of Ariel Sharon’s top aides in an interview with a local paper said that the pullout from Gaza is a plan to freeze the peace process and in effect, the creation of a Palestinian state. After all, the pullout is unilateral. And moreover, Gaza is minute compared to the West Bank while West Bank, in particular Jerusalem, is the ultimate goal of both sides.
And then, there are fractions in the Israeli Knesset. Though Ariel Sharon is administering the disengagement plan, he is at the wimp of the Israeli majority and the majority, or at least a very large minority does vehemently disagree with Sharon. Several high ranked officials have resigned in protest of Sharon’s policy. One of them is Benjamin Netanyahu – former prime minister and until recently, former finance minister of Israel. Many perceive that Netanyahu is set to go again Sharon for the top post. If Netanyahu once again becomes the prime minister, Gaza disengagement be the end or even undone given his opposition towards Sharon’s plan.
The motives of the disengagement supporters are also in question. As mentioned earlier, Sharon’s top aide has mentioned that this is a plan to freeze any peace talk with the Palestinian and hence, put a stop, or at least delay, the establishment of the Palestinian state. If this fraction gets what they want, the disengagement plan will prove to be ultimately detrimental to Palestinian ambition.
Already, this pullout has bolstered the position of Jewish groups that are against any pullout plan, even more when it concerns the West Bank. In fact, Israel, while is engaging in this disengagement, plans to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank despite criticism from the EU and the US. It is all too possible that this is a move to placate the Jewish right.
There are however representatives in the Knesset that are motivated towards a true peace and the coexistence of Israel along with a free Palestinian state. That cannot be denied. With respect to this group, Shimon Peres is someone to be admired of.
Finally, this disengagement has already been criticized as mere facade. Once the Gaza pullout is done, Israel still control services in Gaza – ranging from water to electricity to transportation.
But despite all the variables, perhaps the most crucial element here is the assumption of good faith. That assumption is so important that without it, nothing will work regardless of the simplicity or the complexity involved. Without trust, everything will crumble.
This applies to everybody, even those couch potatoes that live thousands of miles from the conflict. Including certain sadist and biased Malaysian bloggers that laughed whenever a Jew is slaugthered.
