In long run, Gaza disengagement will hurt peace

MICHAEL J. MAKOUL

Transcribed from the clipping

An Aug. 16 op-ed piece proclaimed Israel's “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip as “a grand gesture” and “historical opportunity” for the Palestinians. However, a careful examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding disengagement paint a much different picture. The biggest threat that the Palestinians present to Israel's security is a demographic one.

By the end of the decade, some believe that Palestinians living between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea will outnumber the Jews. In order to maintain a democratic and Jewish state, Israel needs definable boundaries that include the smallest number of Palestinians.

By not taking action on establishing these boundaries, Israel risks apartheid status (a la South Africa), or losing its Jewish character if Palestinians fight for equal rights and citizenship. Given these facts, the withdrawal from Gaza, where 8,500 Israelis lived among 1.3 million Palestinians, was clearly a necessary one for the future of Israel.

While the architect of disengagement, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, has been praised as “bold and courageous,” he has likely sounded a death knell for the dream of a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with Israel.

Instead of coordinating the withdrawal from Gaza with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Sharon insisted that disengagement be a unilateral action, and that a return to the negotiating table will only occur after Abbas disarms Hamas and other armed militias.

By taking this unilateral action, Sharon has managed to strengthen Hamas, which is taking credit for “driving the enemy out of Gaza.” Now, it will be virtually impossible for Abbas to disarm Hamas without causing anarchy and civil war in the Palestinian street.

It appears that Sharon, who knew how this was going to play out, devised the disengagement plan as a way to kill “The Road Map” for good.

Before launching the disengagement plan, Sharon, in a quid pro quo, received a letter from President Bush that supported Israel's intent to annex large “Jewish population centers” in the West Bank (where the majority of Israel's estimated 280,000 settlers live) as part of any future peace deal with the Palestinians.

In direct violation of the Road Map, Israel has increased the build-up of settlements in the West Bank, especially around Arab East Jerusalem, where it is expected that Palestinians living in the Old City will soon be cut off completely from the West Bank.

In recent interviews, Sharon has confirmed that the status of Jerusalem is not subject to negotiation and that settlement blocs in the West Bank will forever be a part of Israel. If disengagement is played out according to Sharon's plan, the Palestinian hopes of living in a viable, contiguous state with East Jerusalem as its capital have been dashed.

With recent news footage from Gaza displaying traumatic scenes of Israeli soldiers dragging women and children from their homes and synagogues, some will say that I am being unfair to Sharon, or too pessimistic.

However, it must be pointed out that much of the resistance to the Gaza withdrawal was not actually carried out by the settlers, but by extremists who entered Gaza from Israel to protest the withdrawal and win sympathy from around the world.

It must also be pointed out that the occupation of Gaza (like the West Bank and Golan Heights) is in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions and the settlements are illegal under international law.

Further, the dismantling of settlements and withdrawal from Gaza does not officially end Israel's occupation of Gaza since Israel has not yet agreed to give up control of Gaza's border crossing, air space, and sea ports.

Without freedom of movement in and out of Gaza, there is little hope that the quality of life for Palestinians living in Gaza will be significantly improved, or that Palestinian violence towards Israel will abate. While disengagement from Gaza might be viewed as a necessary step for Israel, it is by no means a “grand gesture” toward the Palestinians.

From the Palestinian perspective, withdrawal from Gaza without freedom of movement and a larger withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem is virtually meaningless. Not only does disengagement do little to help the Palestinians in the short term, but it simultaneously hurts chances for a genuine peace in the long term.

Context added by this archive

A reader's op-ed, answering an op-ed the paper had run on 16 August. The tagline reads: Michael J. Makoul of Upper Macungie Township is a certified public accountant and a certified fraud examiner.

Cite this item

"In long run, Gaza disengagement will hurt peace," The Morning Call, 24 August 2005. Covering Palestine archive, CP-2005-009. https://coveringpalestine.org/archive/cp-2005-009