All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

October 21, 2004

Disengagement Turns Israeli Politics Upside Down

by Jim Lobe

JERUSALEM - Israel has been gripped by disengagement fever since the opening of the winter session of Parliament, the Knesset, last week. In a few days lawmakers will have to vote on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposal to withdraw the army from the Gaza Strip and dismantle all settlements there, as well as four in the north of the West Bank.

The debate, though, is sharply domestic in contrast with the way the plan is regarded in the rest of the world, where the consequences for the peace process are the focus. In Israel, very few people still believe in a peace process in the short term. The mantra that there is no Palestinian partner in the foreseeable future has become an article of faith, even among a considerable section of moderates.

That may explain why remarks by Dov Weisglass, one of Sharon's senior advisers, that disengagement was meant to freeze the peace process and prevent indefinitely the founding of a Palestinian state, was so easily shrugged off by the main opposition Labour Party, which is to provide Sharon with parliamentary support for his plan.

Israelis are concerned primarily with scenarios such as the prospect of civil war, rabbis calling on soldiers to refuse orders, and settler leaders comparing the proposed evacuation of occupied territory to the Nazi atrocities of World War II.

Dire predictions of the security consequences of unilateral withdrawal still play a role in the right's resistance against the plan. Over the last couple of weeks, the disengagement approach seems to have sparked an increase in violence on both sides in Gaza. Militant Palestinians want to show that Israel is "retreating under fire" while the government is determined to avoid that impression, and to show its backers that withdrawal does not mean it will stop fighting the militants.

The security situation is often subsumed by purely religious and nationalistic arguments. This can be seen at its most basic in the simple slogan of the settlers: "Don't uproot Jews from their homes."

Sharon is facing increasing political pressure against the disengagement plan, even as the settlers failed last weekend to repeat their earlier more impressive popular mobilizations. A series of demonstrations were only sparsely attended. The main obstacle for Sharon was and still is his own Likud party.

A majority of its Knesset faction and most of its cabinet ministers are now demanding an unprecedented national referendum on the disengagement plan. Sharon is against it, saying it would delay the plan and dilute the power of the Knesset. He has vowed rather to go for early elections.

Sharon may well be sincere in saying he does not want unnecessary delays, but he may also be worried about the outcome of a referendum. Opinion polls show that a comfortable majority supports the pullback from Gaza but polls have not been a guarantee in the past.

Earlier this year Sharon was humiliated in a largely symbolic poll among the membership of his own party. Initially, it had seemed he was cruising toward victory, but the right and the settlers proved adept at mobilizing an anti-disengagement vote.

Sharon seems to consider the Knesset his best bet. With the support of as little as half the members of his own party, he may be able to push through the necessary legislation. Labour is likely to support him, reasoning that any withdrawal from Gaza is worth it.

But some smaller left-wing and Arab parties have actually announced they may vote against the plan because they distrust Sharon's intentions.

The statement by Weisglass plays an important part in that decision. Sharon's stated objective for as long as he has been prime minister has been to give the Palestinians no more than 40 percent of the West Bank as a "long-term interim solution." Weisglass' remarks are consistent with that vision.

One of the reasons Sharon is eager to push the disengagement plan through against the wishes of his own party is probably the position of the current U.S. administration. He seems to bet on President George Bush being reelected.

Earlier this year, in an ultimately vain attempt to bolster Sharon ahead of the poll in his Likud party, Bush changed long-standing official U.S. policy and for the first time said "reality on the ground" dictated that some settlement areas remain under Israeli control after a final peace deal with the Palestinians.

The U.S. administration may not intend the disengagement plan to lead to further delays in the peace process, but it is such assurances that may lead Sharon to think he can achieve exactly that.

The European Union has recognized that the disengagement plan may be the end rather than the beginning of a new peace process. Earlier this month its ministers of foreign affairs said disengagement could not replace the roadmap – the defunct international peace plan – and a two-state solution to the conflict.

The Palestinians, while welcoming a withdrawal, have from the beginning suspected that Sharon's plan was to give up Gaza in order to strengthen Israel's hold over the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority has said it will not consider Israel's withdrawal from Gaza an end to occupation. Under the plan, the borders, sea and airspace would still be controlled by Israel. The Oslo agreement makes Gaza and the West Bank one political unit.

Militant Palestinian groups in Gaza are also determined to sabotage the disengagement plan. They are not interested in an easing of the confrontation with Israel.

But moderate Palestinians and left-wing Israelis still support the plan not because they trust Sharon or believe in unilateral steps, but first because any withdrawal from Palestinian territory should be welcomed, and secondly because such steps may create their own dynamic unintended by anybody involved. If you start withdrawing from some occupied territories, what justification remains for holding on to the rest?

comments on this article?

  • US Jews Open to Palestinian Unity Govt

  • Bipartisan Experts Urge 'Partnership' With Russia

  • Obama Administration Insists It's Neutral in Salvador Poll

  • NGOs Hail Congressional Moves to Ease Embargo

  • Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support

  • Washington Ends Diplomatic Embargo of Syria

  • Diplomatic, Aid Spending Set to Rise Under Obama Budget

  • Many Muslims Reject Terror Tactics, Back Some Goals

  • Lugar Report Calls for New Cuba Policy

  • U.S.-Israel Storm Clouds Ahead?

  • Calls Mount for Obama to Appoint 'Truth Commission'

  • Washington's Praise of Venezuelan Vote Suggests D├ętente

  • Rightward Shift in Israeli Polls Creates New Headaches

  • US Advised to Back Somalia Reconciliation Efforts

  • Hawks Urge Boosting Military Spending

  • More Troops, More Worries,
    Less Consensus on Afghanistan

  • Report: Most Citizens Kept in Dark on Govt Spending

  • Obama Raises Hopes of
    Mideast Experts

  • Obama Picks Israel-Arab, Afghanistan-Pakistan Negotiators

  • Rights Groups Applaud Move to Halt Gitmo Trials

  • Obama Offers Internationalist Vision

  • Around the World, High Hopes for Obama

  • Liberals, Realists Set to Clash in Obama Administration

  • Obama Urged to Take Bold Steps Toward Cuba Normalization

  • Clinton Stresses 'Cooperative Engagement,' 'Smart Power'

  • Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous

  • Networks' Int'l News Coverage at Record Low in 2008

  • Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance

  • Israeli Attack May Complicate Obama's Plans

  • Report: Recognizing Hamas Could Help Peace

  • Business Groups Support Dismantling Cuba Embargo

  • Mumbai Massacre Seen as Major Blow to Regional Strategy

  • Obama Urged to Quickly Engage Iran, Syria

  • Diplomacy, Multilateralism Stressed by Obama Team

  • Obama Foreign Policy: Realists to Reign?

  • Hemispheric Group Calls for Major Changes in Americas Policy

  • Greybeards Urge Overhaul of Global Governance

  • Intelligence Analysts See Multi-Polar, Risky World By 2025

  • Obama Urged to Strengthen Ties with UN

  • Obama-Tied Think-Tank Calls for Pakistan Shift

  • Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran

  • First, Close Gitmo,
    Say Rights Groups

  • Obama's Foreign Policy:
    No Sharp Break From Bush

  • Coca Cultivation Up Despite Six Years of Plan Colombia

  • Obama to Seek Global Re-engagement, But How Much?

  • Two, Three, Many Grand Bargains?

  • Moving Towards a 'Grand Bargain' in Afghanistan

  • Top Ex-Diplomats Slam 'Militarization' of Foreign Policy

  • Bush Set to Go With a Whimper, Not a Bang

  • Pakistan 'Greatest Single Challenge' to Next President

  • Senate Passes Nuke Deal Over Escalation Fears

  • Brief Talks With Syria Spur Speculation

  • Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for AIPAC

  • Bipartisan Group Urges Deeper Diplomacy with Muslim World

  • White House Still Cautious on Georgia

  • US' Somalia Policy Likely to Bring Blowback

  • Iran Could Reap Benefits of U.S.-Russian Tensions

  • A Really Bad Couple of Weeks for Pax Americana

  • Success of Attack on Iran's Nuclear Program Doubtful

  • US Gets No Traction in the Middle East

  • Gates Strategy Stresses Unconventional Warfare

  • Air Force Think Tank Advises Against Iran Attack

  • Pakistani PM May Be Pincushion for U.S. Frustration

  • Realists Urge Bush to Drop Iran Precondition

  • McCain Knee-Capped by Maliki

  • Jim Lobe, works as Inter Press Service's correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com