Soccer Dad

Chat follow up

Lewis Roth of APN did indeed respond to my question:

Baltimore, Md.: Since Israel has withdrawn its troops from Lebanon, Hezbollah has maintained its arsenal, and continued attacking Israel occasionally killing Israelis - civilians included - across the U.N. certified border garnering virtually no outrage from the world community. Do you expect the same will happen following the Israel withdrawal from Gaza? Will the forces of the PA, Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue attacking Israel from Gaza evoking little or no outrage?

Lewis Roth: First, it's important to recognize that Israel reaped tremendous diplomatic benefits from withdrawing from Lebanon, and that although attacks continue to take place from time to time, the northern border is much quieter now than when Israel had troops across the border. If things go well--that is, if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas manages to keep a handle on terrorist groups, if Israel provides the Palestinians with a political horizon the day after disengagement, and if the international community increases its involvement in the conflict--then there is a chance that terrorist attacks will decrease, especially from Gaza. On the other hand, if things don't go well, there is the possibility that Hamas and other terror groups will decide to increase their attacks on Israel from the West Bank. In order to avert this possibility, Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to cooperate and work to strengthen each other against extremist elements.

I wish I had had the opportunity to follow-up. What diplomatic benefits? Did the UN (and world) respond when Hezbollah kidnapped and killed three soldiers a few months after the withdrawal from Lebanon? And the border is quieter but aren't civilians more at risk?
And if Israel supports Abbas there will be less violence. If the international community increases its involvement, that too, will be good. And what did such involvement gain Israel unitl now? The moment Arafat could shed his "peacemaker" role, Israel was under attack from a weaker position.
A day after Israeli newspapers report that the PA is bringing "militants" from Lebanon to Gaza it's a bit odd to be arguing that if Israel strengthens Abbas it will help against "extremist elements."

I suppose though, that my main objection to Roth was here:

Lyon, France: Since you liberal Americans believe Israel should carve out sections of its territory to create a state for the Arabs within its borders, wouldn't it also be fair for Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other Arab states to do the same for the Jews living within their borders? You do want a "fair" settlement, don't you?

Lewis Roth: Your question assumes that Israel has internationally recognized borders. Unfortunately, after so many years since its establishment, it doesn't have such boundaries. One of the goals of the peace process is to allow Israel to have secure, internationally recognized borders. Ironically, only an agreement with the Palestinians can deliver this--the status quo will not suffice and it cannot be done unilaterally.

Here's the problem, and it's the usual problem with the "peace process" until now. (Presumably, this is what PM Sharon's trying to change.) By saying that one of the goals of the peace process is that Israel should have "internationally recognized borders" essentially gives the Palestinians (and Arabs generally) veto power of that process. The moment the Palestinians say that Isreal hasn't withdrawn enough, then Israel must conform to the new Palestinian demands or Israel doesn't have peace and it doesn't have internationally recognized borders. Consider Mohammed Dahlan's recent demand that Israel that Israel withdraw further north or else it's not completely out of Gaza. Or consider Thomas Friedman's Saudi "peace" initiative, where Saudi Arabia made a series of demands on Israel that Israel would have to observe, in order to have peace.
And this is the basic problem, that for peace, democratic Israel is being asked to prove its legitimacy by acceding to the demands of a bunch of dictators and kings who never had their own legitimacy ratified by their subjects!
In general, all three chats including the ones by David Makovsky, Dr. Amiel Unger were worth reading. Surprisingly it seemed that quite a few, perhaps the majority, of the questioners were hostile, or at least skeptical of disengagement and certainly pro-Israel. I've noticed that a lot of these Washington Post chats tend to the left. BTW, did anyone reading this, contribute a question to any of the hosts?
Technorati tag Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad

Posted by SoccerDad at August 16, 2005 5:49 AM