I suddenly seem to have developed an annoying habit of compulsively dropping sarcastic comments on various blogs discussing the disengagement referendum. I have my own blog, after all, so why not just post my thoughts here?
Well, I've done that. I've posted some facts and figures, too. I hate to repeat myself. And I confess to being fairly bewildered by having to make these points in the first place. I can understand how die-hard Oslophiles and road map advocates are salivating at yet one more opportunity to prove how disasterous these appeasement plans can be. It's gotten to be a habit. But coming from those who claim to have learned a thing or two from past mistakes, it's a puzzle.
Let's see. Israel offered land for peace, but got no peace. Then Israel offered more land for peace and got war. Then Israel offered land and a state for an end to terror and incitement (peace obviously being too much to ask for) and got more terror and more incitement. So now, Israel is offering freshly Judenrein land and (de facto) a state for . . . nothing.
But Israel has no choice, I'm told. Israel can't continue to rule over palestinians. It's immoral and unjust and it erodes the moral fiber of the Jewish State and saps its energy, its resources and the lives of its citizens.
Of course it is. Of course it does. But what, at the moment, is the alternative? Is there any basis whatsoever upon which to expect, or even to hope for, any positive result from this move? It's all fine and good to say there is no choice and it has to be done, but where will Israel be once it's done? What will Israel be facing? Who, if anyone, will be at her back who isn't there now? And why is it that these questions are considered off limits in this debate?
When all else fails, when diplomacy, more diplomacy, self-defense and targeted assasinations don't deter them, give the terrorists what they want? Is that the solution? Is that the way to deter and defeat terrorism? Not in my book.
Still, as I've said before, it's not for me to decide. I'm told the Israeli people are overwhelmingly in favor of disengagement. So let them say so. Give them a voice. A real voice, unlike Sharon's cabinet ministers who, it appears, have the right to disagree with him only in theory and in private if they want to keep their jobs. A referendum would go a long way toward silencing the extreme voices on both sides or, if not, toward building a consensus for shutting them out. A referendum would transform the disengagement process from one man's ego trip into a national project. And that (pardon the expression) would be a good thing.
Yesterday marked the ninth anniversary (on the Hebrew calendar) of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. It was a monumentally black day for Israel. And it's been shamlessly exploited over the years by various parties with various interests and with various axes to grind. But Rabin understood the necessity of national input into decisions such as disengagement, withdrawal and evacuation. So did Prime Minister Barak. In this respect, Prime Minister Sharon should follow their lead.
