Gaza and the path forward

By Rafael D. Frankel

OPINION

At sunrise this morning, I stood with a couple dozen journalists and a couple hundred soldiers and watched the last column of Israeli tanks rumble down the Gush Katif highway through the Kissufim checkpoint out of Gaza. Immediately following their departure, two army bulldozers erected a roadblock of huge cement pillars and dirt on the road. As they lifted the blocks and earth, dozens of Palestinians from the neighboring village spilled onto the road they had not walked on for at least five years, waving the flags of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. They kept their distance though, and after 15 minutes the bulldozers also cleared out followed by the armored personnel carrier of Brig. Gen. Aviv Kohavi who was, until that moment, the IDF commander in Gaza. He walked out of his jeep and replied to the salute of two second lieutenants who then swung the newly erected fence shut and at 7:02 a.m. on September 12, 2005, turned the key on 38 years of Israeli presence in the Gaza strip.

"The gate that is closing after us is also a gate that is opening," Kohavi had said at a ceremony the day before in Gush Katif marking the end of Israel's military presence in Gaza. As the setting sun hovered over the Mediterranean Sea, casting a glow over the white sand dunes, he continued: "We hope it will be a gate of peace and quiet. A gate of hope and good will."

By the time he himself left Gaza, I was utterly exhausted. Not only by the fact that I had only slept one hour that night, but by the last month of work covering Israel's disengagement from Gaza and part of the northern West Bank. Still, I could hardly believe the history I was witnessing. "Privileged" wouldn't be exactly the right word to describe what I felt to be a part of it all, but something along those lines. And my amazement with the event was clearly evident to the editor at the night desk in Chicago who I was on the phone with when the gate was locked. "Wow," she said. "Yeah, incredible," I replied.

Though the last month was physically draining, it was also very much an exercise in mental agility and emotional toughness. I really was not prepared for how much I would be effected by the sight of people being carried from their homes, sometimes kicking and screaming and nearly always in a fit of tears. A lot of it probably had to do with the week that I spent in Gaza before the army got there, interviewing and just spending quality time with the "settlers" who lived there. I must say my preconceptions about who and what these people were were utterly shattered in the 12 days I spent down there. Despite what I had read and seen in the media, and been told by others, the good majority were not crazy idealogs with whom there was no possibility of relating to. Rather, they were incredibly warm, well spoken, resilient and caring people who built communities out of sand dunes that were the envy of all of Israel for how close knit, safe, and friendly they were. And they did it in the midst of a constant barrage of mortars, quassam rockets, shootings, and bombings.

And yet, despite all this, to withdraw from Gaza was the right thing for Israel.

As great as the Gush Katif people were, they had "a serious blind spot," as Joel Greenberg, the Chicago Tribune bureau chief told me. Indeed they did. Their lives of comfort were lived at the expense of more than a million Palestinians, many of whom lived in their back yards in immense poverty. Their villas and suburban lives were also subsidized by the tax dollars and sacrifice of Israelis throughout the country who's money and bodies went to protecting the Gaza Jews for more than two decades, much to the resentment of many here. In short, this was an ill-conceived enterprise to start with, and it only got worse over the years, as the 8,500 Jews took over 1/3 of Gaza's land and 40% of its water resources at the same time as the government continued pouring money into Gaza better spent elsewhere.

I am under no illusions that withdrawing from Gaza will bring peace to Israel--nor do I think are any Israelis. On may way back to Jerusalem this morning, a mortar had already fallen on the town of Sderot (well inside Israel) and over night, Palestinians had set fire to at least four of the synagogues Israel left standing in the demolished towns. Even if it was expected, such actions show how far we truly are from peace. If there was ever any doubt, I hope that by now people from around the world realize that on balance, there is no moral equivalency anymore between the actions of a state trying to defend itself and a groups of terrorists buoyed by a complicit society which has chose an path of nihilism and destruction over reconciliation and peace.

So why withdraw then? There are two reasons. First, not all Palestinians are bad people (since I've been here I've met some great ones), and the collective punishment they have lived under and the conditions they are forced to raise their families in because of it are appalling. Admittedly though, and you can judge me for this if you so choose, my sympathies do not abound even for them. They are part of a society that refuses to deal with the cancer of terrorism which has taken it over, and until they do, they are mostly part of the problem.
The more important reason to withdraw is the concept itself of Disengagement, which, though not under that particular name, I've been urging ever since the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in 2000. At that time, it became clear that there was no partner for peace on the other side. And despite the hopes of new leadership since Arafat's death, Abu Mazen appears either unwilling or unable (probably both) to confront the demons of Palestinian society. It's a shame, because he is selling his own people short and in the end it will cost him his job or his life.

Working off that premise, Israel must act unilaterally to put itself in the best situation possible, which it is now doing by erecting, for the first time since 1967, real, defensible borders. In tandem with the separation barrier (also my idea from 2000, which I will continue to remind everyone always:) ) that means withdrawing from land that has large majorities of Palestinians in its population. We have just seen that happen with Gaza, and there is every reason to believe it should, and will happen to settlements in the West Bank that fall on the Palestinian side of the fence Israel is nearing completion of. This disengagement, though sad, and the wall, though an ugly eye sore and a reminder of how ruined the dream of peaceful coexistence is, is the only pragmatic option Israel has at its disposal. We need a wall. We need separation. We need a divorce.

As it stands, Ariel Sharon's route for the separation barrier (in some places it’s a fence and in others a large concrete wall) will incorporate into Israel around 10% of the West Bank. Though I would personally like to see that number more around 2-3%, with that amount of land being given reciprocally to the Palestinians from Israeli territory, it is pretty clear that only Sharon could have pulled off the disengagement from Gaza, so let's give him credit.

Sharon and his cabinet now have to decide what kind of autonomy to give the Palestinians in Gaza. Who should control the sea, the air, and the border crossings? Israel would do well to relinquish all of it. It will have to happen at some point anyways. Better to do it now than let more blood be spilled over it. Give them Gaza, give them safe passage from there to the West Bank via a sunken train track or military escort. Let them control their border with Egypt. Because of advanced technology, it will soon be possible to scan anyone coming into Israel without having any physical contact with them. So fine, let some people come in for work through the hi-tech scanners. But in general, we should wash our hands of them as much as possible. Let them figure out their own affairs, take care of themselves, get help from other Arab countries or Europe if they can, and leave them be. Alone. Without us in any part of their lives. Whether that is good for them or not, I'm not sure, but more importantly, it's best for Israel.

This won't solve everything. The terrorism will continue. But it will be manageable. It will not involve suicide bombers in our midst killing dozens in cafes and busses. And what will be left, Israel is for sure strong enough to deal with--both militarily, and within society.

Because of the mind field that is Israeli politics, we now will likely see a general election within the next six months. Since he alienated much of his traditional extreme right-wing base, Sharon may have to form a new party to run again for prime minister. Make no mistake about it, he is by far the best hope to continue the unilateral disengagement strategy since he is the only person both capable of taking on the settler movement and also viewed as strong enough by most Israelis to not weaken Israel's security position. Let us hope that one way or another, he is given the chance by the voters to do that and that he can live long enough to see it through to fruition.

One day, probably 20 or 30 years from now, there will hopefully come a time when the Palestinians have cleaned themselves up and are really ready to talk peace. Until then, Israel and the Jewish people must hunker down, close ranks, consolidate land and resources, and wait for the dream of peace in our land to come. We've waited 2,000 years, we can wait a few more decades.

©2005 Rafael D. Frankel. Not for reprinting or redistribution without the author's express written consent.