Orange in hind sight?
We gave them South Lebanon, and now we have to deal with Hesbollah.
We gave them Gaza, and now we have to deal with Hamas.
(not that they didn't exist beforehand, but the disengagement definitely gave both parties a lot of political support in their respective regions)
Revisiting the question of disengagement - Was it the right thing to do?
I think I still say yes. But I'm not nearly as sure as I was last summer.
Security Concerns
As far as security is concerned, with South Lebanon and Gaza, these organizations have been able to infiltrate further into Israel than before (e.g. the first time to hit Haifa EVER was this weekend by our good friends, Hesbollah). At the same time, now when we attack these regions, we no longer have to worry about Israeli casualities in the area, because civilians have been relocated away from those territories.
Political Gain/World Support
What does it mean to take the political high ground, when the support doesn't last. Sure, everyone was cheering Israel on when they left Gaza, and the UN patted their back when they gave back South Lebanon, but the second they bring up a strong military defense (yes, defense, Israel didn't start this...and guess what? some Arab States will even back me on this one: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0706/344340.html
" Moderate Arab governments reacted with relative restraint, apparently reflecting a sentiment in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that Hezbollah — and by implication its top ally Syria — had started the fight with Israel."
) the world turns and condemns Israel for her "aggression".
Internal Struggle
Beyond the political and security ramifications of disengagement. Pulling out of Gaza displaced a lot of people, it created an even larger rift between a large part of the religious population and the rest of the country (i'm not even going to mention the religious/zionist/IDF issues), and it came close to resulting in a sort of civil contention (i wouldn't quite call it war)in the country.
Some say that they would rather have this (pointing at the TV showing what was going on in Israel today), than keeping those territories. Others have been proudly pointing and saying "I told you so". Either way, it doesn't change where things are today, but...it's a tough question, and one that will be hard to revisit.
posted by Valentine @ 13:44
5 comments
5 Comments:
I'm not sure your first point is valid. While Israel has definitely experienced an uptick in violence from both Hamas and Hizbollah in the last few weeks, the damage they have been able to cause relative to what they were doing when Israel was in Lebanon and Gaza is significantly less. In that regard, it was definitely the right choice.
Yes and no.
Sure, more damage can be done to Israelis when they are living right there in the same area. And there was a lot of violence there. But as far as Hamas and Hesbollah's projection into Israel proper is concerned, that is unique to this post-disengagement time.
Before the disengagement, the violence in the area was much more concentrated to the gaza area and sderot(and until now the violence up north was very much right by the border). But that is all changing, and the fact that we're out of there has given them the potential to go further into Israel.
Two brief comments:
1) To CLJ: Israel has 'red lines'. While it hates to lose soldiers, especially in a bloody conflict like Lebanon, it dislikes attacks on its own hard-won land even more. When Israel was in S. Lebanon, virtually no Katyushas hit the northern towns (and certainly nothing hit Haifa!). Since the pullout, Hezbollah can shell Israeli towns at will, and has done so every few months. Maybe the total damage in lives lost/wounded is less than those incurred on Israeli soldiers during the Lebanon war, but the calculus doesn't work like that. One case is Israeli soldiers dying in the line of duty - horrible, to be lamented, but to an extent, tolerable. The other is some random man, woman, or child being blown apart on the streets of Nahariya or Kiryat Shmonah... the very beds we sleep in not being safe. This is what Israel is in Gaza and Lebanon to stop.
2) I disagree with this point:
At the same time, now when we attack these regions, we no longer have to worry about Israeli casualities in the area, because civilians have been relocated away from those territories.
The IDF never had any concerns with inflicting 'own goals' on settlers in Gaza. To my knowledge, there have been no such incidents. The IDF operated primarily along borders (of settlements and at the security fence) and in the Palestinian towns. The risk of hurting settlers was minimal.
The real risk to the settlers was the same as that risked by those living in Sderot - mortar/rocket attacks. (There was also the occasional bomb or sniper, but IDF vigilance was generally sufficient for preventing this.)
No, the settlers were removed for several reasons: a) To make a point to the world. b) To establish 'defensible borders' (though we now know that's a joke). c) Some would argue it was to give Israel a moral boost to themselves, effectively removing themselves from occupying some 1.4 million Palis.
Ender
I dont think that's entirely true, Ender. The IDF can still better protect people within greenline Israel than in the territories.
Also, I think part c) is a joke. But hey, if they get that moral boost as an after thought good for them!
I think that the best protection would be a military presence in the territories, but not a civilian one. Thus, one would be able to eliminate the risk of short-range threats to civilians (ie snipers and the like), while giving the military room to maneuver in countering long range threats (rockets, etc.) to civilians further back.
Yet I'm not sure the 'short range threats' to the settlers in Gaza were that much of a problem. I agree that eventually the settlers would have had to go, and that it was a great Israeli experiment (as was Oslo) in getting the world to recognize that Israel is doing everything it can to resolve the situation. But arguing that it was necessary on security grounds is pretty tough, IMHO.
Post a Comment
<< Home