Of Alarums and Alarm

Motzei Shabbat, August 12, 2006

As I have written before, the atmosphere in Jerusalem is deceptively quiet during this time of war. The only explosions that go off emanate from the colorful fireworks displays put on by the municipality (where do they get the money for such frivolity?) and the only gunshots that we hear come from the Arab weddings down in the Arab villages below us. Yes, Jerusalem appears to be relatively free of the frightening sounds and sights of this horrible war that has been imposed upon us. But, that is not to say that Jerusalem is completely cut off from the realities of the hostilities raging around us both in the north and in the south.

Jerusalemites have opened their hearts and homes to thousands upon thousands of the refugees from the war-torn cities, towns and villages in Israel. Those who have the wherewithal and the ability to do so have fled the bomb shelters and safe rooms in which they have been living since the outbreak of hostilities to enjoy a bit of respite from the daily rain of rockets and missiles. Many of them have sought shelter from the deadly storm here in the relative quiet and peace of Jerusalem. Hotels emptied of the foreign tourists who usually fill them play host to Israeli families. Imagine the incongruous sight of people lounging around hotel swimming pools who days before huddled in mortal fear, meters of concrete away from the sunshine.

Regarding these people there was an interesting little bit of information in this weekend’s newspaper. Life in Jerusalem pulsates to the rhythms of the Jewish calendar. Each week builds in anticipation of the advent of Shabbat when the hustle and bustle of our everyday lives slows perceptibly and we abandon ourselves to the sweet sanctity of the day of rest. To announce the holy day and to allow Jerusalemites time to complete the deeds of the secular world in order to prepare for the needs of the sacred world, a warning blast from a siren is sounded throughout the city. This hearkens back to the days when the Temple stood on Mount Moriah, when the shofar’s blast heralded the beginning of Shabbat. Today, a siren’s wailing and piercing sound informs us that the Shabbat bride is about to descend upon the city. It is that very siren that was the topic of a small article in Friday’s Jerusalem Post.

It seems that several of our guests from the north expressed dismay over the siren. To them, the siren’s shout means that rockets are about to fall, not the approach of Shabbat eve. What to do? Not wanting these war weary people to associate the announcing of Shabbat with the alarums of war and destruction, someone in the municipality came up with the idea of broadcasting Shabbat melodies to prepare us for Shabbat peace and joy. So, instead of sirens we now have songs.

The weekend papers mainly concentrated on the harsher realities of war as well as noting the first anniversary since the Disengagement from Gaza. It is incredible how much has happened since last August when the (then) Likud government of Ariel Sharon began the historic process of removing the settlements and military bases in Gaza that Israel occupied since 1967. In one year we witnessed Sharon’s stroke. Then came the elections in the PA that catapulted the terrorist Hamas party to leadership of the Palestinians. This was followed by the March elections here in Israel and the subsequent change of government with a Kadimah-led coalition propelling Ehud Olmert to the office of Prime Minister. Almost from the moment of the Israeli pullout from Gaza, Palestinian-launched Kassam rockets began falling within the Green Line on Israeli cities as a kind of defiant response to the Disengagement. Finally, we came to realize the consequence of another Israeli pullout, this one from Lebanon in 2000, and Hezbollah’s massive military build up in South Lebanon. So much happened, so very much in just one short year.

The weekend magazine sections in the various Israeli newspapers are filled with reflections, comments and pontifications from politicians and pundits about the wisdom or folly of last year’s Disengagement and the future fate of its corollary—Olmert’s Convergence plan. The general consensus seems to hold that we are in the mess that we are in regarding Gaza and the Palestinians and the rise of Hamas because of, not in spite of the Disengagement. Hamas and the extreme elements in Palestinian society claimed credit for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as a consequence of their armed resistance to the Israeli presence. This is precisely the same rationale employed by Hezbollah following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon six years ago and which lead to Hezbollah’s political and military rise in Lebanon. If this was true in Gaza and Lebanon, such thinking goes, how can Israel possibly evacuate the West Bank settlements as Olmert’s Convergence Plan outlines?

In apparent alarm over the possible feeding of anti-Israel extremism amongst Palestinians and others in the Arab world, commentators who opening and even enthusiastically endorsed Sharon’s Disengagement Plan a year ago now admit that they were wrong to do so then and are against any subsequent disengagements (by whatever name) executed by the Olmert-led government. You might want to take a look at Amotz Asa-El’s article in this week’s magazine section of the Jerusalem Post.

Now, on the surface, the ominous perspective above may make perfect sense. It would seem to be tantamount to suicide for Israel to act now and remove forty-year-old settlements from the West Bank. But, before we dismiss the Convergence Plan out of hand let us take a closer look at Israel’s previous withdrawals and disengagements and see if they have something to teach us beyond fear and suspicion.

First, what do both the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the Disengagement from Gaza in 2005 have in common? I suggest two things:

1) In both cases Israel pulled out unilaterally without negotiating with either Lebanon or the Palestinians. While it could be (and, in fact, was) argued that Israel had no negotiating partner, absent of Israel establishing an interlocutor, these pullouts only succeeded in creating a political and military vacuum subsequently filled by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

2) Again in both cases, Israel’s military pullout left it without a defensive shield capable of rapid and tactical response to any and all attacks upon the home front. Back in 2000, had there been a negotiated settlement between Israel, Lebanon and the international community in which a “robust” international force had been deployed in South Lebanon to implement Security Council Resolution 1559 (as opposed to the vacuous UNIFIL “observers”), Hezbollah may not have been able to establish itself as effectively as it has. And, had Israel disengaged its civilian population while maintaining a military presence in Gaza until and if a moderate Palestinian negotiating party emerged, the Kassam attacks within Israel might have been significantly modulated if not prevented completely.

The observations above clearly indicate that Israel cannot and must not withdraw from Lebanon absent of negotiations and agreements with the Lebanese government and the international community. After what we have experienced this past month, no Israeli government has the mandate to withdraw from Lebanon while leaving its citizens exposed to enemy attack. Any settlement of the present conflict in Lebanon must assure that Hezbollah’s military threat is eliminated and that no military vacuum be allowed in South Lebanon. I think that this is obvious to everyone here in Israel and to most reasonable people abroad.

What is not as clear (especially in light of this weekend’s commentaries on the anniversary of the Disengagement) is how the war in Lebanon and the conflict with the Palestinians impacts the future of any pullout from the West Bank.

To say that today’s events negate any possible withdrawal plan is both simplistic and problematic. There may not be hope for peace with the Palestinians any time soon if Israel withdraws from the West Bank, but there assuredly never will be a chance for peace if it fails to do so. What, then, is the answer?

If ever there will be a land-for-peace settlement with the Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state, then Israel will, inevitably, have to give up its settlements in the West Bank. The question is how and when.

First, before Israel begins to remove settlements beyond a final border with the Palestinians it must be ready to do so. We owe it to those people who (for whatever reason) sacrificed comfort and security to live in and develop their homes in the West bank over the last 39 years, to make sure that there are homes and livelihoods ready for them within the final borders of Israel. This includes preparing and providing—in advance—all the social and financial support and infrastructure necessary to facilitate their move. If nothing else, this was a hard and vital lesson that we learned (it is hoped that we learned) from the experience disengaging from Gaza.

Secondly, while a withdrawal (even unilaterally) of the civilian Israeli population from the West Bank might be undertaken in the near future no such withdrawal of Israel’s military presence on the West Bank should be executed until and unless there is a negotiated settlement with responsible Palestinian partners who can insure the enforcement of any agreement. This second consideration would allow the IDF to protect Israeli citizens from attack by maintaining a strong military presence in the West Bank prior to a negotiated settlement.

It would be tragic for Israel to withdraw from settlements before it is ready to absorb the settlers. And, the only way for Israel to have negotiating flexibility and effectiveness with the Palestinians is if there are no settlements in the way of a peace process. The time is now to begin implementing the necessary logistic and social preparations for a future pullout of civilians from the West Bank.

Therefore, rather than eliminating the possibility for the realization of Olmert’s Convergence Plan, the present conflicts prove to me the very need for it. And, what we learn from the events of the past can give us important insights into how such a plan needs to be structured to allow for its success rather than to insure its failure (as was the case in Gaza).

During these days of alarums—when sirens warn of rockets instead of heralding Shabbat—we should avoid irrational or reactionary alarm. Let us act out of strength, not fear. So may Shabbat be a foretaste of peace with our neighbors rather than an island of peace in a hostile world.

Shalom from Jerusalem.