67 readers online now

98,582 comments by 26,202 readers

Go to Mobile Site

Latest Articles

 

ADVERTISEMENTS



Premium Links
by Wikio

Computers
Electronics
Communication
Appliances

eXTReMe Tracker

A Tactical Withdrawal in Gaza
Reader comment on item: Sharon Loses His Way On Israeli 'Settlements'

Submitted by Uzi Amit-Kohn (Israel), Feb 12, 2004 at 07:49

The problem with Dr. Pipes attitude to Arik Sharon's plan to withdraw troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip is that it lends too much weight to the psychological efect on the Palestinians and ignores the important tactical -even strategic- rationale for making the withdrawal: to create a stable and tenable set of arrangements and temporary borders which will allow Israel to exist and it economy to prosper without unacceptably high casualties from terrorism and in the absence of an agreement with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon shares Dr. Pipes skepticism about the intentions of the Palestinian leadership and the ability of this generation of Palestinians to "live in peace" with Israel. The conclusion is to work out a set of arrangements whereby Israel will be able to "live in war" with the Palestinians (i.e. to handle Israel- Palestinian relations in terms of conflict management), but at sufficiently low cost in lives, money and military forces commited to the mission. Because the Palestinians cannot be relied on to negotiate in good faith, the steps taken must be unilateral. Because the continued residence of 7,000 Jewish settlers deep within hostile territory, surrounded on all sides by 1.5 million hostile Palestinians eager to see them dead (and-incidentally- possessed of the highest birthrate in the world), is an inherently untenable situation, withdrawal of the settlements in Gaza is clearly called for.

It is also wrong- and highly ahistorical - to view a withdrawal in the face of the enemy as tantamount to a defeat. Often it is the failure to withdraw to defensible positions which leads to defeat. Winston Churchill's decision to withdraw British and French troops from the beachhead they held at Dunkirk may have been interpreted as a victory by the Germans, but it kept those troops available to fight another day. Conversely, it was Hitler's refusal to authorize von Paulus to withdraw his exposed army in the face of the Red Army's pincer manuever which doomed the Germans to defeat at Stalingrad, something for which we remain grateful to this day. If General Percival had listened to the advice of his staff and engineering officers and redeployed British troops in the Malasian penninsula to a secure fortified perimeter around Singapore, a location where they could have been given air cover by RAF planes based on Singapore's four airfields, Singapore need not have fallen and 90,000 British troops wouldn't have found themselves surrendering to a much smaller Japanese army. And if Robert E. Lee had been sensible enough to accept as a momentary setback his failure to outflank the Union Army through Little Roundtop on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, and withdrawn his forces or done anything other than order the suicidal charge up Cemetary Ridge the next day, the American Civil War might have had a different outcome.

A tactical withdrawal, a straightening of lines, an intelligent redeployment of forces to more easily defensible positions, might be interpreted by the enemy as a victory for him, but often it is in fact the key to preventing a real victory by that enemy. Separating Israel from the 1.5 million hostile Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and the demographic time-bomb they represent, is such a withdrawal. What is more, the Palestinians understand that for all the appearance of a victory , the unilateral withdarwawl will leave them with a much weaker hand. That is why the Palestinian leadership is so opposed to the move.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (21) on this item

Title By Date
Thank you [106 words]Denice Gary-PandolAug 12, 2009 15:48
peace [67 words]david pedersenJul 27, 2004 21:53
Love your comment!
[w/response] [50 words]
Melvin A. FechterJul 11, 2004 23:48
The Cost of security? [148 words]ManfredFeb 23, 2004 19:29
Jews in Gaza [140 words]Yuval BrandstetterFeb 21, 2004 05:06
Will the PA keep a promise? [572 words]Ben ShniperFeb 19, 2004 10:49
Good points but dangerous? [129 words]Jacob FisherFeb 18, 2004 07:06
Israel's mistakes [65 words]Travis CarrFeb 17, 2004 21:31
The Decision in Dismantling Settlements in Gaza [518 words]Shimon Z. KleinFeb 14, 2004 04:55
One more reason for withdrawal
[w/response] [108 words]
Boris FrenkelFeb 12, 2004 21:10
Support of Daniel Pipes [26 words]Carl CohenFeb 12, 2004 12:08
⇒ A Tactical Withdrawal in Gaza [573 words]Uzi Amit-KohnFeb 12, 2004 07:49
The Pullback May Outflank the PA [758 words]Jonathan PfefferFeb 11, 2004 23:06
Take some give some. [254 words]R. KonopsFeb 11, 2004 17:22
Palestinian [38 words]George WeinbaumFeb 11, 2004 04:57
What a pity! [55 words]Yaron BrenmanFeb 10, 2004 19:34
I was wondering if anyone could comment... [50 words]David IseckeFeb 10, 2004 18:23
Hooray! A Bold Stance and Well Reasoned Arguments [54 words]Marj LewisFeb 10, 2004 17:38
Acceptable solution to Islam? [266 words]Darwin BarrettFeb 10, 2004 13:54
Right As Usual (EOM) [1 words]Dan AdlerFeb 10, 2004 13:54
Agree completely [85 words]Rich McMahonFeb 10, 2004 13:16

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

ADVERTISEMENTS

All materials written by Daniel Pipes on this site © Daniel Pipes. Email: meqmef@aol.com