Unilateral Withdrawal Is Irresponsible

by Michael Rubin
Ha'aretz
January 28, 2005

The Baghdad restaurant grew silent, all eyes on the television. 
It was January 29, 2004. Every Arabic news channel had its 
cameras trained on a Beirut runway, where a German transport 
plane was due to land. Israel had just released Sheikh Abdel 
Karim Obeid, once leader of Hezbollah's southern Lebanon 
operations, after almost 15 years in an Israeli prison. The group 
of largely pro-Western Iraqis had tears in their eyes. 
"The first Arab victory over Israel was [the withdrawal from 
Lebanon] in May 2000. This is the second," an Iraqi professor 
explained.

Six weeks earlier, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had announced 
plans to withdraw unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. A broad 
range of Israeli politicians cautiously endorsed the move. 
While European diplomats wrung their hands nervously, 
President George W. Bush called Sharon's plan "historic and 
courageous."

Nothing could be more untrue. While Israelis might fear civil 
and political strife if settlers are forced from their homes, 
Sharon's plan will reinvigorate terrorism not only in Israel, 
but as an international tactic of choice.

The power of television is tremendous across the Middle East. 
Arabic satellite stations like the Qatar-based Al Jazeera, 
Hezbollah's Al-Manar, and Iran's Al-Alam deluge their 
audiences with images of American defeat: the 1983 U.S. 
withdrawal from Beirut, and the flight from Mogadishu a 
decade later. Watching television on any Baghdad evening, 
I would see American diplomats fleeing Vietnam. To the Iraqi 
audience the message was clear: Bush may say America 
has staying power, but it is weak. Al Jazeera mastered has 
information warfare. On days without American casualties, 
the station simply rebroadcasts images of the previous day's 
roadside bomb.

The Iranian government primes its audience with similar 
messages. While critics rave about the latest Iranian art films, 
the normal fare for ordinary Iranians is far different. Sitting 
among Iranian soldiers packed into a Shiraz movie theater, 
I watched a Rambo-type film pitting Hezbollah characters 
against hapless Israeli soldiers. I tried to be inconspicuous 
as the crowd began to shout "kill the Jew" in anticipation of 
events on screen. The message to the soldiers was clear: 
Violence works.

Imagery can be equally powerful on Israeli television. 
More than 20 years later, older Israelis remember television 
pictures of residents of Yamit battling soldiers during that 
settlement's 1982 evacuation. But while such images will 
have a profound impact on the Israeli electorate and their 
replication may cause some government ministers to 
reconsider their support for Sharon's plan, far more damaging 
to Israel and the United States would be the subsequent 
pictures. Images of Hezbollah and Hamas flags flying over 
Jewish settlements like Netzarim and Kfar Yam will torpedo 
hope not only of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, but 
also of an end to terrorism in Iraq, Turkey, Kashmir and 
against the West in general.

Israelis and some in the Palestinian Authority may be sincere 
in a desire for peace, but rejectionists abound, not only in 
Lebanese and Syrian refugee camps, but also in Iraq's Sunni 
Triangle, Iran's Revolutionary Guard bases and Pakistani 
seminaries. A Hamas flag over Netzarim will justify 37 years 
of terrorism. The reasons for Israel's withdrawal will be irrelevant 
on the streets of the Islamic world. If terrorism can free Gaza, 
why not the West Bank, the Galilee, Indian Kashmir or 
democratic Iraq? Why compromise if terrorism obviates the 
need for concession? There is a limit to the West's stamina. 
Neither Israelis nor Americans should assume their opponents 
would be unwilling to pay the price of continued violence. 
As the Shi'ite commemoration of 'Ashura approaches, 
millions will commemorate the 680 martyrdom of Imam 
Husayn, ritually cursing Sunni leaders of the day, as if Husayn's 
death was yesterday.

The price of continued terrorism and insurgency might be high, 
but terror masters themselves often do not pay the price. 
Earlier this month in Baghdad, I interviewed Iraqis fleeing 
violence in the northern city of Mosul. Without exception, 
each said that the insurgents who invaded the city were in 
their mid to late teens; they complained that the insurgent 
leaders were using impressionable youth as cannon fodder. 
But so long as oil-rich Arab states and Iran are willing to 
subsidize incitement on television, in schools and in 
mosques, there will be no shortage of recruits. Not only 
Israelis, but also Iraqis, Indians, Turks, Americans and 
Europeans will pay the price.

Seeking peace is honorable, but Sharon is gambling. 
Whether motivated by a sincere desire for peace or for an 
egotistical need to rewrite his place in history is irrelevant. 
Unilateral withdrawal is irresponsible. Should Gaza be part 
of a comprehensive deal, pictures of Hamas flags over Gaza 
will be immaterial, for they can be counterbalanced with 
images of Israeli embassies hoisting flags in Damascus, 
Riyadh and Tehran. But if Sharon goes ahead with Gaza 
disengagement, generations both inside and outside Israel 
will be sacrificed upon the alter of his legacy.
----------
Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise 
Institute,  is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
MRubin@aei.org