Why I Agree With Arik

It's rare that I agree with Ariel Sharon. He's a war criminal found guilty by his own country, he's a nationalist with serious antipathy towards other races, and he's a fat bastard who owns a huge sheep farm on land that he took without paying for. There's not much we agree on, Arik and I.

In the comments to the last post Parker challenged my views on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, known as the Occupied Territories or "OT's". I answered his allegations about legality in the comment; that's all pretty abstrusive stuff. However, the bigger political question is, What is good for Israel? This is important because the Palestinians are powerless, so asking, What is good for everyone? is a purely academic/moral question. What is good for Israel? is a vital political question, because Israel holds all the cards and will act in her own perceived best interest. Arik - ever the realist - and I agree on all of that, I suspect.

More importantly, we agree on what should be done about Gaza. Sharon owns the largest farm in Israel, or so they say, and it's located in the Gaza Strip. He's willing to give that up - not only that but all of Israel's footholds in Gaza plus four West Bank settlements - in exchange for nothing. His cabinet isn't so sure, and the far right has jumped ship, but Labor is propping up Sharon's minority government long enough to see the plan through.

Why is Sharon risking his political life for this plan? Obviously not for personal gain - he's being investigated for shady business deals elsewhere, but he's not gaining power or money by supporting this plan. I doubt that the goal is to curry favor with Arabs at home or abroad - they hate him more than you and I can know. Why then? Because it's the undoubted best thing for Israel.

Sharon knows that the Arab states around him pose no threat anymore, save through the deployment of WMD's, should they ever begin to catch up to Israel in that department. And precisely because Israel has nukes, few Arab rulers would ever risk their own destruction by deploying those conventionally. More likely, a terrorist group would shadily acquire them from outside the Arab world, and deploy them as they might any other suicide bomb, but with far worse consequences. Israel has no reason to fear its neighbors; but fearing terrorism is all they've done for 15 years.

Sharon knows, and we should all admit, that there are just two ways to end terrorism. First is to commit genocide, and even the Butcher of Beirut can't bring himself to authorize that. Second is to physically separate the terrorists from their target. The disengagement plan would cut off Gaza, the prime source of terrorism, from Israel, and force it back into Egypt's court. Egypt probably isn't too excited about this, but that's neither here nor there. By pulling out of four West Bank settlements, Sharon can consolidate his position there as well, making the border less porous and presenting fewer targets. Now, I think Israel would finally realized peace by going the whole nine yards and getting out of the West Bank, but Gaza is at least a start.

If you are a Zionist, you have to ask yourself what you want: an Israeli state, safe for Jews and tourists, or Israeli expansion, at the cost of safety. Sharon has admitted after a third of a century in politics that he can't have his cake and eat it too. Can you admit that, Parker, or is it going to take you a third of a century as well?