Wow That Totally Misses The Point
Today's bombing underscores need to discuss the Gaza withdrawal in the context of what it will do to Israel's deterrent - so it's fortunate that the Jerusalem Post has provided an editorial demonstrating precisely how not to have the discussion:
Let's be honest, though. Despite all that, there's no way to prevent the Palestinians from viewing the disengagement as a victory. You can just bet this summer we'll be seeing plenty of news reports of Palestinians gleefully celebrating as they stream through the gates of the abandoned Gaza settlements.
But that by itself won't mean leaving Gaza is the wrong decision. Hizbullah fighters also preened for the cameras five years ago with abandoned Israeli equipment in the Lebanon security zone. Pessimists predicted then that the Iranian-backed Islamic militia, emboldened by its "success," would continue to fire missiles and commit even more terrorist incursions across the border. It hasn't happened...
But the Lebanon withdrawal now appears to have set in motion deeper political currents that bode ill for all of the country's extremist elements, and their Syrian and Iranian backers, while holding the promise of a better future for both the majority of Lebanese and their neighbors to the south.
Let's ignore for a moment that the only reason Syria overreached is not because of Israel's withdrawal but because of the invasion of Iraq. But even ignoring the classic post hoc fallacy, this so-called contribution breath-takingly misses the point of the deterrence debate. It's not so much that the withdrawal strengthened Hizbullah - although it did, and they now have literally tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers, ready for an all-out war and disruption of Israel's back lines. Rather, the withdrawal made Israel look weak to other enemies. It is now overwhelmingly conceded that Arafat thought that he could achieve more by violence than by negotiations precisely because the way Israel withdrew from Lebanon made it look weak.
But I still think that disengagement is a demographic necessity. The problem then is how to minimize the deterrence hit that Israel will take. An easy step would be to totally demolish the settlements. This would deny Al Jezeera the ability to beam pictures of "conquered Jewish property" across the Muslim world. Israel took an enormous diplomatic hit (and an almost full break with the US under the Bush I administration - thank you Jim Baker) to build them up. There's no reason they should now take an enormous military hit by not breaking them down.
Let's be honest, though. Despite all that, there's no way to prevent the Palestinians from viewing the disengagement as a victory. You can just bet this summer we'll be seeing plenty of news reports of Palestinians gleefully celebrating as they stream through the gates of the abandoned Gaza settlements.
But that by itself won't mean leaving Gaza is the wrong decision. Hizbullah fighters also preened for the cameras five years ago with abandoned Israeli equipment in the Lebanon security zone. Pessimists predicted then that the Iranian-backed Islamic militia, emboldened by its "success," would continue to fire missiles and commit even more terrorist incursions across the border. It hasn't happened...
But the Lebanon withdrawal now appears to have set in motion deeper political currents that bode ill for all of the country's extremist elements, and their Syrian and Iranian backers, while holding the promise of a better future for both the majority of Lebanese and their neighbors to the south.
Let's ignore for a moment that the only reason Syria overreached is not because of Israel's withdrawal but because of the invasion of Iraq. But even ignoring the classic post hoc fallacy, this so-called contribution breath-takingly misses the point of the deterrence debate. It's not so much that the withdrawal strengthened Hizbullah - although it did, and they now have literally tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers, ready for an all-out war and disruption of Israel's back lines. Rather, the withdrawal made Israel look weak to other enemies. It is now overwhelmingly conceded that Arafat thought that he could achieve more by violence than by negotiations precisely because the way Israel withdrew from Lebanon made it look weak.
But I still think that disengagement is a demographic necessity. The problem then is how to minimize the deterrence hit that Israel will take. An easy step would be to totally demolish the settlements. This would deny Al Jezeera the ability to beam pictures of "conquered Jewish property" across the Muslim world. Israel took an enormous diplomatic hit (and an almost full break with the US under the Bush I administration - thank you Jim Baker) to build them up. There's no reason they should now take an enormous military hit by not breaking them down.
