I was working through a post this morning about how much Ariel Sharon's promises for his disengagement plan are reminding me of what we heard in the days leading up to Oslo. The promises of security, the exhortations to seize the moment and the threats of the failure to do so. And then I found this article by Caroline Glick in today's Jerusalem Post.
Before he oversaw the retreats from Gaza and Jericho, Rabin repeatedly declared that if the Palestinians reverted to terrorism, the IDF would reenter the areas and throw out the PA. Yet when in the aftermath of the withdrawals Israel was victimized by the worst terror it had seen since the 1950s, Rabin did not change course. Indeed, Rabin claimed that stopping negotiations would be a victory for the terrorists whom he referred to as "enemies of peace." In reacting to the terror, Rabin repeatedly said "Israel will fight terror as if there is no peace process and fight for peace as if there is no terror." While the statement made for good propaganda, it made no practical sense and was impossible to follow. Arafat responded to each Israeli concession by strengthening the forces of terror and hatred within Palestinian society. Waging peace with Arafat was tantamount to surrendering to terrorism.
Sharon today is behaving in a similar fashion.
Over the past week, he has excoriated as "extremists" opponents of his plan. Just as Rabin said that ending Oslo would be a victory for Hamas, Sharon said Thursday that not moving ahead with his plan of retreat would be a victory for Arafat and Hamas.
Also like Rabin, Sharon argues "Israel's responses [to Palestinian violence] would be much harsher" after his retreat plan is implemented than they are today. Yet if Kofi Annan makes good on his promise this week to give the UN a role in post-withdrawal Gaza, just as it does in post-withdrawal Lebanon make clear, it won't be easy to turn back the clock.
Indeed, what the last 42 months of Palestinian terror have shown is that regardless of the provocation, Israel will never garner international support for offensives against Palestinian terrorism.
I've been conflicted about the disengagement plan from the beginning, but the arguments in favor of it smack increasingly of Oslo and the arguments against smack increasingly, to me, of learning from the school of hard knocks. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice . . ..
Glick, though, points out two key differences between this plan and Oslo. First is the fact that the pullout from Gaza will entail the destruction of communities and the displacement of many thousands of people. Second is the disruption that the plan is causing in Sharon's own party and in the country as a whole. Despite Sharon's attempts (echoed enthusiastically in the media) to paint his opposition as a bunch of right-wing extremists, many don't fit that mold at all. To the contrary, some of the strongest opposition is coming from those Israeli communities that will be most directly and devastatingly affected.
I've been waiting quite a while for Sharon to explain what it is he's really up to. I've tried to keep an open mind. On Sunday, his party will vote, but it's unclear what significance that will have. He's already pledged to plunge ahead regardless. And that doesn't bode well at all.
