Breaking Off the Engagement

I'm not sure who proposed to whom, but the Israelis and Palestinians have been wearing each others' diamond rings since the 1994 Oslo Accord, for better and (more often) for worse. Ariel Sharon is planning to return the ring.

Many observers, myself included, have wondered why the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is such a bad idea. Of course it's not complete justice to the Palestinians, but partial justice is better than none, right? A lot of Arabs, Europeans, and Israeli leftists disagree. It's all part of some Israeli version of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

In a typically Israeli bout of unadvised honesty, a Sharon aide (who will soon be looking for work, no doubt) talked with interviewers from Friday magazine:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians. What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

A pretty damning interview. If only the American media covered it, it could make Bush look like he'd been hoodwinked by Sharon, and would embarress the latter in the eyes of the American public. But that won't happen, which is one reason Israeli officials are so often loose-lipped; and one reason I read Haaretz regularly.

So does this mean InstantReplay is withdrawing its endorsement of the disengagement plan, or Operation Formaldehyde as it could now be called?

No. Not because I agree with Sharon's conclusion that the best solution is to keep the Palestinians in a super-sized prison until the next epic regional catastrophe changes things; his ideals are abhorrent. Rather, the Israelis are beating themselves at their own game: facts on the ground. Since the early 1900's, the Zionists found themselves stymied in political processes unless and until they went out and created 'facts on the ground'. Since 1967 this effort has been mainly placed in building settlements, which Sharon now proposes to dismantle (including, presumably, his own home). Even if his motives are underhanded and unjust, the results on the ground will look the same as if it had been negotiated in some grueling 4-week marathon between sweating, overweight diplomats in an American or Norwegian resort. The formaldehyde will only last as long as Likud is in office; a reinvigorated Labor government a few years down the road will be forced at some points to go back to the negotiating table, this time with one chip fewer.