For Disengagement

IsraPundit is organising a webring of bloggers that are opposed to Sharon's brave disengagement plan. I won't be involved in the webring. Up to now I have skirted the issue of whether I support or oppose the transfer of 8000 Jews out of their homes, forcing them to leave their neighbourhoods, businesses, schools, friends, recreation centres, cemeteries etc.

Unhappily, I support the disengagement plan. I support the plan on tactical and not necessarily principled reasons. The principled logic tells me that Israel has every right to the land it captured in the defensive war in 1967. The territories belonged to Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967. Those two states today have reneged all claims to the land so there is no-one to give the land "back" to. Israel is giving the land to a people who have waged an all out physical and psychological war on its citizens. This despite the amazing improvement in quality of life within the territories since Israel captured the land.

At the inception of the occupation conditions in the territories were bleak. Life expectancy was low, malnutrition was high, infectious diseases and child mortality was rife, and the level of education was exceptionally low. Prior to the 67 war, almost 70% of Palestinian adults were unemployed. Efraim Karsh, in his book Arafat's war, explains how the situation improved almost immediately after the war.

The Israeli occupation allowed the Palestinians access to the larger and more advanced Israeli economy. Close to two thousand industrial plants, employing almost half of the workforce, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

During the 1970s the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest growing economy in the world.

Under Israeli rule, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000. (The average for North Africa and the Middle East is 68.) Israeli medical programs reduced the infant mortality rate of 60 per 1000 births in 67 to 15 per 1000 in 2000 (in Egypt the rate is 40, Jordan 23, and Syria 22). In addition, under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

Finally, from 67 to 87, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102%, and the number of classes by 99% (the population had grown by 28%). Prior to the occupation, not a single university existed in the territories. By 1990 there were 7 such institutions. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14% of adults over 15 compared to 69% in Morocco, 61% in Egypt, 45% in Tunisia, and 44% in Syria.

Israel has always demanded an end to terror as a prerequisite for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Terror has not ended. It has been tempered over the past year due to Sharon's defensive measures taken to combat the intifada, primarly the construction of the Israeli security barrier coupled with the targeted assassination of terrorist leaders like Sheikh Yassin and Rantisi.

All this amounts to an impressive argument against the principled support of disengagement. That said, I still support the plan, for tactical reasons. (It must be said that principled reasons do exists for an end to the occupation, however I don't consider them as strong as the reasons just explained. Checkpoints are truly an unpleasant experience for Palestinians. It doesn't seem fair for their access between Palestinian towns to be restricted, but an end to terror would bring an end to the checkpoints.)

Tactically, I view disengagement as the most pragmatic move for Israel. Oslo has taught us that Israelis and Palestinians will never be able to live happily together, and so the two sides must conduct a divorce to forever separate. I understand the approach taken by Natan Sharansky (who will be in South Africa today), who explains that Jews should only leave the territories when they have the choice to stay there in peace, living in a democratised Palestinian state where their rights would be protected just like Arab rights are protected in Israel proper. The problem with that approach is that I can't see it happening. That is why Israel needs to make the first move.

I can't envisage any final status agreement where Israel would keep settlements in Gaza, and so Sharon is only pre-empting the inevitable. In my heart of hearts I believe we have to accept some difficult losses in order to secure the continuation of the Jewish state.

It must be said...I don't believe that disengagementt will bring peace to Israel. Hamas and the other terrorist thugs will view the disengagement as a victory. They will see it as Israel withdrawing under fire, just as Hezbullah viewed Barak's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. But even so, I believe that Israel will be in a better position to protect its citizens. What's more is that after disengagement, if the Palestinians continue their violent war, they will almost certainly lose the American backing of an independent Palestinian state. For a complete explanation of why I support disengagement from Gaza read this masterful article by Norman Podhoritz: Bush, Sharon, My Daughter, and Me.

Finally, although I have no issue with the peaceful opposition to disengagement, I will view any violent protestors with absolute disdain. Also, I have not an ounce of respect for those that compare Sharon's plan to the forced transfer reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Nazi comparisons from the far right are as appalling as Nazi comparisons from the far left.

Comments

[muse]

You don't make sense. Don't try to pc, fit in. Remember you can't be a little bit pregnant. If Gush Katif is of no importance, then Tel Aviv isn't either.

[Steve]

I dont think the issue is black and white. I think it is perfectly acceptable to understand the grave reality of the situation, yet still, on tactical reasons, support, however unhappily mind you, the Sharon plan.

[Yoel Ben-Avraham]

How can I contact you? YBA

[Steve]

You can contact me via e-mail: [email protected]