Really disengaging from Gaza
What would happen if Israel cut Gaza off altogether? No crossing points, no more supplies, no more 'rights' to interfere. We go to the UN and ask them to certify that the occupation of Gaza has ended. Here are some interesting thoughts. Given the above, should Israel explore Lieberman's idea? Lieberman suggested severing all Israel's ties to the Strip and opening it to the world, dependent on unspecified arrangements that would meet Israel's security needs. Israel would have to ask the international community to set clear parameters for establishing the end of its status as occupying power. Having met them, Israel would no longer have any obligations vis-a-vis Gaza and its civilian population. But giving Gaza the full sovereign status that the current legal limbo denies it would require allowing Hamas to reopen the port and airport - which it would no doubt seek to exploit for weapons' delivery rather than for economic improvement.I don't know why he assumes that we could not treat Gaza as a hostile territory and continue the blockade.
There are no good precedents for Israel to rely on international good will alone - as the post-2006 buildup in Lebanon once again proved. Only if Israel can continue to rely on intelligence and interdiction to prevent dangerous deliveries from reaching the Strip's shores would this be a better option than the status quo. It is desirable to continue to exert pressure on Egypt and other friendly countries - whose tacit understanding for Israel's predicament was no match for their public condemnation when Israel had to act - in order to ensure that they will take real responsibility for Gaza.
Not only would a radical change of direction stir friendly countries out of their passivity, but, most important, it would put Hamas - and the Palestinian camp as a whole - in an uncomfortable predicament. Hamas has been able to gain from the current situation: It rules Gaza as a sovereign power, but can at the same time don the victim's mantle by crying occupation, thus skirting the hard questions that an end to occupation would require it to confront. With an internationally recognized, full Israeli withdrawal, Hamas could no longer hide behind this pretext. It would have to decide: Is Gaza an Islamic state? Does it seek recognition, and should it therefore apply to the UN and other international organizations for membership? And if so, in what capacity - as Palestine-in-the-making or as an entity that is distinct from the West Bank?
Either way, this would be a direct challenge to the PA and its claim to be the sole representative of Palestinian aspirations for statehood. And it would force new dynamics on intra-Palestinian politics that neither Hamas nor Fatah may wish to contemplate.
A full withdrawal is fraught with dangers. But it also offers opportunities to alleviate Israel's current predicament. Lieberman's proposal has already triggered panicked responses from Egypt, the EU, Hamas and Fatah - preliminary evidence that it is worth exploring.
But read the whole thing.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:23 PM
3 Comments:
I think Israel will be burdened by a big battalion of the UN(United Nazis) if she goes down that route. And they will be IMPOSSIBLE to shift!
The complete disengagement in Gaza is a very good approach. It puts the "balls" completely in the 'palis' and international courts. If the 'palis' arm up and launch attacks, Israel is free to not only destroy it, but capture and annex territory.
More than that, Israel can legitimately claim that Gaza is 'palestine'. Which ends the land swap argument.
It puts the PA in a painful position, they can either decide to make peace, make war, or dissolve.
It lets Israel demand that 'palis' "refugees" go to 'palestine'. It lets Israel demand UNRWA cease and desist operations.
And the downside?
What downside? If they start a war, they will lose. If they start any sort of cross border activities that aren't peaceful, they are inviting reprisal.
But once this umbilical cord is cut, the international community can be placed in the difficult position of funding them, or abandoning them. If they fund them, let them get anything they want.
Yes, even weapon systems. Don't stop them from getting these. Just make sure that in the next war, and you know that this will happen, it is made quite clear to the aggressors that there will be no mercy show to them, and the presence of weapon systems will intensify the response.
Carl,
The problem with this argument is that Israel has indeed already disengaged from Gaza.
This is coming from the words of the "Pro-Israel" spokesman Saeb Erakat.
Immediately after the disengagement Saeb Erakat gave an interview on PBS with Ray Suarez, here is the link.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/gaza_11-28.html
Number one is that for the first time in our history we have a control over who comes and who goes through an international border. And this is very significant thing. This is the difference between Gaza being a big prison, 1.3 million suffocating or Gaza open and people are free to come and go.
Maybe it was the psychology of the Israelis giving up their control and occupation 38 years later that was difficult for them maybe without it every step of the way. But the fact that Dr. Rice came and exercised her negotiating skills with us and the Israelis, we had no alternative, both of us, but to go along the way. And then today we have a border crossing that's opening.
This is definitely an interview Erakat imagined would be saved for posterity in the future...
Post a Comment
<< Home