Dark thoughts intrude on prospects for Gaza

James Klurfeld
August 19, 2005

Americans tend to be optimists. Ask someone in this country whether the glass is half full or half empty and the answer will likely be half full. There has always been a "can-do" attitude here, a belief that every problem has a solution. That is less true in other parts of the world, where historical experience has conditioned people to be more skeptical, and even downright cynical.

In recent days I've been thinking about these different ways of looking at events, especially Israel's evacuation from its settlements in the Gaza Strip. Even with the graphic pictures of Israeli forces physically removing screaming protesters, I'm assuming this is a far-sighted move by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, one that could well lead to a resumption of the peace process. It allows Israel to extricate itself from a difficult demographic problem: only about 9,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza amid more than 1 million Palestinians. It allows the Palestinians there to take control of their lives. And it sets the stage for further Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank territory it conquered in 1967. That certainly should give the Palestinians incentive to control violence and negotiate seriously.

But look at the withdrawal from the darker perspective of the Mideast and you see a different scenario. The Palestinians don't interpret the withdrawal as a grand gesture but, rather, as sign of weakness, a vindication of their suicide bombings and unrelenting terror against Israel. They think more terror will bring further withdrawals. So the government of Mahmoud Abbas - rather than establish a peaceful, civilized enclave in the Gaza Strip - will prove unable or unwilling to control the militants of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Gaza will become an armed camp from which Palestinians can launch rockets and terrorist attacks against Israel. Then how long will it be before Sharon - or any Israeli leader - sends in the troops again?

And here's a further dark thought: The radicalization of Gaza is exactly what Sharon not only expects but desires. Having finally done what the Western world has been telling Israel it must do since it occupied the territories, Sharon will be able to say: "You see what happens when we make a unilateral move for peace? It is only misinterpreted as a show of weakness and an opportunity to attack Israel. Your assumption has been that if only Israel made concessions of land for peace, the Palestinians would respond and accept a two state solution. But the Palestinian goal remains what it has always been: to drive Israel out of its land, to destroy Israel."

Sharon will further declare that the Palestinian actions only make it clearer why Israel must build the wall that separates its territory from Palestinians along the West Bank and maintain a heavy security presence there.

As far as most of us can see into the future, the wall will be the boundary between Israel and Palestine, and most of the West Bank settlements, if not all, will be maintained. That is, rather than creating an inexorable logic for withdrawal from all of the West Bank, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza will be proof to the world that the Palestinians can't be trusted to fulfill their part of the bargain. Sharon and the hard-liners will be able to argue that Israel must maintain its presence and settlements in a portion of the West Bank.

Too cynical for your taste? OK, but remember we are talking about the Mideast here, not Iowa. Until now there has been scant evidence Abbas or his government can control the militants, even if they understand the trap Sharon has set.

What if the Palestinians do turn Gaza into a peaceful area? Then Israel's withdrawal could prove to be a turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But there is an assumption in that question: that a majority of Palestinians really want a two-state solution and will work to achieve it. And that is, at least, a glass-half-full approach.