A LITTLE over a year ago I visited
the Gaza Strip, a few weeks before Israel unilaterally
evicted Jews who had moved to settlements in Gaza, Jews
who had moved there with support and subsidies from
previous Israeli governments.
Israel removed not only its civilian presence but also
its military presence from Gaza a year ago. Not in
exchange for a peace treaty, not in exchange for
anything, simply because the Israeli government felt it
was the right thing to do.
After my visit to Israel last year I wrote a Saturday
Essay for The Blade entitled, “A painful but necessary
move from Gaza.” At the conclusion I wrote, “While we
wait for that day [a day of peace], Israel is doing the
only thing it can do unilaterally: establish defensible
borders. It’s a very difficult and painful move for
Israel, but one that is necessary.”
This year I found myself having a somewhat surreal
experience of being out on a boat scuba diving in Egypt
(across the border from Israel) the day the war with
Lebanon broke out. Being in Egypt on that fateful day
led me to reflect on some of the realities of the Middle
East. And my reflections, especially regarding the
difference between Israel’s relationship with Egypt and
Israel’s relationship with the Lebanese and the
Palestinians, has led me to conclude that perhaps
Israel’s move from Gaza was not only not necessary, it
may have been a bad move.
Last year, when I wrote supporting Israel’s withdrawal
from Gaza, I did not promote the withdrawal because I
thought it would lead to peace. I was not that naïve. I
promoted it because I believed it was best for Israel,
that there was no point in Israel spending millions of
dollars and risking the lives of soldiers to defend
settlements that would be given up in any final
agreement with the Palestinians.
It seemed a waste of time, money, and manpower to
continue to support an enclave of Jews in Gaza. While I
didn’t expect withdrawing from Gaza to lead to peace, I
did expect it would help reduce tensions with the
Palestinians.
A year later, I’d have to say I was wrong. Tensions did
not decline. The Palestinians responded by electing
Hamas, an admitted terrorist organization, to be their
government. The reasons for electing Hamas are
complicated, and they may have as much to do with the
corruption of Fatah as with Hamas’ views on Israel, but
that does not change the fact that the Palestinians
elected a government that is officially committed to the
destruction of Israel.
And it does not change the fact that despite being part
of the government, Hamas’ terrorist activities continue,
including the murder of two Israeli soldiers and the
capture of a third, which set off the latest round of
violence between the Palestinians and Israel.
Similarly, I’d have to say I was wrong in 2000 when I
supported then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s
decision to unilaterally withdraw Israeli troops from
South Lebanon. I did so because I believed the cost to
Israel — about 25 soldiers killed every year — was too
high to make it worthwhile to stay.
Recent events in Gaza and Lebanon, however, show the
folly taking unilateral action. About 150 Israelis were
killed in the recent war with Lebanon — almost exactly
the same number that would have died in the last six
years if the 25-deaths-a-year rate had continued with
Israel remaining in Lebanon. However, if Israel had
remained in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah would have had
far fewer rockets to shoot at Israeli towns.
When Israel decided to withdraw from Gaza, it was the
path of the centrists. Israelis on the right criticized
the move because they believe Israel is entitled to keep
every inch of land in Gaza and the West Bank. Israelis
on the left were unhappy because they believed it was
wrong to do such an action unilaterally. They said it
should only be done with negotiation and consultation
with the Palestinians.
The left was right. In 1979, Israel negotiated a peace
treaty with Egypt. The Israelis withdrew from the Sinai
Peninsula, they evacuated Jewish settlements in the
Sinai, and they gave the land back to Egypt. We have now
had over 25 years of peace with Egypt.
It may not be the warmest friendliest peace, but it is
peace. It is enough of a peace that on a day when war
broke out in Lebanon, I, a Jew, traveling from Israel,
was able to enjoy the underwater sights of Egypt. Israel
negotiated a peace with Jordan, and Jordan also stayed
out of the recent conflict between Israel and an Arab
country.
Withdrawing from southern Lebanon and withdrawing from
Gaza was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, Israel
did those actions in the wrong way. They should not have
been done as a unilateral “we’re doing what we want, we
don’t care what you guys do after we leave.” They should
have been done as part of a bilateral negotiated
agreement.
If Israel needed to stay there a little longer to
negotiate a deal, it should have stayed a little longer.
It sure looks like any territory Israel leaves without
negotiating a peace treaty first simply becomes a base
for continued activity against Israel.
Shimon Peres, Israel’s vice premier and a member of the
Kadima party, which was elected on the promise of
continuing the unilateral path with a withdrawal from
much of the West Bank, said on Aug. 17 that “the Lebanon
war has diminished the prospects of a unilateral
withdrawal from the West Bank.” He added, “today we must
emphasize more than ever bilateralism.”
Mr. Peres is right. Israel will not be able to bomb
Lebanon or Gaza into peace. Israel will not be able to
peacefully sit behind a tall fence. Peace will only come
at the negotiating table. Peace will only come when
Lebanon and the Palestinians decide they really want
peace. It turns out the only thing Israel can do
unilaterally is to be strong and be brave and hang on
until the neighbors decide that building their countries
is more of a priority than destroying Israel.
Barry Leff is rabbi at Congregation B’Nai Israel on
Kenwood Boulevard.
