Yes, I would like to receive periodic updates and information via e-mail from Commentary.

Recipient Addresses:

Separate each address with a comma.

Your E-mail Address: Message:

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz supports Ariel Sharon’s “disengagement” plan, but the whole concept of being able to separate Israelis and Palestinians is false [“Bush, Sharon, My Daughter, and Me,” April]. Even if Gaza is completely emptied of any Jewish presence, there will continue to be thousands of Palestinians flooding into Israel daily for work. In addition, Israel will still be providing the Palestinians’ basic utilities and depending on the Palestinian authorities to prevent the bombing of population centers.

As even a cursory look at the daily news reveals, weapons of all sorts have been smuggled into Gaza under the noses of the unconcerned Egyptians, and terrorists have been invited to join the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Podhoretz concedes that the “new” Palestinian leadership’s beliefs about terrorism are no different from those espoused by Yasir Arafat. There is no evidence that the Palestinians now acknowledge the Jewish state’s right to exist; they do not even pretend to. Why should Israel rush ahead with a plan that uproots 8,000 Jews from their homes and businesses, especially when the plan has such uncertain benefits and when nothing has changed on the ground?

If, after this terrible experiment, terrorism actually increases, Israel will not be able to do anything about it, since the Israel Defense Forces will have been removed from the “hot” areas. Mr. Podhoretz argues that, in such a case, the Palestinians would suffer because they will lose American support for their state. But what if they are not as interested in a state of their own as they are in destroying the Jewish presence here? This is not a risk we Israelis can afford to take.

Mr. Podhoretz puts his faith in George W. Bush and the Bush Doctrine. But there is no evidence that, as he writes, “the Palestinians are now as subject as all the other regimes” to this “great new force.” Where exactly does Mr. Podhoretz see the Palestinians being held to some high standard? Where is the evidence of an end to Arab rejectionism or a Palestinian willingness to accept a two-state solution?

Even if the Bush Doctrine were the most perfect idea, the Bush administration is still saddled with a State Department notorious for taking the Arab side, a Congress that includes members from across the political spectrum, and an international community that is usually hostile to Israel. Mr. Podhoretz simply gives too much credit to the ability of one man, who is after all working within a democratic system, to push through his own agenda.

Deborah Buckman
Beit Shemesh, Israel

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz’s article certainly goes to the heart of the matter concerning the Gaza disengagement. I found his feelings very close to my own and (I would venture to say) those of many other Israelis who have held their breath and allowed Ariel Sharon the leeway he required to proceed. But recent developments have caused me to become a skeptic.

At the end of March, the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, stated emphatically that there was no understanding with the U.S. regarding Israel’s retention of major Jewish population centers on the West Bank. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice moved in quickly to do some “damage control,” knowing that Sharon’s credibility in Israel would be cut to shreds if Kurtzer’s remarks were taken at face value.

But they did not deny what the ambassador had said; they simply restated Bush’s earlier, vague commitment that “new realities on the ground” would be taken into account when the final border between Israel and a new state of Palestine is drawn. During Sharon’s visit with the President in April, there seems to have been no substantive discussion of this issue. The shrill denunciation by the U.S. of plans in Israel to make Jerusalem contiguous with the populous suburb of Ma’aleh Adumim only highlights the problem.

Allan Leibler
Jerusalem, Israel

 

To the Editor:

Because of his extensive record of correctly foreseeing the consequences of major policies and actions in the Middle East, Norman Podhoretz has great credibility when writing about Israel’s disengagement plan. Nevertheless, his article supports policies that are dangerous for the U.S. and Israel. 

Mr. Podhoretz is hopeful that the two countries will enforce the provisions of the “road map” as they pertain to the Palestinians. But even as Mahmoud Abbas has welcomed terrorists into the security forces of the Palestinian Authority, Bush and Sharon have behaved as if all were progressing as stipulated. They have continued to support Abbas and the corruption surrounding his thugocracy.

Bush demanded that the Palestinians produce a leader who is not associated with terrorism. Thus, everyone pretends that Abbas was not involved with the 1972 Munich massacre, was not Arafat’s bosom buddy, and did not specialize in Holocaust denial. Abbas is certainly capable of keeping the Palestinian Authority itself from promoting anti-Semitism and “martyrdom,” though such hate continues to flourish as always in the Palestinian schools. If there is any doubt about Abbas’s beliefs, one need look no further than the order he recently reaffirmed to execute a large number of Palestinians whose “crime” was attempting to prevent attacks on Israelis.

In his admiration for President Bush, Mr. Podhoretz lets him off the hook entirely. His administration refuses to ask questions or make demands that might “weaken” Abbas. Instead, it places pressure on the Israelis, implying that they are responsible for producing good behavior from the Palestinians. Bush’s policies will ensure that Israel is prevented from ever achieving a definitive victory over its mortal enemies.

Laura T. Gutman
Durham, North Carolina

To the Editor:

Contrary to what Norman Podhoretz asserts, President Bush appears to be satisfied with “ritualistic condemnations of terrorism” by the Palestinian Authority. He has accepted Mahmoud Abbas’s “revolving-door” arrests of terrorists. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged Israel to make concessions to the PA, without which, it is contended, Abbas would lack the political power to crack down on terrorism. Meanwhile, Abbas has assured the terrorists that not only will he not disarm them, he will add them to the PA’s payroll. And the U.S. has continued to donate funds to the PA, despite Abbas’s failure to comply with his obligations to crack down on terror and his failure to end indoctrination in bigotry and violence.

There is no reason to suppose that if the PA continues to support terrorism, the U.S. will cease to support Palestinian statehood. Bush’s rhetoric has made it sound as if statehood were some sacred and immutable right for that undeserving band.

Richard H. Shulman
New York City

To the Editor:

Norman Podhoretz’s article is so nuanced and qualified that one could find a half-dozen instances in which he doubts his own claim that Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan is, in the final analysis, good for Israel. This makes for a rather weak argument. Moreover, his defense of the plan is weaker than he supposes.

Mr. Podhoretz seems to agree with his interlocutor “C.” that the Palestinian leadership does not regard the Israeli evacuation of Gaza as resulting from the success of the intifada. But in the unlikely event that Sharon had become prime minister in a time of relative peace, can anyone credibly claim that he would have advocated unilateral withdrawal?

---

---

© 2010 Commentary Inc.