That’s a badge of journalistic honor? Really??
“…supports Israel’s right to defend itself”
True, Katz conditions the JPost’s backing of the disengagement with a proviso stating that it “fully supports Israel’s right to defend itself with force against attacks from Gaza or the ‘West Bank’.”
But it is difficult to know what that even means—or whether it makes such support more or less troubling and perverse?
After all, since territorial “compromise” (read “concessions”) became the unfortunate cornerstone of Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinian –Arabs, Israel has been compelled to undertake four major military campaigns—apart from the 2006 Second Lebanon War: One in Judea-Samaria (Katz’s “West Bank”)—Operation Defensive Shield (2002); and three in Gaza (Operations Cast Lead -2008-9, Pillar of Defense – 2012; and Protective Edge -2014). After each encounter, at least on the Gaza front, the enemy emerged undefeated and defiant, with its will to engage unbroken, and its capabilities significantly enhanced. Israel is now bracing for a fourth round—spending billions to prepare for it.
So, was JPost’s declared support for “Israel’s right to defend itself with force against attacks from Gaza or the West Bank”, the product of ex-ante foresight or ex-post hindsight?
Clearly, if it was the former, such support could well be deemed irresponsible recklessness; if the latter, lamentable myopia.
Jerusalem Post, December 9, 1992 Interestingly, if, prior to conferring their backing to the 2005 Gaza evacuation and eviction, the Jpost editorial board had browsed through back copies of the paper, they may have come across an opinion piece, written over a decade prior to the disengagement, predicting precisely what would happen pursuant to a unilateral abandonment of the area.
The article, entitled “Why we can’t dump Gaza” published almost a quarter-century ago, on December 9, 1992, and penned by one, Martin Sherman, then considerably younger and trimmer than today. It warned that:
– the unilateral withdrawal will bring “great peril to Israelis and [Gazan]Arabs alike”;
– “in the ensuing political vacuum, the most radical and violent elements would…seize power [and] all the more moderate elements would be speedily eliminated either politically or physically”;
– Gaza would face the grave water crisis that now threatens it, cautioning that “Its water resources are being increasingly salinated through over use”;
It predicted that, for security reasons, Israel would have to impose a quarantine on Gaza creating increasingly onerous conditions for the population there, and “a deepening sense of hopelessness, misery…which will inevitably be directed against Israel”. It warned of the dangers emanating from smuggling arms across fronts that Israel could not fully supervise “from the west (the sea) and south (Sinai)”.
It forecast that “the frustration and despair will manifest itself in violent action against Israel…; our southern settlements and towns will be the targets of frequent attacks…compel[ling] Israel to retaliate”; and cautioned of the international censure that would result from such action: “Air strikes or artillery shelling on civilian population centers would cause heavy casualties among the dense, destitute masses in [which] the attackers conceal themselves”, asking rhetorically “How would the world react?”
The new “nuts”: Time for redefinition?
Back then, a quarter of a century ago, the article foretold what should have been clear to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the basic fundamentals of political science, international relations, and the theory of nations and nation-states: “A unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will do nothing to ease the socio-economic plight of the local inhabitants, nor will it reduce the politico-security problems of Israel; rather it will be likely to exacerbate them”. How many will dispute that this forecast has been borne out by later realities?
So what should be the criterion for being “nuts”? Getting it right—or getting it wrong?
Moreover, given past precedents and future probabilities –and in the absence of any compelling counter-arguments —there is no persuasive or plausible reason to believe that any prospective self-governing Palestinian entity will emerge as anything but yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose socio-cultural and political hallmarks would be gender discrimination against women and girls, persecution of homosexuals and pursuit of political dissidents.
Now if you happen to subscribe to progressive liberal values of pluralism and tolerance, who is nuts: Those who support the establishment of such an entity–or those who oppose it?
One wonders whether either Goldberg or the JPost editorial board will address this challenge.
