Something new has happened in Israel: nobody is talking about "peace," not even the extreme Left (like Peace Now, whose main activity is trying to prevent Jews from building in Yesha (Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza), not even the Tinker Bell of peace, Shimon Peres.
The Oslo delusion, however, is not over; it has a new name: "disengagement."
And, if Oslo wasn't absurd enough with fake agreements and negotiations, "The Road Map" imposed by "The Quartet" (3 of whom are Israel's enemies) is worse. No negotiations are required and no method of accountability.
As senior Israeli officials say, "We are in a process; it's not peace." Despite continuing terrorism and announcements from Palestinian Authority officials that terrorist gangs will not be disarmed, Israeli officials refer to PA head Mahmoud Abbas as a "partner." No one knows exactly what that means, since neither he nor the PA has done anything to fulfill Israeli and U.S. demands to (at least) reduce terrorism and incitement. In fact, they have been encouraged by Israeli willingness to retreat under fire. Unlike Israel, their policy is clear.
Israeli policies are often ambiguous, a sign of uncertainty and doubt. Do we deal with terrorists, or not? Is Yesha part of Israel, or not? This approach may at times offer maneuverability, but it has led to confusion and invited disaster.
6,000 missiles, no action
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has made this the basis of his non-policy. The good news is that this allows him to be innovative and spontaneous, responding or ignoring terrorist attacks depending on what he thinks will work. The bad news is that he won't shoot back.
Six thousand missiles have been fired at communities in and around the Gaza Strip in the last two years, and the IDF has not been given permission to take decisive action. Good news: Terrorists are apprehended before they can strike. This has given Israelis a renewed sense of security. Tourism is up and people are riding buses again. Bad news: it only takes one mistake for terrorists to succeed.
Sharon's policy of ambiguity, however, contrary to assessments by his own military intelligence that withdrawal from Gaza and Northern Samaria will increase terrorism, is based on a false assumption. Relying on Israel's experience in withdrawing from Lebanon, senior Israeli officials predict that terrorism will decrease. They offer no explanation for this speculation.
Using Lebanon as a model to support Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip ignores obvious and important differences. Lebanon is a sovereign country that has no interest in an active war with Israel. Hizbullah is a small terrorist organization, while Hamas has a powerful army; Israel's border with Lebanon is sealed, unlike Gaza's borders, which are open to workers and for commerce and constantly infiltrated.
Lacking red lines and a clear policy regarding terrorism invites terrorists to test the safety net and exploit weaknesses.
The only consistent policy that Israel seems to hold is that withdrawal will take place regardless of whether the PA and Hamas stop terrorism or not. This is a complete reversal of traditional Israeli policy based on ensuring that terrorists will not emerge from the conflict with a sense of victory.
Not only are PA and Hamas officials already claiming that they have forced Israel to retreat, like Lebanon, they threaten an escalation in violence unless further concessions and withdrawals are made, including building air and seaports and unfettered passage throughout the West Bank.
Mixed messages
Without clear policy guidelines the Israeli government is sending mixed (and therefore contradictory) messages: stop terrorism or we will not make further concessions AND we will make further concessions no matter what you do.
Advocates of this policy argue that Israel must withdraw not only from Gaza, but all of Yesha, for its own self-interest. Better, they say not to occupy another people than rule over them. So Palestinian terrorists get a state and Israel gets moral Brownie points.
But Israel doesn't "occupy" Palestinians; the Palestinian Authority does, and has done so for more than a decade. The dispute (in Yesha) is not over people but over unoccupied and unclaimed state land that Israel conquered from Jordan, that was conquered from the British who conquered it from the Turks, who conquered it from the Mamelukes who conquered it from the Crusaders, conquered from early Muslim rulers who conquered it from the Byzantine Roman Empire, conquered from the Jews…or Palestinians - depending on which history books you believe.
The good news is that during the last year Palestinian terrorists have not been very successful. That's not to say they haven't been trying. According to government sources, there are scores of terrorist alerts every day. The Israel Defense Forces and intelligence services have proven capable and efficient; there is a military solution.
The bad news is that having beaten the terrorists decisively, Sharon's defeatist policy is turning victory into self-defeat. Unilateral retreat, "disengagement," or whatever one calls it has no military or security advantages, or at least none that the government has offered. Israeli retreat has plunged Palestinian-controlled areas into a savage struggle for power among terrorist gangs.
