Gaza pull-out bigotry

Editorial

Contrary to what you may believe – and to the delight of the Israeli government – the potential for fratricidal violence during this week's pull-out from the Gaza Strip is a welcome development that will play directly into the hands of opponents of Israeli withdrawal. You may have thought that Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was an innovative history-maker whose about-face on the settlement issue represented a profoundly moral and philosophical shift. In fact, Sharon is a devious schemer who – far from fearing violence this week and in the coming days as Gaza's Jews are evacuated – is thrilled at the possibility of Jew-on-Jew violence.

That, at least, is the interpretation of events now being purveyed by a cadre of the regular suspects. University of Haifa political scientist Ilan Pappe, a darling of the international left and the anti-Zionist movement, was credited in some media recently as being the originator of the idea that settler violence will allow Israel to delay or cancel plans to evacuate most of the West Bank's Jewish communities. Since then, the idea has been repeated as fact in Canadian and other media. It is now accepted by many observers that Sharon will use any violence that, God forbid, occurs this week to backslide on departing the West Bank.

We can disagree over the advisability of the pull-out, its timing or its wisdom. But it is simply unfair and cynical to impute ulterior motives to what is a heart-wrenching and divisive national cataclysm.

The Gaza withdrawal is an historic policy shift motivated by the inability to find a bilateral solution to the untenable reality of remote Jewish settlements in lands filled with hostile Palestinian residents. One might have thought the Nixon-in-China move by Sharon, renowned as a voice for settlers earlier in his career, might have softened the hatred with which many in the international community view the old soldier.

No such luck. Ulterior motives – devious, deceptive, self-interested motives – are the only ones that many in the international community can fathom emanating from Sharon or, in the eyes of many, the Jewish state generally.

This approach betrays a cynical and inhumane worldview.

There may be those in Israel who hope that a degree of violence in Gaza will lead to desired results in the West Bank. But to refuse to acknowledge the tremendous personal, political and national risks being taken by Sharon and his government in this process is to display a cruel and probably prejudiced view of international affairs.

There are those who will never abandon the view that Israel's every action is motivated by grasping, expansionist militarism, so that, when Israel adopts a policy that is painful, difficult and courageous, there can be no positive credit whatsoever.

Canadians and others grow weary of frequent allegations of creeping anti-Semitism in the anti-Zionist movement. But isn't it difficult to overlook the parallels between the refusal to see any good in Israel, just as generations have failed to see in the Jewish people anything but greed, deviousness and questionable motives?

It had to be this way, didn't it? After years spent demonizing Sharon and Israel generally, it is impossible for Canadian and other critics to acknowledge that the disengagement plan is a landmark event that proves Israel has been determined to divest itself of the Palestinian territories and the catastrophes that occupation has brought.

The persistent refusal to see the potential for good in Israel should not be a surprise. But we should be alarmed by the speed and breadth with which some Canadians and others have smugly adopted the idea that behind every Israeli policy is a devious, manipulative scheme to screw the Palestinians. The lack of any benefit of doubt toward Israel reflects, in some cases at least, a modern variation on the ancient unwillingness to see any good in the Jewish people.

^TOP