Like the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens and our own Max Boot, I, too, have been thinking a lot lately about the seven-year-old debate about whether Israel was wise to withdraw from Gaza. Both Bret and Max are of course right when they say that, looking back on it now, it is clear that the decision was a colossal blunder. Despite the assurances of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and many of the country’s military leaders, Israel’s security was compromised by the decision. It led directly to the creation of a Hamas terror state whose existence may not ever be undone. Just as troubling, Israel did not receive one bit of credit from the international community, let alone its foes, for removing every soldier and settler from the area. Bret summed it up nicely when he wrote:
Put simply, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza yielded less security, greater diplomatic isolation, and a Palestinian regime even more radical and emboldened than it had been before. As strategic failures go, it was nearly perfect.
But unlike Bret and Max, I don’t feel obligated to offer any mea culpas about my position on the withdrawal. While I supported the move, it was not because I didn’t have doubts about whether the army was right about it being easier to fight Hamas outside Gaza rather than inside it. Nor was I under any illusions about Israel reaping any public relations benefits from the scheme. To the contrary, I was quite sure that, as was the case with previous territorial surrenders, it would merely increase the appetite of Israel’s enemies for more. So why didn’t those reservations compel me to take a stand against Sharon? It was because the decision to withdraw was the decision of the democratically elected government of the state of Israel. Indeed, I believe the defense of that principle — that Israel’s people must be accorded the right to make their own decisions about their fate — is a far more important duty for us today than the need to second-guess the decision of a leader and a government that has long since faded from the country’s political scene.
Opponents of the withdrawal have, understandably, never stopped reminding those of us who backed Ariel Sharon’s decision that it turned out to be every bit the fiasco they thought it would be and more. The talking points Israel gained by pulling out of Gaza provide more proof that the Palestinians haven’t any interest in peace, but it’s doubtful this changed the mind of a single critic of the country. But those Diaspora kibitzers who are now saying, “I told you so,” are still missing the key point about that debate.
It may be that Israel’s prime minister was dead wrong (counter-factual arguments that history would have been different had Sharon not been felled by a stroke months after the withdrawal are unpersuasive) and the majority of Israelis who backed him were equally mistaken. But, right or wrong, it was their decision to make and the Israelis are the ones who have had to live with the consequences.
Looking ahead to the next round of peace processing and pressure on Israel after the current fighting in Gaza is concluded, what friends of Israel have to keep in mind is not so much the rehashing of Sharon’s blunder but preserving the right of the Jewish state to go on deciding its own destiny.
The conceit of most of the country’s left-wing critics is that Israel must be saved from itself. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Israelis have drawn the proper conclusions from the last 20 years of peace processing (including the Gaza withdrawal) and decided that there will be no more repetitions of the mistakes committed at Oslo or Gaza. This sensible decision frustrates Israel’s critics so much that even those who consider themselves friends of the country believe their judgment should supersede that of the Jewish state’s electorate.
But just as was the case of those Americans who opposed the Gaza withdrawal or the Oslo Accords, such a stand is simply inadmissible. Decisions about settlements, borders, Jerusalem and the territories must be made by those elected by the Israeli people, not by American Jewish wiseacres, be they of the left- or the right-wing persuasion.
No matter how strong the faith of Zion’s critics that the country is heading down the road to destruction, nothing should shake us in our conviction that no foreign power or foreign community has the right to dictate to Israel’s people. That is a principle that applies whether it is a matter of Israelis mistakenly making concessions that have come back to haunt them or, as is the case now, wisely refusing to take steps that would endanger their security.
Seven years after the Gaza withdrawal, it is useful to examine the mistakes that were made by Sharon. But the abiding lesson of that episode for us today is that, right or wrong, Israel must be allowed to make its own decisions.
I was for the Gaza withdrawal. People like me were very naive. We goofed up badly.
I had no illusions either, and thought it was a dumb idea. But Stephens is in a different category than Jonathon, Max or I. He was editor at the time of the influential Jerusalem Post (and, I presume an Israeli citizen), and in that position helped persuade the Israeli voters that withdrawal would be salutary.
You give Stephens too much credit – JPost has a small readership of mostly Anglo-Olim. In any case no matter what the wishes of the Israeli electorate, Sharon was determined to surrender Gaza and deport the 8000 Jews who lived there. Tobin would do better to focus on the enormous democratic deficit of Israel's government, a deficit that permitted the Oslo Accord, the surrender of Gaza, and the near total indifference to the thousands of rockets that have fallen on the southern Israeli communities of poor Ethiopian, Russsian and Moroccan Jews for years.
Exactly right.
By the same principle, the author should support ObamaCare, since it was put in place by the democratically elected leaders of the U.S.
Not the point that he is making; but to be consistent, he would have to say that an Israeli would have to back Obamacare.
I disagree. He's saying he respects decisions arrived at by democratic processes. Why should he care whether such processes are in the U.S., Israel or any other democracy?
And to further strengthen your argument, it is essential to recall that when Sharon won an overwhelming electoral victor against his leftist and very dovish Labor opponent Amram Mitzna, who wanted to surrender Gaza, Sharon said he would never withdraw from Gaza since it was vital to Israeli security. So by surrendering Gaza – many argue to win favor among the far-left judicial establishment investigating him for criminal activities – Sharon both undermined and violated Israeli democracy much as Rabin did in winning passage of the Oslo Accords by bribing two right-wing MKs. Tobin's argument fails.
Thanks for bolstering my point. n nRabin in 92 promised nothing like Oslo. Still he went along with it. nOne brief correction: the bribing of the MK's was for Oslo II.
Jonathan and others have valid points but I still disagree with the 20-20 hindsights. I was one of many thousands who cried when we saw the brutal evacuation of our brothers and sisters from gaza and yet, I still think that, over the long run, it will have strategic advantages for israel. One is the demographic one. I never believed that the so-called demographic danger was as acute as the pessimists argued but it clearly is an advantage to have lopped off hree quarters of the Palestininas in their own hell. Secondly, let's not understimate the "Gaza first-Gaza last" argument. Virtually al lof israel can see now, very starkly-what could happen if we ever- G-d forbid-leave Judea and Samaria. it will never happen. And, lastly, intriguingly, the fact that Gaza has a Hamas govt. may bring into play the "three" lands, by divorcing gaza from Judea and Samaria. Seven years is way too short a time to truly evaluate the gaza withdrawal.
Once a nebbish, Jonathan, always a nebbish.
Mea culpa. I am speechless. I fully agree with you on this one. That’s up to Israel Democracies to give away Gaza and West-Bank Stateless-Settler Leftovers to Palestinians. What price? What motive? $80B in Loan Guarantees that never matured and U-Haul of one million Soviets Urban Rejects SUR to Israel Proper and West Bank. That’s Israel Eternal Liability that Ariel Sharon left. He is lucky that he’s in a coma and can’t read my Write-ups. Israel aged in its infancy. It’s as old as Austria now. The welfare eats-up 80% of its GDP. SUR brought the whole Soviet Union down and they will finish Israel. Hennery Kissinger rightly said: give Israel ten years to die. I smell the Jewish zeal in your breath from Dubai. You can’t help it. Palestinians ain’t trees they are humans of superior genes. They survive without consuming spare parts of other human trafficked organs for 63 years. Gaza stunt show is over. Bibi must pick up the microphone and say to kibitzers that he really screwed-up. kudos
"Palestinians… …are humans of superior genes."____What a joke!
Thank you. You picked-up the superior allegory bait. You ran with it, and then dropped it. Smashing! It’s a Picassoic Metaphor sweetheart. You’re really humans of superior genes. It’s literally too stooopid to insult. We the Arabspringers firmly believe that Gaza is nothing than an Iranian-B’tch-State as Iraq, Qatif, Bahrain & Kurdistan following their Iranian Master’s commands to launch thousands of Hamas kitchen-made Rockets on Gush Katif, Sderot and Ashkelon is to TAME Iron-Dome Signals. Since The Iron-Dome that Obama foolishly burned hundreds million of US Tax-Payers money ain’t but a scam and joke. The Iron-Dome can be jammed without doubt by Stooopid Sony Playstation. The Israeli Prehistoric Jetfighter fleet can be downed & grounded surely by makeshift surface to surface missiles and Tel Aviv can be carpet bombed from within. If Cantonese Coolies cloned Stealth to piss-off Yanks and Armstrong landed on moon without 386-chip. Arabspringers will exploit the unthinkable to send Kibitzer back where they belong! Nigeria. That’s a promise ain’t contempt. Middle East is another Animal from now and on. Israel reined in the past bribing Thugocracies for protection. Still Obama does as we speak though Thugocracies are all gone now. War is a matter of the past. that’s what Netanyahu learned last week from Gaza Stunt Show. WOW! It’s a miracle that Bibi got it so quickly. MIT is so corrupt that thick as Netanyahu an Alumnus.
I'm not Jewish or Israeli, and by the way you sound like a raving lunatic. Good bye.
sorry am straight not Anglosexual. bye. Jewish or Israeli. LOL
Why wasn't Mr. Tobin compelled to take a stand against Sharon's disengagement plan; Sharon's plan to forcibly uproot thousands of law-abiding Jews from their homes and their property? It was because the decision to withdraw was the decision of the democratically elected government of the state of Israel. n nAs a Jew I am appalled by Jonathan Tobin's reasoning. n nConceivably if Tobin had friend who he knew was planning suicide, Tobin, rather than warn or try to dissuade his friend, would reason similarly. The decision, according to this logic, is his friend's alone. Like a democratically elected government, his friend's decision is a private matter. But like individuals, people collectively do and plan to do foolish, even self-destructive things. Those of us with wiser heads must warn friends and family. n nMr. Tobin further argues, because he is part of a "foreign community" he has no say in what Israel does either to herself or to the land that is the patrimony of every Jew, both those who are now living in Israel and those of us who are not yet living in Israel. I don't know what Jewish law or tradition Mr. Tobin draws wisdom from. It is not the one I have read and am reading. n nSteve Klein
Did Sharon consult anyone before withdrawing? nThe control of the Philadelphia corridor would reestablish some leverage for IL nIL must convince others of her rights. nBut so many economic factors play until today against the Jewish state, so that only one country is capable and willing to fight next to IL. nPower supersede right in most times. nThe left while in power used the lie of the demography to get to their goal to shrink IL state.
I think this is a little shortsighted. The future of Israel is likely to be a two-state solution; Gaza and Israel (with the West Bank). The only way that Israel could annex the West Bank and survive demographically and democratically was by first jettisoning the 1.5million Palestinians in Gaza. While it seems like a fiasco now, I think history will ultimately vindicate Sharon's decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza.
As I recall both Oslo agreement and Gaza withdrawal were carried out by two leaders, Rabin and Sharon who were elected promising exactly the opposite. The first swore he would never negotiate with Arafat and the second he would never withdraw unilaterally. They both lied. Oslo even worse, as it was approved by the Knesset but not by the majority of the Jewish MK and negotiated in secret giving the country a fait a compli. I was sick to my stomach in both occasions. It just proves that we Jews are not capable of completelly defeating an enemy, even a mortal one. This is our major weakness.
Anyone who advocated Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was delusional and stupid. When will some people finally wake up and realize that the Palestinian leaderships (all of them) cannot be trusted. They are liars. Why can't people get that?
Well…Mr. Tobin does, as usual a commendable job of crafting an interesting, educational and controversial posting.
I would argue at present, that it is still too early to pass FINAL judgement on Sharon’s Gaza giveaway. That is as generous as I can be to a man, Ariel Sharon, who is not at present able to defend himself.
I was 100% against the withdrawal at the time and got into more than a few heated discussions with a few observant friends of mine, who supported Sharon’s gambit.
I was predicting before the withdrawal that Hamas would take over Gaza and it would become a terror enclave. I made my views known to someone who at the present time is a prominent and distinguished member of Israel’s cabinet and this very well United States educated patriot, U.L., replied that all my points were “in place”.
Let me pose this question, if Sharon had not withdrawn from Gaza and still suffered the same stroke and assume then that Olmert or Livni would have become PM: Would it have been easier for Olmert or Livni to have done a deal resulting in the creation of a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria and Gaza? If the answer to the question is a qualified ‘yes’, then one could argue could they not, that Sharon’s gambit prevented the creation of a bigger disaster. Gaza, they might argue, is reversible.
Ariel Sharon was a brilliant and courageous IDF general, is that true? he made a name for himself by going contrary to the status quo. They wanted to courtmartial him, but he surrounded the Egyptian 3rd Army and saved Israel. Maybe he did the same thing here, by playing out in real time, a test, for all to see, precisely what the creation of an ‘epicardial’ “Palestinian State” would look like and how it would behave. This would then prevent such as disasterous occurence. It’s 2013 in a month, is there a Palestinian State? nope. Is there one on the horizon? nope. Are the Palestinians more divided or united after The Sharon Gambit? Divided. Look, I work in a hospital operating room, what do I know. If I knew Hamas was going to prevail in Gaza BEFORE the withdrawal, by months, is it possible that Ariel Sharon, with all of the experience he had under his belt at the time, could have not known the same. Such a conclusion lacks credulity.
So, I would be hesitant to pronounce Sharon guilty just yet. Sharon pushed his program through and it did not seem as though events weighed on his decision to push this one move. It would be nice if he woke up and articulated his rationale. If anyone could survive this it is he.
"… unlike Bret and Max, I don’t feel obligated to offer any mea culpas …" n n(Oifen goniff brent dos hittel ~ A guilty man is always self-conscious.) n n
"… unlike Bret and Max, I don’t feel obligated to offer any mea culpas …" n n(Oifen goniff brent dos hittel ~ A guilty man is always self-conscious.)
I suppose we could assume that Sharon was at that stage of his life in less control of his mind than we assumed.
He did choose Olmert as his second in command in Kadima.
Apart from that many thought that for the West the proof would be in the pudding (the Gaza withdrawal) but with the hypocritical bigots Israel has received no credit for its attempts at peace.
Just look at Rice’s security mess of the Philedelphia corridor and then the UN resolution in Lebanon in 2006.
That’s what Israelis on the ground saw while Arik was already in a coma.
The Gaza problem is simple to solve. You start a walking artillery barrage in the North and walk it South. Then the Gazans become an Egyptian problem. n nPerhaps that was what Sharon was thinking before he stopped thinking.