"We have one plan, the ‘road map’ ... It is the only plan that exists.... We have no better  plan than this for Israel's future.” —Ariel Sharon quoted in “Sharon: No more unilateral disengagements,” Joshua, Brilliant, UPI, September 29, 2005

Sharon said Israel would not withdraw unilaterally from further territory and any further land handovers would come only as part of a final peace deal: “The disengagement was a one-off step and I don't see another one.” —Ariel Sharon quoted in “Sharon: More West Bank settlements would go for peace,”  Ally Fisher-Ilan, Reuters, August 29, 2005

Speaking to Israeli . . . forces on Sunday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said there would be no further unilateral withdrawals. The next step would be a return to the stalled internationally backed "road map" peace plan, he said—if his conditions were fulfilled: "In order to move to the road map, terrorism must stop—terrorism, violence, incitement—terror organizations must be dismantled, their weapons confiscated, serious reforms carried out." —Ariel Sharon quoted in “Turning right, Sharon vows no more disengagement, more settlements in blocs,” Israel Insider, August 22, 2005

Given the above, it is problematic that in making further unilateral withdrawals the centerpiece of his campaign for prime minister, Ehud Olmert stressed that he was “continuing Sharon’s path.” It means either of two things: in making the above-quoted statements, Sharon was lying; or, Sharon was not lying, and Olmert has appropriated a “legacy” that in fact is not Sharon’s.

Indeed, Dan Diker has argued in a carefully documented article that, at the very least, Sharon’s concept of how much West Bank land Israel could ultimately cede was far more restricted than the wild figures like “93 percent” that are bandied about in connection to Olmert and his Kadima Party. Sharon, Diker notes, told a reporter “that it was his policy to hold onto eight settlement blocs in the West Bank and not only the three blocs usually mentioned—Ariel, Maale Adumim, and Gush Etzion—that collectively make up ten percent of the West Bank.”

None of this, of course, has impeded the groupthink/media spin on last week’s Israeli elections that the Israeli public eschewed ideology and chose the “moderate,” “pragmatic” path of further land giveaways allegedly in Sharon’s spirit. It is true that the three parties that can be defined as Center and Left—Kadima, Labor, and Meretz—have now, according to the latest count, scored 53 (out of 120) seats compared to 49 for the right-wing/religious bloc. Many in Labor and Meretz, however, are also cool to unilateralism.

And the idea is far from universally popular even in Kadima. Among others, its members Avi Dichter, previous head of the General Security Service, and Gideon Ezra, minister of public security under Sharon, have voiced strong reservations about it. And just last February 6 the current head of the General Security Service, Yuval Diskin,

"expressed opposition to the government's policy of unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip…'The political echelon can decide what it wants,' Diskin said. 'But from a security point of view I am against giving land to the Palestinians, even that territory that is [already] under their control, unless we know that there is a Palestinian source that assumes power and imposes order. If there isn't such a source, from a professional viewpoint, I am against the transfer of territory to Palestinian control.'"

Considering that the Palestinian source that has now clearly assumed power is Hamas, it is safe to assume that Diskin’s view has not changed.

Indeed, the argument against unilateralism is not hard to make. It does not rely on hypotheses and projections, because there is a test case before our eyes. Before the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, opponents maintained that:

-There was no substitute for an Israeli armed presence and arrangements involving other actors, such as Palestinians and Egyptians, would fail.

-As a result, weapons and terrorists would flow freely into the Strip from Sinai at unprecedented magnitudes.

-Gaza would be infiltrated by Al Qaeda and offer inviting terrain for the worldwide jihadi movement.

-Surrounding Israeli communities would come under constant artillery barrage and power plants in nearby Ashkelon would be targeted.

-The spectacle of Israeli retreat under fire would prompt redoubled efforts to build a terrorist artillery infrastructure in the West Bank while strengthening the most radical tendencies among the Palestinians.

Correct, correct, correct, correct, correct.

With this spectacle before us, the support among the Israeli public—and it is sizable, though probably less than half—for a repeat performance in the West Bank would better be dubbed blindness and bewilderment than pragmatism and moderation. The fact that voter turnout was its lowest ever, many Israelis not coming to the polls at all, reinforces the fact that many Israelis are tired and think it makes no difference what Israel does since it will be forced into concessions in any case. This is an unhealthy and dangerous state of mind that should be discouraged, not praised as a form of wisdom.

To set the record straight: going by his repeated words, Ariel Sharon did not favor further disengagement; Israelis elected only a slim majority of centrist and dovish parties containing many members who are at least somewhat hawkish and/or oppose unilateralism; any rational, empirical assessment of Israel’s recent venture at unilateralism would conclude that it was a costly blunder and extending it to the strategic heartland of the West Bank is suicidal madness.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.