Unilateral Disengagement
Reader comment on item: Ehud Olmert on the Gaza Withdrawal – A Dreamy Return to Oslo

Submitted by Neil Goldstein (United States), Jan 17, 2006 at 16:03

One we recognize the anarchy overwhelming the Palestinian polity, there is but one conclusion reasonable people can finally reach. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza started as a gambit to improve Israel's security by separating dangerous Gaza from Israel. It relied on much of the same logic that underlies Israel's construction of a security fence to separate Israelis from terrorists in the West Bank. Formulated when Arafat still was alive, this policy of "disengagement" assumed that there was no Palestinian partner for peace. Israel was willing to simultaneously accept the Bush "Roadmap," which assumed the opposite, only because of Israel's trust in President Bush and because the Roadmap required no major new concessions on Israel's part until the Palestinians proved themselves to really be such partners.

Sadly, events of this past year have proven proponents of disengagement right: there are no Palestinian partners capable of ending terrorism and making peace with Israel. Much of Europe and some in Washington have been slow to come to this conclusion. But it is a conclusion that the vast majority of Israelis came to long ago, and that we have long counseled.

In the absence of such a partner, it is the consensus of Israeli politics that disengagement is the only viable option and that is the course that Israel will need to pursue in the months and years ahead. While Ariel Sharon had the might and will to see this through, Mr. Olmert's initial statements indicate that he will follow through with the only viable option left.

Sincerely,

Executive Director: Neil B Goldstein

President: Paul S. Miller

---

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.

Daniel Pipes replies:

Let us make an appointment to review the situation in, say, five years and see how things look then.