This should have been a 'summer of discontent' in Israel. Palestinian terrorists continued to try to blow up buses, although they were less successful; missiles from Gaza were near-missing homes and schools in Israeli border towns; Gaza was in a controlled state of "anarchy"; even Hizbullah was hitting us from Lebanon.
But things have changed. The army has finally demonstrated conclusively that there is a military solution to terrorism. Defensive barriers and checkpoints do prevent terrorists from walking and driving into Israel unimpeded. Drive-by shootings, a common occurrence only a few years ago, are no more.
Amidst all of this, life goes on as if normal. Tourists are back. Stores and cafes are open and often packed. It is safe again to gather in more than small groups in Jerusalem. Hotels are overbooked.
But hold the euphoria.
Despite all that Israel has accomplished in its war against Palestinian terrorism, the government is about to rekindle those flames by walking away from the Gaza Strip, destroying two dozen Jewish communities there, and condemning both Israelis and Palestinians to a new reign of terror. It's called "disengagement" or "unilateral withdrawal". It means retreat.
And Gaza is only the beginning. Over the next few years (or less), according to Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's deputy, the government plans to abandon most of Yehuda and Shomron (Judea and Samaria) and allow a terrorist-based Palestinian state to emerge. If nothing else, this will encourage the gang of terrorists once led by Yasser Arafat.
If something might be gained from this policy of defeatism, one might accept it. But no one, not even its staunchest adherents, believe that terrorism will diminish (let alone end) or that Israeli security will be strengthened.
"Israel is morally obliged to withdraw," they argue, from the prime minister on down, including his bitterest rivals. "Israel cannot occupy another people against its will. That is immoral."
But Israel doesn't "occupy" the Palestinians; the Palestinian Authority does. The Israeli army enters Palestinian-controlled areas only in order to prevent a terrorist attack or root out terrorists, but that is a limited and temporary action. In any case, Israel has no choice but to do it. And even after withdrawal, Israel claims the right to continue such actions. So what has been accomplished by deporting Jews from their homes?
Backers of Sharon are at pains to offer any strategic or practical explanations. Haifa University Professor Dan Sheuftan, the 'architect' of the withdrawal plan, acknowledges that terrorism will continue and that Israel must continue its military incursions. Tel Aviv University professor and Knesset Member Yuval Steinitz agrees. Both are intelligent, committed participants, who understand that there is a tactical, but no strategic, value to removing settlements. Both are concerned about the long-term effects of "occupation" in Israel's international standing and its ability to wage a long-term war. And both are profoundly aware of the dangers involved. Yet, they believe there are no alternatives.
And here's the rub. Israeli policy makers have come to a dead-end in their thinking about how to confront Palestinian terrorism. Their perspective assumes an on-going war, not an end to terrorism. Having painted themselves into a corner, accepting a Palestinian state, they are unable to find a way out. That is called surrender.
The tragedy of Israel today is that there is no one who can rally any significant opposition. The Likud's candidate to lead the party, Ariel Sharon, who once backed settlements, then switched sides after having been elected, has co-opted the Right. The Left, which continues to advocate appeasement and compromise, is allied with its arch-enemy, the Likud. It seems to make no sense. The only thing that unites them now is the policy of unilateral withdrawal. As if that will solve anything.
One would expect some organized opposition. Except for the Jews of Gush Katif in Gaza, there is practically none. The 'hilltop youth' (mostly in the Shomron) see themselves as a first line of defense against attempts to destroy existing, more well-established Jewish communities.
The media overwhelming supports the government, an anomaly in democratic societies, where the media is usually critical and provides a balance. The Supreme Court, also a potential balance, is even more extremely to the Left than the government. Most Israeli think tanks also support the government or are silent on the issue.
The result is a sense of political paralysis and apathy from the majority of Israelis who support settlements and who disagree with government policies. Their voice could only be heard in an election or referendum, which the government refuses to hold.
Perhaps, in a strange way, this is the effect of a 'post-traumatic-stress syndrome', when people feel so weary that they will accept anything; when they are so weakened by years of terrorism, vilification and condemnation by the world, that they believe the myths and lies of their enemies; when they will accept any small, short-term respite from the pain and believe that is enough.
If there is any hope, it will come from those who see themselves as outside of, not part of, the system; who are willing to rebel against conventional thinking and not succumb to the mind-numbing advice of 'experts'. Sharon's mobilization of every institution under his control to stifle critical debate, including the police, army, media and intelligence units, has created the greatest threat to Israeli democracy since Yitzchak Rabin hijacked the country with the Oslo Accords. The government presents a monolithic superstructure that seems unstoppable and invincible.
Almost. Throughout Judea and Samaria (the 'West Bank') small groups of idealistic young families have taken over empty hilltops adjacent to well-established communities.
At stake in Israel's retreat from Gaza (and later the rest of Yehuda and Shomron) are not the Jewish communities there, but Israel's status as a nation-state, and its historic place in the Jewish people's return to their homeland.
If a leader emerges from this dilemma, let us hope that he's riding on a white donkey, not in an air-conditioned limousine.
But things have changed. The army has finally demonstrated conclusively that there is a military solution to terrorism. Defensive barriers and checkpoints do prevent terrorists from walking and driving into Israel unimpeded. Drive-by shootings, a common occurrence only a few years ago, are no more.
Amidst all of this, life goes on as if normal. Tourists are back. Stores and cafes are open and often packed. It is safe again to gather in more than small groups in Jerusalem. Hotels are overbooked.
But hold the euphoria.
Despite all that Israel has accomplished in its war against Palestinian terrorism, the government is about to rekindle those flames by walking away from the Gaza Strip, destroying two dozen Jewish communities there, and condemning both Israelis and Palestinians to a new reign of terror. It's called "disengagement" or "unilateral withdrawal". It means retreat.
And Gaza is only the beginning. Over the next few years (or less), according to Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's deputy, the government plans to abandon most of Yehuda and Shomron (Judea and Samaria) and allow a terrorist-based Palestinian state to emerge. If nothing else, this will encourage the gang of terrorists once led by Yasser Arafat.
If something might be gained from this policy of defeatism, one might accept it. But no one, not even its staunchest adherents, believe that terrorism will diminish (let alone end) or that Israeli security will be strengthened.
"Israel is morally obliged to withdraw," they argue, from the prime minister on down, including his bitterest rivals. "Israel cannot occupy another people against its will. That is immoral."
But Israel doesn't "occupy" the Palestinians; the Palestinian Authority does. The Israeli army enters Palestinian-controlled areas only in order to prevent a terrorist attack or root out terrorists, but that is a limited and temporary action. In any case, Israel has no choice but to do it. And even after withdrawal, Israel claims the right to continue such actions. So what has been accomplished by deporting Jews from their homes?
Backers of Sharon are at pains to offer any strategic or practical explanations. Haifa University Professor Dan Sheuftan, the 'architect' of the withdrawal plan, acknowledges that terrorism will continue and that Israel must continue its military incursions. Tel Aviv University professor and Knesset Member Yuval Steinitz agrees. Both are intelligent, committed participants, who understand that there is a tactical, but no strategic, value to removing settlements. Both are concerned about the long-term effects of "occupation" in Israel's international standing and its ability to wage a long-term war. And both are profoundly aware of the dangers involved. Yet, they believe there are no alternatives.
And here's the rub. Israeli policy makers have come to a dead-end in their thinking about how to confront Palestinian terrorism. Their perspective assumes an on-going war, not an end to terrorism. Having painted themselves into a corner, accepting a Palestinian state, they are unable to find a way out. That is called surrender.
The tragedy of Israel today is that there is no one who can rally any significant opposition. The Likud's candidate to lead the party, Ariel Sharon, who once backed settlements, then switched sides after having been elected, has co-opted the Right. The Left, which continues to advocate appeasement and compromise, is allied with its arch-enemy, the Likud. It seems to make no sense. The only thing that unites them now is the policy of unilateral withdrawal. As if that will solve anything.
One would expect some organized opposition. Except for the Jews of Gush Katif in Gaza, there is practically none. The 'hilltop youth' (mostly in the Shomron) see themselves as a first line of defense against attempts to destroy existing, more well-established Jewish communities.
The media overwhelming supports the government, an anomaly in democratic societies, where the media is usually critical and provides a balance. The Supreme Court, also a potential balance, is even more extremely to the Left than the government. Most Israeli think tanks also support the government or are silent on the issue.
The result is a sense of political paralysis and apathy from the majority of Israelis who support settlements and who disagree with government policies. Their voice could only be heard in an election or referendum, which the government refuses to hold.
Perhaps, in a strange way, this is the effect of a 'post-traumatic-stress syndrome', when people feel so weary that they will accept anything; when they are so weakened by years of terrorism, vilification and condemnation by the world, that they believe the myths and lies of their enemies; when they will accept any small, short-term respite from the pain and believe that is enough.
If there is any hope, it will come from those who see themselves as outside of, not part of, the system; who are willing to rebel against conventional thinking and not succumb to the mind-numbing advice of 'experts'. Sharon's mobilization of every institution under his control to stifle critical debate, including the police, army, media and intelligence units, has created the greatest threat to Israeli democracy since Yitzchak Rabin hijacked the country with the Oslo Accords. The government presents a monolithic superstructure that seems unstoppable and invincible.
Almost. Throughout Judea and Samaria (the 'West Bank') small groups of idealistic young families have taken over empty hilltops adjacent to well-established communities.
At stake in Israel's retreat from Gaza (and later the rest of Yehuda and Shomron) are not the Jewish communities there, but Israel's status as a nation-state, and its historic place in the Jewish people's return to their homeland.
If a leader emerges from this dilemma, let us hope that he's riding on a white donkey, not in an air-conditioned limousine.