Moshe Dann

What lies behind Ariel Sharon's sharp about-face? Are his plans to leave Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria an admission of defeat? A betrayal? The next stage of "Post-Zionism"? All three? No one seems to know.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon has reversed the pro-settlement policy upon which he was elected. He now endorses the idea of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and announces that Israel is an "occupying" power. He is set to implement his plan for unilateral retreat and is building a controversial fence/barrier along the 1949 armistice lines (with some variations) that will become the de facto (although unlikely de jure) border of Israel.

Reputed to be a brilliant military tactician, Sharon has often failed as a strategist. His current policy appears to be another failed strategy, launched without critical thinking, embracing what he long -- rightly -- opposed. Neither he nor his advisors have offered any serious answers to challenging questions. No press conferences. No explanations.

One commonly accepted rationale is that Sharon wants to trade all of Gaza and most of Judea and Samaria in order to secure American agreement for keeping three major settlements blocs. Another is that Sharon believes the IDF cannot retaliate with full force against terrorism as long as Israel is seen as an "occupying" power, condemned by the world for violating "international law" and "Palestinian human rights." Once we are no longer "occupiers" it's one state against another and we can do what we want with international approval. If Sharon is operating under either of these assumptions, he is deluding himself.

To begin with, Israel is not an "occupying" power, ruling Palestinian Arabs; that ended a decade ago. The Palestinian Authority controls nearly all Palestinian Arab towns and villages. When the IDF enters PA areas to arrest terrorists and stop terrorist attacks in-process, it is in order to save lives. It's called self-defense.

Three years ago, when Palestinian terrorism was rampant throughout Israel, Prime Ministers Barak and then Sharon exercised "restraint." In retaliation for terrorist attacks, empty buildings in areas under Palestinian Authority control were blown up. However, the massacre of guests at Netanya's Park Hotel on the eve of Passover in 2002 was a turning point. Sharon then assumed that he had American (and to some extent European) approval to strike back. Despite warnings from the Israeli Left ("the peace camp") that there was no military solution to terror, the IDF proved that there was.

But "Operation Defensive Shield," battles in UNRWA "refugee camps" like Jenin – reputed to be the "terrorist capital of the world" – and assassinations of high-profile terrorist leaders, though successful, were cut short because of pressure from America, Europe and the UN. Israel was condemned; the IDF was withdrawn; terrorists struck again.

Since 2000, failure to deal decisively with terrorism because of a perceived need to pacify foreign interests has led to the murder of one thousand five hundred Israelis; ten thousand have been seriously wounded. Families have been destroyed; the nation traumatized.

Recently, once again, Palestinian Arab terrorism has been significantly reduced because of forceful action by the IDF and Israel's security services. But now that Israeli buses and cafés are no longer being blown up on a regular basis, pressure is again building for Israel to make strategically harmful compromises.

According to military and intelligence experts, once Israel withdraws and evacuates Jewish communities, the Gaza Strip will turn into a major center of terrorism. Terrorist organizations like Hizbullah are already at work in Gaza and the West Bank. Sderot, within the old Green Line, has already declared a citywide "Day of Mourning," seeking to force the government to act more forcefully against the nonstop Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza that have already made life intolerable there. Without Israeli control over borders, air and sea ports, troops and weapons will flow in to terrorists. Major population centers in Israel and vital installations will be at risk. A defense industries expert is quoted in the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot on the fact that Arabs in Gaza have already smuggled in 20-kilometer range Egyptian rockets which will put Ashkelon's power plant, Prime Minister Sharon's Shikmim Farm and possibly even Kiryat Gat within range.

If Sharon's plan for withdrawal is extended to Judea and Samaria, all of Israel will be vulnerable. Since it is unlikely that a Palestinian government would openly condone terrorist attacks (and may even officially condemn them), it would be difficult for Israel to launch a retaliatory action, let alone a pre-emptive one. Attacking a sovereign Palestinian state with treaties of mutual defense could trigger a full-scale regional conflict that could involve WMD. (According to intelligence reports at least some of Iraq's WMD are hidden in Syria.)

Arguing that Israel's only option is to engage a more powerful Palestinian terrorist state is like offering your opponent in a duel a machine gun, instead of a pistol, because you are a better shot.

It is in Israel's security and strategic interest to defend itself against Palestinian Arab terrorism and to protest incitement. Will offering a mini-state and sovereignty to terrorists, even those who are democratically elected," bring peace? The Left thinks it will. But even in the unlikely event that there were to be a temporary short-term reduction in terrorism, another much larger problem is on the horizon: Iran.

Perhaps it is Iran that is the key to Sharon's thinking? With Israel in Iran's nuclear bombsights (assisted by Egypt and other Arab countries), perhaps he asks himself “Can Israel go it alone?”

Does Sharon believe that by leaving Gaza and most of Judea and Samaria Israel will gain time in the nuclear race to destroy us, and perhaps even head off that nightmare? Is Sharon willing to risk removing the Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in return for not being isolated and abandoned? Sharon may think he's buying time, but more important, he is giving Arab terrorists a larger and more secure base from which to attack.

Sacrificing some Jews and Jewish property is like cutting out someone's intestines so that a tape worm will have less to eat. Amputating limbs to save the body, as the Left metaphorically envisions, works only so long as there are more limbs to sacrifice. Is Israeli reliance on America, Europe, or NATO to protect us in reduced boundaries realistic? Or, will it bring us closer to doomsday, a simultaneous missile attack from terrorist bases in the Palestinian state and surrounding Arab countries, assisted by anyone else who wants part of the action?

The great tragedy of Israeli leaders, especially those with which we are "blessed" today, is that they are unable to speak about the place of Israel in Jewish history and Jewish destiny, the reasons why "settlements" are not peripheral but essential.

The question is not whether Israel can go it alone; we have no choice. The question is on what basis do we act and in whom do we trust? The struggle for Gush Katif and the other communities may yet awaken a consciousness of who we are and what we are doing here in Israel in the first place.

And perhaps in trying to understand Ariel Sharon we will also understand more of ourselves.

Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem.