Are unilateral withdrawals in Israel’s interests? – opinion

Strategically, unilateral withdrawals, with few exceptions and even with the best of intentions, have been disastrous.

By MOSHE DANN
A Hezbollah flag flutters in the southern Lebanese village of Khiam, near the border with Israel, Lebanon July 28, 2020 (photo credit: REUTERS/AZIZ TAHER)
A Hezbollah flag flutters in the southern Lebanese village of Khiam, near the border with Israel, Lebanon July 28, 2020
(photo credit: REUTERS/AZIZ TAHER)
The explosion in Beirut was only a warning. It was meant to take place in Israel, and yet few people have focused on this (understandably because of the tragedy). Hezbollah still has 150,000 precision-guided missiles intended to be used against Israel. That will be as devastating as the ammonia-nitrate explosion at the port. And Hezbollah remains the most powerful political and military force in Lebanon. Although Israel is not the cause of Hezbollah’s rise to power in Lebanon, it bears some responsibility.
One of the consequences of then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s irresponsible decision to leave Lebanon unilaterally in May 2000 was to give Hezbollah the opportunity to fill the vacuum left by the absence of the IDF and the collapse of the South Lebanese Army. Although controversial within the government and the IDF, the withdrawal was not hasty. It was planned and executed by the IDF. The withdrawal was seen by Arabs as a retreat under fire.
Barak’s attempts in July of that year to appease PLO chairman Arafat at a conference convened by US president Bill Clinton at Camp David failed, but the PLO saw this in the context of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Like Hezbollah, it too could be victorious. That led to a massive reign of terror led by the PLO, the Second Intifada, which claimed 1,100 Israeli lives and many thousands wounded.
Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip following prime minister Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal in 2005, the destruction of 21 Jewish communities there and four in the northern Shomron, empowered and encouraged the PLO, Hamas, the PFLP, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations, and provoked the Second Lebanese War in 2006.
These tragic mistakes were compounded in 2007 by prime minister Ehud Olmert’s offer to PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw unilaterally from 90% of Judea and Samaria – the “Realignment” plan – and other concessions in return for promises of peace. The PLO rejected it, however, because it was not enough, and they saw the offer as a sign of Israel’s weakness and lack of resolve.
Meanwhile, the international community, especially the United Nations and European Union, are distracted and continue to condemn Israel and support Palestinian terrorism. The next tragedy is waiting to happen – in Israel.
Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb and it supplies weapons to Hezbollah and other terrorists. Qatar still supports Iran and Hamas, supported by Russia, China and other Communist-dominated countries.
Palestinians from the PLO-run Palestinian Authority continue to infiltrate into Israel and establish themselves in areas designated as under Israeli control. The IDF and its administrative branch in this area seem incapable of preventing this illegal infiltration.
The explanation for what is happening in Lebanon goes back to the Oslo Accords, which legitimized and empowered the PLO. This unilateral withdrawal, led by Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and the leftist-controlled media, still advocates through NGOs such as Peace Now, B’tselem, Mitvim (which is part of the Peres Center), Commanders for Israel’s Security, Breaking the Silence, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, etc.
Strategically, unilateral withdrawals, with few exceptions and even with the best of intentions, have been disastrous. Expediency and hope are not substitutes for critical thinking. Slogans cannot replace reason.
The writer is a PhD historian and journalist in Israel.