We are at disengagement again. This is a very sophisticated word, too sophisticated for me.
It is a word like 'separation' or 'withdrawal', and yet is has its own special ring. 'Disengagement' sounds like a clever way to end a conflict unilaterally. Which, I suppose, is why the more honest among its advocates call for 'unilateral disengagement.'
But they are in the minority. The clever ones understand that if you want to coat a pill, you should coat it thoroughly. Don't erode the value of the package by showing what is underneath.
Lurking beneath the finery of 'disengagement' is unilateral withdrawal, and beneath that are all sorts of things we'd rather not think about or discuss.
Here are a few ways in which I formulate the meaning of disengagement:
Unilateral cease-fire:
The enemy continues to fight, continues to seek Israel's destruction by an assortment of means. Israel declares the war over by its refusal to fight, but the war continues.
Invitation to Intervention:
As outlined in the past few days, Ariel Sharon's disengagement is tied to the expectation, or hope, of Egyptian and Jordanian intervention. The assumption is that such intervention will serve Israeli interests.
Invitation to Intervention II:
The corollary is increased American and European involvement in the conflict, on the ground, as well as increased pressure for future Israeli withdrawals. What Sharon sees as an American guarantee of an Israeli-Egyptian-Jordanian condominium is also a practical request for the EU and UN to meddle forever in the conflict.
Failure of will:
Regardless of intent, disengagement will be perceived by the Arabs, including 'friendly' (?) ones, as evidence that Israel either 1) does not wish to fight for her existence, or 2) has decided to fight behind shrunken lines. In the same way, the Oslo Accords were read by the Arabs as a practical renunciation of Zionist will, and Ehud Barak's Camp David offer to Yasser Arafat as proof of same. Sharon's 'disengagement' is seen by 'militant' Arabs (is there another kind?) as another signal of fatal Israeli fatigue.
The Israeli and Western technique is to insist on the imposition of one's worldview on an opponent who shares virtually none of it. Peace and war as concepts grow out of this worldview. Here, 'peace' means a call to resolve differences through negotiation and compromise. It reflects an insistence that all disputes can be negotiated and that conflict itself stems from a failure to communicate.
'War' is not war, but a means to change the terms of the struggle until the enemy sees your point of view. In other words, 'war' is presented to the Arabs and Muslims as a regrettable half-measure, a defensive act to prevent further depredations. It is to be seen by them as proof of the desire for peace.
Yet 'peace' as defined by Israelis is not open for consideration, since it is not in the Muslim Arab lexicon in the virtual book, Terms of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This book, were it to exist, would actually be called something like Methods to Defeat the Infidel and Assure Islam's Ascension in Palestine.
In a world where shared concepts existed, where worldviews at least intersected at key points, the concept of disengagement might make sense. The sad fact is that it does make sense to Israel's enemies, but in a way that Israel and its friends refuse to acknowledge or comprehend.
It is a word like 'separation' or 'withdrawal', and yet is has its own special ring. 'Disengagement' sounds like a clever way to end a conflict unilaterally. Which, I suppose, is why the more honest among its advocates call for 'unilateral disengagement.'
But they are in the minority. The clever ones understand that if you want to coat a pill, you should coat it thoroughly. Don't erode the value of the package by showing what is underneath.
Lurking beneath the finery of 'disengagement' is unilateral withdrawal, and beneath that are all sorts of things we'd rather not think about or discuss.
Here are a few ways in which I formulate the meaning of disengagement:
Unilateral cease-fire:
The enemy continues to fight, continues to seek Israel's destruction by an assortment of means. Israel declares the war over by its refusal to fight, but the war continues.
Invitation to Intervention:
As outlined in the past few days, Ariel Sharon's disengagement is tied to the expectation, or hope, of Egyptian and Jordanian intervention. The assumption is that such intervention will serve Israeli interests.
Invitation to Intervention II:
The corollary is increased American and European involvement in the conflict, on the ground, as well as increased pressure for future Israeli withdrawals. What Sharon sees as an American guarantee of an Israeli-Egyptian-Jordanian condominium is also a practical request for the EU and UN to meddle forever in the conflict.
Failure of will:
Regardless of intent, disengagement will be perceived by the Arabs, including 'friendly' (?) ones, as evidence that Israel either 1) does not wish to fight for her existence, or 2) has decided to fight behind shrunken lines. In the same way, the Oslo Accords were read by the Arabs as a practical renunciation of Zionist will, and Ehud Barak's Camp David offer to Yasser Arafat as proof of same. Sharon's 'disengagement' is seen by 'militant' Arabs (is there another kind?) as another signal of fatal Israeli fatigue.
The Israeli and Western technique is to insist on the imposition of one's worldview on an opponent who shares virtually none of it. Peace and war as concepts grow out of this worldview. Here, 'peace' means a call to resolve differences through negotiation and compromise. It reflects an insistence that all disputes can be negotiated and that conflict itself stems from a failure to communicate.
'War' is not war, but a means to change the terms of the struggle until the enemy sees your point of view. In other words, 'war' is presented to the Arabs and Muslims as a regrettable half-measure, a defensive act to prevent further depredations. It is to be seen by them as proof of the desire for peace.
Yet 'peace' as defined by Israelis is not open for consideration, since it is not in the Muslim Arab lexicon in the virtual book, Terms of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This book, were it to exist, would actually be called something like Methods to Defeat the Infidel and Assure Islam's Ascension in Palestine.
In a world where shared concepts existed, where worldviews at least intersected at key points, the concept of disengagement might make sense. The sad fact is that it does make sense to Israel's enemies, but in a way that Israel and its friends refuse to acknowledge or comprehend.