|
|
The
Israelis disengage: farewell to a Greater Israel ?
With the
withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip
and with the completion of the security fence in the West
Bank, the Israelis have made a move in the stagnant Middle
East zone. By different means, the security barrier and the
withdrawal from Gaza have in fact somehow re-designed Israel's
position in the Middle East. Notably, they bid farewell to
the vision of a Greater Israel, stretching from the Mediterranean
to the Jordan River, taking in the ancient kingdoms of Judea
and Samaria, to the detriment of the Arab population.
The debate
about the desirability and then about the feasibility of a
Greater Israel spurred a profound debate within the Zionist
movement since its early days, causing a fracture within the
Israeli establishment and society that continued up to these
days. Notably since the war of 1967, which made the vision
of a Greater Israel a prospect at arm's length, a large portion
of Israeli voters had converged into political movements,
such as La'am (made up of the Free Center, State List and
the 'Movement for Greater Israel') and Gahal (Gush Herut Liberalim)
which advocated its realization. La'am and Gahal united in
1973 into a single political party, the Likud, which brandished
and pursued the vision of a Greater Israel by opposing territorial
concessions to the Palestinians and by supporting Jewish penetration
and settlements in the Occupied Territories. When, on 21 November
2005, the Likud's symbol, its most pugnacious leader Ariel
Sharon, acting in the capacity of Israel's Prime Minister,
walked out of the party and dissolved the Parliament, the
project of a Greater Israel suffered its major and arguably
fatal blow. In the meantime, Ariel Sharon's other most-sought
undertaking, the security fence, has reached its final stages.
One might
wonder whether the completion of the West Bank barrier falls
within a common frame of intentions with the withdrawal. The
barrier, or fence, was planned to meet Israelis' need to stop
terrorist attacks, actually had the effect to pull out - 'psychologically'
says journalist David Brooks - the Israelis from West Bank-Palestine.
As of today, the controversy about the fence hinges around
its route. Some segments fall well beyond the armistice line
(the so called Green Line), grabbing some pieces of land which,
under a future peace treaty, would instead be part of the
future Palestinian state. Yet the fence also falls well behind
the boundaries of what a Greater Israel ought to have been:
In fact, by encircling some post 1967's 'biggest realities
on the ground' into the territory of Israel 1948, Israel 2005
ease its grip on many of the offshoots of post-1967's Greater
Israel's venture. Confronted with the reality of Israel's
politics, whereby a large section of Israelis have pled for
decades - and still today they do - precisely to the opposite
(i.e. Israel's control over the entirety of the West Bank),
this consideration is of no little consequence. Paradoxically,
the fence which symbolizes oppression, offers hopes of future
territorial negotiations and for a two-state solution; notably
by suggesting to both Israelis and Palestinians that beyond
that line Israel will not go. (As for the colonies such as
Ariel, there is no wonder that Israel would fight to keep
its biggest West Bank 'realities on the ground' in anyway,
with or without the barrier).
The Middle
East talks with the conditional. However, last months' decisions
of the Israeli government to - alas, unilaterally, but still
- 'concede' 'disengage', 'pull-out', might unveil a new course
in Israeli politics, if followed by deeds. The test for Israel's
'new frontier' is the same old one: refraining from building
new settlements and from starting new constructions in existing
West Bank settlements. This time particular attention (and
international stubbornness) ought to be paid to the activities
occurring on the eastern side of the fence. If further settling
activity in the West Bank stops - but Peace Now's latest reports
on settlements construction nourishes some pessimism - then
the stage may be set for yet another confrontation between
the descendants of Israel's founders. This time the discord
might arise around the nature and the extent of the Palestinian
state: a Greater Israel disguised as an arrangement of disconnected
Palestinian cantons with Israel retaining the grip on Palestinian
lives, or a genuinely sovereign viable, peaceful, democratic
Palestinian state and a secure State of Israel.
Will the
withdrawal, the barrier and the obliteration of a Greater
Israel's vision, bring on a rethinking in Israeli politics?
Most notably, will it bring back the dominant sensibility
of the founders of the Zionist movement, such as Theodor Herzl,
Max Nordau and Chaim Weizmann. 'These founders - warns Henry
Siegman - […] could not have conceived a Jewish state
that would rule over a permanently disenfranchised people'.
EM
|
