Jerusalem Cloakroom #152

UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL –
THE FAILURE OF “PRAGMATISM”

by Yoram Ettinger
yoramtex@netvision.net.il

March 30, 2004

1. President Bush (March 19, 2004): “Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations... No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands...” A withdrawal from Gaza would be inconsistent with President Bush’s sound statement. It would defy post-Oslo Palestinian hate-education.
    

2. Systematic blunders damage Washington. Since 1993, two US and five Israeli Administrations have embraced the politically-correct “pragmatist” Oslo, Wye, Mitchell, Tenet, Zuni, Camp David II and the Road Map accords. They failed to advance a solution and undermined US prestige; they fueled an unprecedented wave of terrorism (1,400 Israelis murdered, which is proportionally equal to 70,000 Americans – 23 Twin Towers!), distancing Israelis and Palestinians farther from peace. Reluctant to learn from past errors, they’re now introducing Unilateral Withdrawal.
    

3. From “Territory for Peace” to “Territory for Terrorism”. Unilateral withdrawal is the offspring of the “pragmatic” territory for peace, which was followed by the “pragmatic” recognition of the PLO/PA and by the “pragmatic” tolerance of PA/PLO’s hate-education (since 1993) and PA/PLO’s systematically ruthless violation of all accords. A retreat from Gaza would exacerbate terrorism in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, as was the case with the prior retreats from Lebanon (2000) and from Gaza and 40% of Judea & Samaria (Oslo 1993).
    

4. Peace was achieved following WWII when the rogue Nazi regime (not just Hitler) was demolished, and Germany was forced to conceded territory to its intended victims, which reciprocated by peace. Peace has been undermined by the “Pragmatist” Oslo-Wye-Road Map, which legitimized the rogue Palestinian Authority, and forced the intended victim, Israel, to concede territory. It has thus rewarded regional terrorism, intensified regional violence and undermined regional moderation.
    

5. Deterrence-driven peace is the only possible peace in the violently unpredictable Mideast. It would be severely undermined if Palestinian terrorism would be rewarded.
    

6. Territory for peace assumes – illogically – that Israel (less than 0.2% of Arab territory) should concede its scarcest asset – territory, while the Arabs are expected to accord Israel that which they have never accorded to one another – compliance and peaceful coexistence. Would Israel be entitled to retrieve territory, when the Palestinians renege – once again – on peace?!
    

7. “Pragmatists” have sacrificed faith, tenacity, experience and realism on the alter of cynicism, vacillation, wishful-thinking and superficiality.