The controversial and politically hot and heavy Gaza disengagement plan is by no means a declaration of independence for Palestinians.
Instead, implores Professor Steven Spiegel, it’s a declaration of independence from Palestinians.
The UCLA political science professor, author and Mideast expert portrayed the Gaza pullout as a race against a ticking demographic time bomb in his Sunday, April 10, Stanford speech at the “Israel 2005: Looking Ahead” conference.
Spiegel characterizes the current Israeli mindset toward the Palestinians as “Make a deal with us or we’ll act on our own. We’re not going to let ourselves be tied to your whims and your politics and your future or we’ll end up in a situation 10, 20, 30 years from now with a lot more Arabs than Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. And then it’ll be a one-state solution against us.”
The desire to stave off a demographic nightmare “is what’s fueling unilateralism,” Spiegel said. “That’s why Israel offered what it did at Camp David. What’s new is, there are now more statistics available on how dangerous this situation is, and you have the intifada, which created less trust of the Palestinians and more fear.”
Extremists on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian issue are now in the unique position of both hoping (and sometimes acting) to derail disengagement.
But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as the father of the settlement movement, is the best Israeli politician to handle this move, Spiegel said.
Whatever the timetable, Spiegel believes disengagement to be addition by subtraction for Israel.
Many people “think it’s a cave-in to terrorism, that it’s a sign of Israeli weakness. But [most Israelis] see this as a sign of strength. Many Israelis believe the settlements have either outlived their usefulness or were a mistake to begin with, depending on who you talk to,” said Spiegel, whose appearance was sponsored by the Peninsula Jewish Community Relations Council, Hillel and Stanford.
The conference was comprised of a series of speeches and workshops aimed at discussing Israel issues and aiding in advocacy for the Jewish state.
“Israel becomes stronger because they don’t have so much blood and treasure invested in the protection of tiny settlements. And they’re not bogged down in Gaza, which is a snakebite and a quagmire. Israel is freeing itself, at least partially, from the demographics problem. It gets a temporary reprieve.”
Spiegel said Israel has roughly five years to finalize disengagement before the exploding Palestinian population starts to cause serious problems.
And, if the Palestinians hold up their end of the bargain and move to aggressively quell terrorism, the Israelis will have to make major concessions to adhere to the Mideast “road map,” Spiegel points out. Though language regarding “provisional borders” spooks the Palestinians, Israelis would have their feet held to the fire, having to freeze settlements, dismantle illegal outposts and give up enough territory for viable, provisional borders.
“Palestinians think they benefit more from the road map,” he contended. “If the full road map is pursued, they get a state and final status, which is what they’re pulling for.”
Spiegel postulated that several Arab villages within Israel’s pre-1967 borders may be ceded to the Palestinians in exchange for settlements (though the inhabitants of those villages are not keen on the idea). And he had a hard time envisioning an Israeli-Palestinian future that wasn’t marked by more unilateral Israeli moves.
The only negative ramifications of the withdrawal is negative P.R., he said.
“Israel is weaker because of the perception it is in decline and leaving its areas. But that’s less important, frankly.”