I Think I’m Becoming a Unilateral Withdrawalist

Obama must have thought it was a good idea at the time. With so much unrest going on in the Arab world, he wanted to position the United States as the supporter of those groups pushing for more democracy and human rights. There was just one problem to doing so. The United States supports Israel and many Middle Eastern Muslims hate Israel. If it came out that the US directly supported any Middle Eastern group, that group would immediately be charged with complicity with Israel.

Obama figured out a way to get around that problem. He would gently nudge Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reenter into peace negotiations based on some timeworn formulas. On the face of things, I can see why Obama thought this was a good idea. Israel can’t go on indefinitely following the same policies, the UN General Assembly is going to vote to support the formation of a Palestinian state in a few months, and besides, Obama has long wanted to do something to help the Palestinians. Somehow, he didn’t anticipate that Bibi would do what he always does: use Israel’s widespread public support in the US to defy Obama and hammer him into submission.

Surprise! Bibi’s strategy worked again. Now, all the parties are furious at Obama, and the chances for any meaningful negotiations are as remote as they’ve ever been. That’s not to say that there won’t be any meetings between the parties or arrangements set for negotiations. The chances that those negotiations will succeed are virtually zero. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas have no intention of ever coming to agreement. For both of them, their coalitions would collapse should they commit to a deal, and neither of them has expressed any interest in facing that situation again. Given that Abbas is going to retire from public life later this year, I expect both men will simply run out the clock.

While the political situation may be in hard cast deadlock, many elements of the conflict continue to change, almost entirely for the worst. The non-Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza continue to live under unjust and poor conditions, and become ever more embittered, garnering more worldwide sympathy. Israel’s enemies throughout the world gain more support and succor. Ever more radical organizations form and build membership. Israel becomes more and more isolated. The attacks on Israel become ever more sophisticated.

I can only see one way to proceed that doesn’t require another decade or two of watching a degrading status quo. Israel simply withdraws from the vast majority of the West Bank and turns over control of Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority (PA). At that point the PA will have been freshly recognized by the UN as a sovereign state. Israel would also leave the PA in control of its own borders. All this would be done without any quid pro quo from the PA.

Turns out I didn’t invent this approach. It’s long been an option discussed in peace negotiations. It even has a name: unilateral withdrawal. Gaza is a good example of where it’s been implemented, although the plan I’ve laid out here would differ from that employed in Gaza in two important ways: The residents of the territory controlled by the PA would now be citizens of a sovereign state and their borders would not be controlled by Israel.

The benefits of unilateral withdrawal are many. The residents of the territories would no longer be treated as second-class citizens. They would have full citizenship in their own country. The daily media reports of interactions between the IDF and the residents of the territories that just infuriate people all over the world would end. Israel could no longer be criticized in the UN or the international press for its treatment of the Palestinians. There would be no call for blockade busting flotillas or smuggling tunnels. The rationale for many boycotts and other attempts to isolate the Jewish state would go away. Israel would begin to reverse the moral decay that comes from being an occupying power. All this could happen relatively soon.

I know my plan isn’t perfect. I only mean to suggest that it’s less horrible than the alternatives. We know very well from what happened in Gaza what the problems with unilateral withdrawal are. The Palestinians will be angry that Israel unilaterally chose its new border. Israel, at great expense both monetarily and politically, will have to resettle the settlers who presently live beyond where the new border will be. Extremists among the Palestinians will declare victory and mobilize for a follow on attack. Israel will likely have to educate its new neighbors regarding the responsibilities of a sovereign nation. Gilad Schalit will still be held by Hamas. Control of Jerusalem, the demands of the refugees, and the acceptance of Israel by its neighbors will all remain open issues.

Even given these problems, I think unilateral withdrawal is better than the status quo. The Gaza withdrawal was painful for a long time, but on an ongoing basis, it’s much less painful than holding Gaza was. Meanwhile, Israel’s security situation continues to degrade. Simply holding land is not the answer. Only a bold move can get Israel out of this self-defeating spiral. Unilateral withdrawal could well be that bold move.

At least, that’s my unsolicited advice to our hosts here in Israel. We spend a lot of time reading, talking, and thinking about the huge problems and changes going on here in the Middle East. I offer my advice knowing that there’s little chance it will be taken by those in power here. Do you think I got it right, or did my inexperience in the region cause me to miss something important? If you feel strongly about the issues discussed above, please feel free to use the comments section below to share your ideas.