Define "Failure" Please
When former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to implement the Gaza disengagement plan, there were a lot of different justifications given by his administration and by his administration's informal spokespeople. We thought most of them were false - we never thought that the international community would bring itself to support the Jewish State for any length of time, and we certainly didn't think that the Palestinians would deign to stop trying to kill Jews. But we were convinced that the critics who insisted on the mendacity of the international community were also bound to recognize the inevitable consequences of that mendacity - that is, the inevitability that, if Israel didn't act unilaterally, Israeli leaders would be pressured to withdraw anyway later if not sooner. Incidentally, we also hoped that Sharon would be able to walk the tightrope to a final consolidation of Israel's boundaries... but as we all know, fate intervened in a particularly unkind way. We also hoped - as we believe Sharon knew - that given any significant responsibility Palestinian society would be exposed as unable to sustain a state and as broadly supportive of terrorism.
In late 2005, Aluf Benn criticized precisely this attitude toward the Palestinians - an attitude we were relatively more comfortable with:
Sharon and his court were right in their assessment that the disengagement would be the kiss of death for the Palestinian Authority. That the old saying "Take Gaza and choke on it" would come true and Abbas would fail the test of responsibility for the liberated territory... Nobody has any patience right now for tiresome complaints against the occupation, fence and checkpoints... Israel defeated the Palestinians and now, drunk with victory, is dictating the arrangements
Yet two days ago, Charles Johnson opined that it’s very difficult to argue that the Gaza disengagement was a success..
Oh, we're not so sure about that:
The question on the Palestinian street is no longer when civil war will break out, but when will it end. Armed clashes between Hamas and Fatah supporters have been taking place every day since the deployment of the new Hamas security forces in various parts of the Gaza Strip. But these clashes did not start after the 3,000-strong Hamas force showed up on the streets.
We're quite ready to admit that the disengagement has damaged Israel's deterrent and that there has been an increase in terrorism - even that Al Qaeda has established a foothold in the Gaza Strip. Charles ends with ostensibly the most damaging consequence: the disengagement "probably contributed to the election of the Hamas government". Well, what's so bad about that? Given that there seems to be a general consensus on the right that there is broad support for terrorism on the Palestinian street, how exactly is the very public declaration of such support uniquely bad? If Fatah was Hamas by another name - and they are - and if Fatah was doing slowly and without general acknowledgment what Hamas does blatantly - and they were - just the acknowledgment of such dynamics would be valuable. And now it seems that terrorist factions are fighting each other as well as Israel.
Conservatives regularly celebrate how the Reagan administration maneuvered Iraq and Iran into a debilitating war during the 1980s. We're pretty sure that we can find posts on LGF celebrating the US military's strategy of turning indigenous Iraqi insurgents against foreign terrorists. The strategy that was good for President Reagan and is good for President Bush doesn't cease being good for Israeli Prime Ministers.
In late 2005, Aluf Benn criticized precisely this attitude toward the Palestinians - an attitude we were relatively more comfortable with:
Sharon and his court were right in their assessment that the disengagement would be the kiss of death for the Palestinian Authority. That the old saying "Take Gaza and choke on it" would come true and Abbas would fail the test of responsibility for the liberated territory... Nobody has any patience right now for tiresome complaints against the occupation, fence and checkpoints... Israel defeated the Palestinians and now, drunk with victory, is dictating the arrangements
Yet two days ago, Charles Johnson opined that it’s very difficult to argue that the Gaza disengagement was a success..
Oh, we're not so sure about that:
The question on the Palestinian street is no longer when civil war will break out, but when will it end. Armed clashes between Hamas and Fatah supporters have been taking place every day since the deployment of the new Hamas security forces in various parts of the Gaza Strip. But these clashes did not start after the 3,000-strong Hamas force showed up on the streets.
We're quite ready to admit that the disengagement has damaged Israel's deterrent and that there has been an increase in terrorism - even that Al Qaeda has established a foothold in the Gaza Strip. Charles ends with ostensibly the most damaging consequence: the disengagement "probably contributed to the election of the Hamas government". Well, what's so bad about that? Given that there seems to be a general consensus on the right that there is broad support for terrorism on the Palestinian street, how exactly is the very public declaration of such support uniquely bad? If Fatah was Hamas by another name - and they are - and if Fatah was doing slowly and without general acknowledgment what Hamas does blatantly - and they were - just the acknowledgment of such dynamics would be valuable. And now it seems that terrorist factions are fighting each other as well as Israel.
Conservatives regularly celebrate how the Reagan administration maneuvered Iraq and Iran into a debilitating war during the 1980s. We're pretty sure that we can find posts on LGF celebrating the US military's strategy of turning indigenous Iraqi insurgents against foreign terrorists. The strategy that was good for President Reagan and is good for President Bush doesn't cease being good for Israeli Prime Ministers.
