It took 14 years for Israel to pull out of the Gaza Strip after the Madrid peace conference in which the “Land for Peace” principle was approved. The present withdrawal and evacuation of Jewish settlers were not the result of face-to-face negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel or a commitment to the American-brokered road map. It was a unilateral decision taken by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of the Jewish state, a right-wing extremist. The decision has, apparently, triggered debates not only among the concerned parties but also on an international level.
One wonders if Israel has accepted finally the “Land for Peace” formula after so many years or the Zionist state has been motivated by some other considerations.
Sharon’s move has also spawned a political crisis in Israel. Protesting the dismantling of the Gaza settlements, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resigned from the Cabinet. Netanyahu’s move has, obviously, been interpreted as a political ploy to influence those who are against the withdrawal and thus guarantee an easy passage to the chairmanship of the Likud Party.
Another likely reason for Sharon’s determination to get out of the Gaza lands is his keenness to build up an image of a man of peace in the outside world though on more than one occasion in the past the prime minister has made known his unwillingness to negotiate on key issues such as the status of Jerusalem, return of the Palestinian refugees, settlements in the West Bank and the wall of racial segregation.
Though sad at the sight of the displaced settlers leaving behind their homes Sharon was only doing this with more sinister designs in mind such as expanding and consolidating the West Bank settlements and making Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel. After having achieved the more difficult goals, the reoccupation of Gaza would not be a tough job for the Israeli Army.
A reading of the Jewish creed and faith suggests the possibility of the reoccupation of Gaza. David Makovsky, former chief editor of Jerusalem Post and the present director of Peace Operations Project in the Middle East at the Washington Institute of Near Eastern Policies said recently that the opponents of the withdrawal from Gaza viewed it as a crime and sacrilege to Jewish heritage as the name Gaza has been mentioned twice in Torah — in the Book of Joshua and the Book of the Judges. So retaining Gaza, he said, is part of the larger scheme though it has to be postponed until more important things were achieved.
Of course, Makovsky’s claim is not historically correct. Gaza was just an Arab port that came under various empires that occupied the region from time to time. It remained under Jewish rule only for 40 years from 97 BC to 57 BC. The Jewish presence in the port city was negligible compared to other Palestinian cities.
There is every reason to doubt Israel’s sincerity when it says that it would implement the terms of the road map. The recent history of the region shows that Israel has been reluctant to honor any agreement aimed at peace or abide by the international law. Israel has never cared to implement the Madrid, Oslo, Sharm El-Shaikh and Cairo agreements.
If the withdrawal from Gaza has been done with sincerity, then it is a blow to the Jewish design to found the Torah-based greater Israel spanning the territories between the Nile and Euphrates.
Some political analysts say the Arabs are witnessing a significant change in the conduct of Israel. It has retracted its early statements and accepted the idea of withdrawal though under pressure from Palestinian, regional and international quarters.
However, I believe that the change is part of a new Israeli strategy to make Jerusalem exclusively for Jews and to force the international community to approve it as the capital of Israel before it will embark on a scheme to achieve the Greater Israel for which the time is not ripe yet.
The present withdrawal is, undoubtedly, an opportunity for the Palestinians to turn Gaza to a place impossible for any colonialist to occupy again and the Palestinians should also continue to mount pressure on Israel until the withdrawal was total in every sense. The land, sea and air borders are still under the Israeli control and no economic activity including the import and export could be done without Sharon’s approval. All these prove the lack of sincerity on the part of Israel.
The situation is, of course, changing and therefore the Palestinians should exploit it to the maximum benefit. The negotiations over the West Bank should begin while the resistance against any colonial presence must go on.
