Soccer Dad

Who lost gaza?

For the past year and a half Daniel Pipes has followed the progress of the idea of disengagement. He started by arguing that PM Sharon was bluffing but now concludes that Israel is a democracy killing itself. Not so fast argues Mere Rhetoric:

In fact, a world that has for five decades forced Israel into senseless concession after senseless concession has no right to act either surprised or indignant when Israeli leaders calculate that Israel will eventually be pressured to make more senseless concessions. Sharon is evacuating Gaza now rather than later, and hoping to salvage something in the process. It might turn out that he fails, and that the disengagement loses Israel Gaza and while gaining the country nothing. But even then, the blame must be laid not at the feet of Sharon for taking a desperate gamble, but at the feet of a world that made him think he had no other choice.

Central to Mere Rhetoric's case is that he argues that even Sharon wasn't forced by the Bush administration, he sensed that he would be forced. Mere Rhetoric supports disengagement, but not enthusiastically. It's more of it's the least worst of all options.
I have a number of problems though, with Mere Rhetoric's position.
1) Norman Podhoretz's support of disengagement - For one thing Podhoretz's son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, had been one of the top administration officials in charge of the Middle East. While I don't suspect Abrams of telling his father in law anything he shouldn't have, I'd think that if there was any pressure from the US to Israel Podhoretz would have known about it and registered his discomfort with disenagement. From other things he's written, it's pretty clear the Podhoretz has access to the highest levels of government in Israel. Again nothing in his essay suggests that he's gotten wind of pressure from the United States from the Israeli side either. I find the Podhoretz essay fascinating in that most of the views he recounts tend to be critical or pessimistic about disengagement and yet he still endorses the plan.
2) Recently Israel refused a request from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to transfer arms to the PA. Israel's refusal was, of course, sensible; the request was absurd. But if there was such pressure on a minor issue why risk the fallout of defying the administration (and the President's seemingly closest advisor) on a lesser demand if you give in on a major demand?
3) Mere Rhetoric noted himself recently a disturbing comment by Ehud Olmert. As Mere Rhetoric notes, he supports disengagement because it's a way to ensure Israeli control over certain parts of Judea and Samaria:

Our support for disengagement is predicated on two things: (1) the inevitability of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and (2) the possibility that Sharon might be able to trade Gaza for parts of the West Bank. Now that the Israeli government has out-right denied the latter, we sincerely hope that they don't come out tomorrow and say something like "really, we don't have to withdraw - we just kind of want to".

If Olmert, who's been the government's bellwether, is talking about going back to the Road Map what does that say? Is it American pressure again? Or is it unilateral surrender? (This would also seem to contradict Aluf Benn's view.)
4) Going back to Aluf Benn. Benn is a diplomatic correspondent for Ha'aretz. His article doesn't mention American pressure. Again (as with Podhoretz) if it was there wouldn't he have noted it? I know that a lot of reporters wrote of tension between Pres Bush and PM Sharon during the latter's recent visit to Crawford, but they seemed relying more on tea leaves, entrails and body language than on actual sources. (Herb Keinon of the Jerusalem Post actually reported that they got along great, IIRC.) In the past when an administration is unhappy with Israel there are usually lots of sources to back it up. Maybe it's the Bush administration's discipline. Or maybe the pressure isn't there.
I hope that I've presented Mere Rhetoric's views fairly. I just don't see signs of the pressure that he sees.
UPDATE: I don't know if this is authorotative, but here's what Ze'ev Chafets wrote:

As a master politician, Mr. Bush realized that there were political limits on what Mr. Sharon could do. Neither Mr. Sharon nor any conceivable Israeli prime minister would ever evict the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who now live in East Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs of the West Bank. Asking for that would be an automatic deal-breaker. Same for the Palestinian demand that millions of Arab refugees and their descendants be "returned" to Israel. And Israel would never relinquish its option to respond militarily to armed aggression.

Mr. Bush acknowledged these Israeli truths in an official letter he sent to Mr. Sharon in April of 2004. In exchange for that recognition, however, the president asked for - and got - Mr. Sharon's agreement to do what he could do. Evacuating Gaza was one of those things.

Later Chafets writes that if the Palestinians blow this opportunity, President Bush won't push for any more Israeli concessions. (Jim Hoagland has written something similar. I also believe that Norman Podhoretz implied as much in his article.)

So does that mean that there was American pressure for the disengagement? I guess you could say "yes" but that doesn't mean that it was adversarial and dishonest, like the Clinton pressure on Netanyahu.
Technorati Tag: Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 17, 2005 6:23 AM | TrackBack