Jonathan follows Bret Stephens and Max Boot in reviewing the debate over the Gaza disengagement back in 2005, when Israel withdrew civilians and military personnel from the Strip. “But unlike Bret and Max,” Jonathan writes, “I don’t feel obligated to offer any mea culpas about my position on the withdrawal.” After all, to his credit he presciently anticipated that Israel would not receive the benefits from the disengagement that its advocates predicted.
“So why didn’t those reservations compel me to take a stand against Sharon?” he continues. “It was because the decision to withdraw was the decision of the democratically elected government of the state of Israel.” This, Jonathan says, is why the “Diaspora kibitzers who are now saying, ‘I told you so,’ are still missing the key point about that debate,” since “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.”
In so writing, Jonathan retains the position long occupied by Jewish conservatives outside of Israel, who prefer to leave Israeli policy to the Israelis and focus instead on defending the Jewish state from its indefatigable liberal critics, Jewish and gentile. This is an admirable position, but one that nonetheless may need revision and certainly deserves more debate among its adherents. That, though, is for another post.
Regarding the disengagement in particular, one might raise a caveat to Jonathan’s analysis. In a general sense, he is of course correct: “the decision to withdraw was the decision of the democratically elected government of the state of Israel.” But the disengagement was implemented by a party (Likud) which had just been elected on a platform opposing the (actually even more modest) disengagement plan of its opponent, Amram Mitzna’s Labor. Having been reelected prime minister, Likud’s leader, Ariel Sharon, apparently changed his mind and took his own more ambitious disengagement plan to his party for ratification. He lost, leaving him and several defectors from both the Likud and Labor to form a new party, Kadima, instead, in order to pursue the policy.
Now, this was of course entirely legal and simply the outcome of political maneuvering within an unimpeachably democratic system (even though conceptually it is a little bizarre that members of a party who are elected not as individual representatives but specifically as members of that party’s list can nonetheless secede from that party during a parliamentary term–and even more so the prime minister). However, given Sharon’s history as a longstanding advocate of the Israeli presence in the territories, it is not incomparable to, say, a President Rick Santorum reversing himself upon assuming office and signing gay marriage into law.
To call the disengagement democratic, therefore, is certainly not inaccurate, and Jonathan is by no means wrong to do so. And yet it still misses part of what so angered its opponents at the time and since.
As one of those who consistently tell the left and the right to keep quiet about Israeli security issues, I have to also disagree with this post. Gaza is not Arik's nadir. If Arik had not become comatose from a stroke and had remained PM the assent of Hamas would have been stopped. The Gaza pull out was based solely on Arik's personality and the fear he engendered in the Arab world. Yes sometimes political moves are made solely based upon the personality of the elected leader…Nixon going to China comes to mind. Your example of Santorum signing a law allowing gay marriage does not even come close to the force of personalities in play nor the political leap that the Gaza pullout happened to be. n nBut what Israel got instead of an Arik Sharon administration was Olmert and Livni at the helm. Both of whom are immensely incompetent. They both allowed rockets/build up by Hamas for years before Cast Lead and then had little or no real plan once they went into Gaza. Whatever the machinations behind the scene with the Bush administration they also left a precedence of Israeli weakness both on the ground and in the international arena that never went away. Netanyahu inherited this debacle and has had to try to repair the damage with as much finesse as he could muster considering the hate filled Obama administration he had to negotiate with. n nThat being said. yes the pullout was democratic. Israel's elected representatives made decisions for the country. Simply because the author does not like the outcome doesn't mean it was some kind of power grab. Israel's democracy is not based upon the American model but on the British. Sharon was as democratic then as Blair was when he committed UK troops to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and as democratic as Cameron is today.
Jonathan Tobin was right about the withdrawal and right about not opposing the choices of the Israeli electorate, the residents, the citizens who serve in the IDF. They are on the front line on the war with the Arabs and with Islamists. Not us….yet.
And they don't want to back in. Ex post facto Israel has upheld the decision to disengage. To ignore the popular opposition to re-occupation (try polling that, Mr. Neumann) when denouncing the "undemocratic" implementation of the political will that underlies, even today, the desire for geographical dis-engagement, misses the point. And if Rick had thrived in office after passing laws legalizing gay marriage, polygamy, and free pornography in a political career cut short by stroke, not censure, then cavils against the "democracy" of those laws would be as unconvincing as the national-religious block's condemnation of their undemocratic expulsion. Disaffected Commentary readers are welcome to form a Judah Maccabee Brigade and take the fight to Amelek for the ideal Israel of their imagination in the war the actual Israel prefers not to wage.
If I see a beloved friend about to hang himself, I suppose that is his decision. Not my business. And, I, perhaps, could offer him a pistol to hasten the act. Sorry. I wouldn't do that. You don't act that way towards friends.
Sharon acted AGAINST the will of the Israeli electorate which gave him a mandate to do the opposite of what he did. n nThe issue calls for electoral reform in Israel, sadly long overdue. n nAnd I agree with besht2000, in part. n nThe only reason to go in to gaza should be to wipe out Hamas and facilitate the departure of the genocidal savages who elected and support them out of the territory to a place where they are no longer able to physically threaten Israelis. n nAny other reason to go in to Gaza, particularly as sparing their civilians a butcher's bill that further airstrikes would cause that would then be passed on to the IDF in the form of increased casualties would play into the the arab's goals of simply killing more Jews. n nBad press would follow no matter what she did.
Perhaps the withdrawal from Gaza involved a tricky tactic within the Israeli political system, but it was not an undemocratic maneuver. A substantial majority of Israelis supported that evacuation. Lamentable as today's situation is, leaving Gaza, and undertaking the Oslo process for that matter, was not a mistake. n nGaza was unmitigated trouble before the withdrawal. The few settlers there required a large military presence. It meant a true occupation. It did not just give Israel's enemies a fierce and valid argument it gave Israel a bad conscience. n nBy withdrawing Israel demonstrated her good will, and revealed the Palestinians' bad will. Her Left was robbed of its arguments, the country was unified, and the world was given convincing proof why Israel cannot relinquish the West Bank or the Golan without stringent guarantees. n nIn short, the grotesque behavior of Hamas rebounds to Israel's benefit. It illustrates what the Jewish state is up against. Without that performance Israel's standing in the world, bad as it is, would be considerably worse. n nShe is doing well economically and politically. She can handle today's rockets far more easily than boycotts and deligitimization by a world that only sees Jews suppressing Palestinians. n
This analysis is right on. After two peace offers Israel gave the Palestinians, one by Barak at Camp David and one later by Ulmert, which offered the Palestinians around 97% of the Judea and Samaria, both rejected
his analysis is right on. After two peace offers Israel gave the Palestinians, one by Barak at Camp David and one later by Ulmert, which offered the Palestinians around 97% of the Judea and Samaria, both rejected; after Israel withdrew from Gaza to face rockets few days later; after the Palestinians showed they cannot deal peacefully with each other and immediately after their first election one group (Hamas) was killing members of the other (PA); after years in which half the Palestinians have been governed by Hamas, openly committed to Israel destruction and refuse to negotiate, and the other half is governed by the PA, which is considered to be consiliatory (because it is always compared to Hamas) by the international community but still has not made any concession on its claim to Jerusalem and the return of 3 million Palestinians to Israel; after the international community showed that regardless of how much land Israel relinquishes and how many peace offers it makes, it is always viewed by most of the international community as the obstacle to peace; after all these why would any rational Israeli reach any other conclusion than that the Palestinians do not accept Israel's right to exist and that most of the international community supports all the Palestinians' claims regardless of what they are.
Barack Obama is President of the United State of America. Does it matter who his executive handmaidens are? Obama listens only to Obama. Soon enough the world will no longer listen to us. Israel will need a Titanium Dome to protect herself.
A Liberal Fascist college Professor, is distraught over a southern black man being able to think for himself. How dare that ungrateful baffones to not follow the Racist underprivileged path the school system and university professors have brainwashed the liberal black race to expect from society. How dare him to get off the liberal Democrat plantation . He can not be trusted because he is a Trator to the cause and a uncle Tom.
that would be perfect if mr hagel would become secretary of defenser nhe would be perfect man for this job.r nwish him luck and god bless him
with all due respect the "NRA" does not represent every gun owner in this country ! , and every gun owner in this country understands by now that " captain barry " wants them all and the second amendment ! , also !!!!!!! so the atmosphere in which our government is operating is frout with danger ! , tread lighty " barry" !!!!!!!
Nobody cares about the security issues anymore. They may never have cared since it was a fact from Day One. What we mainly care about is "Who gave the Stand Down order/" Next in order of importance "Why was such an order given when Americans on American soil were in danger?" n nThe rest is bureaucratic B/S focused on a small number of State employees. n nI believe that one person with a degree of integrity knows the answers and will, one day, speak out to avoid a guilty conscience or jail time, than another will speak, and another till the truth is known in its entirety. Politicians and bureaucrats have an enormous dread of scandal and of imprisonment. It only takes one, and I suspect it will be a black person who speaks out first.
When it finally comes time to knock out Iran's nuclear program, wouldn't it look better if Hagel were Secretary of Defense instead someone with AIPAC's stamp of approval?