Questions about Unilateral Withdrawal
Tomorrow the Knesset will debate Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and part of Samaria. The Knesset vote is scheduled for Tuesday; Sharon will win that vote due to the support of Arab and leftist parties.
While I'm not sure it's appropriate for those of us outside Israel to take a strong position on either side of the issue, I think it is proper and worthwhile to ask questions challenging Sharon. Here are five such questions:
1. The settlement project was a major policy decision of all Israeli prime ministers from Eshkol through Barak. Admittedly the Labor prime ministers had more limited ambitions than the Likud leaders, but all were supporters of settlement in at least parts of the territories captured in 1967. Was this policy a mistake?
2. If the answer to the above question is (whether wholly or partially) yes, then Ariel Sharon has quite a bit of explaining to do. After all, as defense minister, housing minister and foreign minister, Sharon was the leading advocate of settlements, including, and even especially, those in Gaza.
Sharon has hinted that things look different from the perspective of prime minister. But he has never elaborated. What does he now know that he didn't know while in previous senior cabinet positions? He hasn't said, but after three decades of stridently calling for settlement throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza, doesn't he have a duty to explain his shift, to Israelis generally and to Yesha residents in particular?
3. In April, Sharon called a Likud referendum on just a couple of weeks notice. He insisted that the results be binding, with withdrawal opponents accepting the outcome if a majority voted in favor of his plan, and promised to do the same if a majority rejected the plan. Should Sharon's defeat in the Likud referendum and his refusal to accept the results be accepted as part of the political process, or should he be held to his promise to Likud members?
4. There are pros and cons to staying in Gaza and northern Samaria. The pros are mainly that the IDF will no longer have to defend the settlements and that Israel can relieve the demographic burden by disengaging from areas that are very densely populated with Arabs. On the con side, the missiles that now land in Gush Katif and Sderot will land in Ashkelon post-withdrawal, the IDF will have less freedom of action and fewer intelligence sources once it withdraws, unilateral withdrawal will embolden Palestinian terror groups, and thousands of Jews will be evicted from their homes even without a peace (or even a ceasefire) agreement.
Sharon has failed to emphasize either the pros or cons. Indeed, he has ignored substantive discussion of his plan. He announced his plans to withdraw in an interview with Yoel Marcus, a left-wing Haaretz columnist. Why have the substantive arguments been ignored by Sharon? Why hasn't he explained the basis for his plan to the people?
5. What will happen when, after withdrawal, Hamas and other terror groups attack Israel from Gaza? Will Israel reoccupy Gaza just like it reoccupied Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus and Hebron in 2002? Or will it refrain from major military action, as has been the case in southern Lebanon since the 2000 withdrawal?
posted on 10/24/2004
