iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dr. Charles G. Cogan

GET UPDATES FROM Dr. Charles G. Cogan
 

Ariel (Sharon), We Hardly Knew Ye

Posted: 04/ 8/2012 8:47 pm

All Israeli withdrawals are unilateral; otherwise the Arabs would never agree with them. Thus it was with the unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and the subsequent unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Despite the fears and the heartaches that Arab rockets from Gaza have since caused, few if any Israelis would like to see the Strip re-occupied.

What is not known generally outside Israel is that Ariel Sharon, who as Prime Minister in 2004-2005 orchestrated Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, was planning to follow up with a third unilateral withdrawal, this time from the Israeli-occupied West Bank. He had gone ahead with the planning and had assembled an informal team under the aegis of his chef de cabinet, Dov Weissglass, in order to implement the idea.* Unfortunately, at the end of 2005 he fell ill and in January 2006, he suffered a massive stroke that left him in a coma. The West Bank project has been in effect nullified.

It seems counter-intuitive that Sharon, Israel's quintessential hard-liner, would lend himself to the role of implementer of Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, occupied in the war of June 1967. But the elder Sharon had undergone a sort of epiphany, reaching out for some sort of solution to this intractable conflict. Even in his earlier days, Sharon prided himself on his ability to understand and relate to Arabs. For example, he would address the late King Hussein of Jordan as "Your Majesty."

There is no denying that unilateral withdrawal from what would be most, but not all, of the West Bank, would be infinitely more complicated than Gaza, where the number of settlers was infinitesmal compared to the thousands of settlers now living in the West Bank. But it is also true that the continued occupation of the West Bank, after 45 years, is a cancer, eating away, day after day, at Israel's credibility and world status.

Perhaps Sharon's idea is a lesson for sometime in the future.

*From a talk by Prof. Asher Susser at Harvard University on April 4, 2012. Prof. Susser is the author of "Israel, Jordan, and Palestine: The Two-State Imperative" (Brandeis University Press, 2012).

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:36 AM on 04/09/2012
That link provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that Sharon was planning further West Bank withdrawals? If it's somewhere in that book then please provide a page number because it's somewhat of a revelation.
03:40 AM on 04/09/2012
Nonsense. Sharon merely withdrew from Gaza to concentrate efforts in the colonization of the West Bank, which is seen by every Israeli leader as the "Jewish heartland". At most, Israel would have withdrawn from Area A (which it pretty much already has, anyway), rendering it a bantustan/reservation under the same kind of siege Gaza is. No Israeli leader will ever willingly relinquish the 60% of the West Bank which constitutes Area C and East Jerusalem. That's why external (and internal) pressure must be applied on the regime. There is no other way.
photo
Kramerica-Industries
And with Darren’s help, we’ll get that chicken
photo
Kramerica-Industries
And with Darren’s help, we’ll get that chicken
03:32 AM on 04/09/2012
"All Israeli withdrawals are unilateral; otherwise the Arabs would never agree with them."
Very true, there were talks about creating a Palestinians state in temporary boundaries before the Palestinians went to the UN by the Israeli govrenment. Palestinian President Abbas rejected such Israel withdrawal.
In a recent New York Times interview with Shaul Mofaz the new leader of Sharon's party Kadima, he also talked about a Palestinian state in temporary boundaries, somthing he might have to do unilaterally as well.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173815

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/world/middleeast/shaul-mofaz-defies-his-image-with-lean-to-left.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
03:29 AM on 04/09/2012
israel had no right to be in Gaza. The settlers had no right to build there. Removing themselves from Gaza is the only thing israel has ever done that I can support.

Unfortunately, the israelis didnt leave Gaza because it was the "right thing to do". They vacated it so that they could consolidate thefts of land in the West Bank instead. Within two weeks of leaving Gaza, thousands of militant Messianic settlers had moved to the West Bank and were stealing land and resources there instead of Gaza.They remain there to this day. Killing people and carrying out terror attacks on Palestinian families.
01:55 PM on 04/09/2012
I disagree, Israel has done several things that should be supported. The peace treaty with Egypt, for example. While Israel has failed to comply with the agreement's terms, entereing into it was the right thing to do.

Of course, it destroys the author's premise that "All Israeli withdrawals are unilateral; otherwise the Arabs would never agree with them," but the author knew it was race-baiting hyperbole when he wrote it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
myplenny
12:04 AM on 04/09/2012
What world status?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
11:24 PM on 04/08/2012
" But it is also true that the continued occupation of the West Bank, after 45 years, is a cancer, eating away, day after day, at Israel's credibility and world status."

No truer words have ever been spoken.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce
Atheistic-agnostic Canadian polymath
11:03 PM on 04/08/2012
Of course, no mention of the sniper fire at farmers and fishermen, the bombings, and the restrictions on the access of those bringing in humanitarian aid that makes the 'withdrawal from Gaza' closely resemble the seige of Sarajevo. No, it is only the 'heartache' of the occasional rocket coming back from those under seige, rockets that fall on the land belonging to those under the seige, that merits mention.
01:56 PM on 04/09/2012
I was thinking Leningrad, but Sarajevo is a good comparison -- not as cold.
10:51 PM on 04/08/2012
You mention that the huge number of Jews to be evicted (ethnically cleansed?) would be a bigger "complication." But what about the consequences of creating a belligerent, no-Jews-allowed "Palestine" on land adjacent to Israel's airport and cities? Do you really believe that would lead to "peace?"
photo
Vlady
Better Late
10:36 PM on 04/08/2012
>>But it is also true that the continued occupation of the West Bank, after 45 years, is a cancer, eating away

Israeli detractors, one after another. Just look at her neighbors
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
03:32 AM on 04/09/2012
No.

Well continue to look at israel despite your pathetic attempts at distraction.

The crimes of israel stand by themselves and theyll continue to be documented and publicized.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:40 AM on 04/09/2012
Yes, and they should be investigated and if breaking international human law, they should be taken to court like any other country or leader.