Among the many eulogies and obituaries published this past week for Ariel Sharon, almost all mention Israel’s controversial 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. Some laud it as a brave decision; others as a mistake with deadly consequences. Needless to say, his unilateral decision to hand over Gaza was divisive.
Several years ago, we picked up Tony Blair’s then newly-published biography, A Journey. For us, the former British prime minister shed a whole new — and unexpected — light on the issue. Regardless of one’s opinion on the withdrawal, in Israel/Jewish circles, Sharon’s move was generally perceived as a show of his commitment to peace and living side by side with a Palestinian state. A good example of this is JEWISHcolorado’s official statement on Sharon’s passing, published in this week’s IJN:
“By taking such a bold initiative, he demonstrated an understanding, embraced by many other Israeli leaders across the political spectrum, that the Jewish state’s long term security ultimately depends on reaching peace with the Palestinians based on territorial compromise.”
And we hold the same view.
On the international stage, however, it was perceived very differently. Apparently the fact that Sharon acted unilaterally, outside of Oslo and outside of direct negotiations with the Palestinians, was, for many, just another sign of Israeli aggression. “Whereas the international community, in its usual purblind way, saw disengagement from Gaza as a ‘unilateral’ Israeli act and therefore wrong,” writes Blair, “I was emphatic that it could be presented as lifting the occupation and removing settlements.”
Sharon probably should have consulted with the Palestinian side before deciding to evacuate the Gaza. Not because, as the international community observed, by acting unilaterally he was acting aggressively. But because it was foolish not to use the Gaza withdrawal as leverage in negotiations.
But the Gaza withdrawal as an act of aggression? When for Israelis it represented the exact opposite of aggression and militancy — total capitulation — it seems an absurd accusation. Is there any truth to the interpretation? Or is it simply another example of how Israel can do no right in the eyes of the international community?
