The abduction of soldiers from inside Israel and the missiles now hitting the country, however, show the risks of leaving [e.g., Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza] without a negotiated agreement to put someone clearly in charge beyond the border.
Olmert's air offensive in Lebanon and Gaza appears designed to show that Israel can defend itself without sending troops back to occupy the land it has left. And by arresting Palestinian Authority officials in Gaza who belong to Hamas, Olmert also hopes to end Hamas control of the PA government so that withdrawal will seem safer.
But polls show plummeting support. Once-supportive pundits are criticizing the idea of "throwing the keys" over the border fence on the way out to whoever picks them up. Chaos in the West Bank, or a hostile regime there, risks missiles falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
So there's the formulation:
- former right-wing head of state attempts unilateral withdrawal.
- The ensuing vacuum increases the overall chaos.
- Polls plummet.
- Go back and try again.
Of course, this begs a question: who do you negotiate with when opposing political forces in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories are at the brink of civil war themselves? It seems to me that you can choose up sides (strengthening Abbas, for example, while weakening Hamas). And/but even if you could do that effectively, does that make things better? What if the people believe your chosen one is a puppet of the Jewish state?
And does it matter? Here, let me offer this frank appraisal of my own: is there any question but that Hamas and Hezbollah eventually want the elimination of the Jewish state, by any means necessary? How (and why) do you negotiate with people who want that outcome?
And what is the role (if any) of the US? And what are the implications of this approach on future Iraq policy?
Sorry for so many questions with no answers. Like I said, I'm still working this out in my head.
Comments are closed on this story.