CONCLUSION: AFTER UNILATERALISM
After decades of bitter argument over the future of the West Bank and Gaza, Israelis have finally reached a consensus over the need to withdraw from most of the territories. Instead of ‘Land for Peace’ or ‘Greater Israel’, they simply want separation from the Palestinians. All that really remains for them to decide is how and when this separation will be accomplished. The domestic debate over the territories has become just a debate over tactics and timing, not outcomes. Most Israelis now want the same outcome—a Jewish state as large as possible with as few Palestinians as possible—and most accept that a withdrawal from much of the West Bank is the only way to achieve this outcome. Israel’s ability to achieve this outcome, however, depends upon the consent of the Palestinians. The belief that Israel does not need the agreement of Palestinians to determine its final borders has been shattered by the events of the summer of 2006. Hezbollah’s firing of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel from southern Lebanon, and the Palestinians’ firing of Qassam rockets into southern Israel from Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal have both starkly illustrated the dangers of unilateral Israeli withdrawals (from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005). The escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence in Gaza after the disengagement appears to have vindicated the argument made by opponents of Sharon’s disengagement plan that a unilateral withdrawal sends a signal of weakness to Israel’s enemies and emboldens them to attack. Consequently, Israeli public support for PM Olmert’s “realignment plan” has plummeted and forced him to shelve the plan. Unilateral separation as a solution to the issue of the territories has lost its appeal. As an Israeli commentator bluntly put it during the second Lebanon war, “The simplistic belief in a simplistic withdrawal has gone bankrupt.” Unilateralism, therefore, is no longer an option for Israel, but separation still is. Having given up on the unilateral method of separation, Israelis now have little choice but to seek a negotiated and consensual separation with the Palestinians. This will certainly not be easy to accomplish. For one thing, the Palestinians are unlikely to accept the less-than-complete withdrawal from the West Bank that most Israelis want. The status of Jerusalem (whose municipal borders have been greatly expanded since 1967) and the Jordan Valley also remain contentious territorial issues. For another, the Palestinians do not agree among themselves on their goals with regard to their conflict with Israel. More than ever before, the Palestinians are debating whether they should recognize Israel’s existence and accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as Fatah proposes, or whether should they aspire to establish an Islamic state over all of historic Palestine, as Hamas seeks. The Palestinians are engaged in their own bitter domestic debate, involving competing definitions of Palestinian national identity (secular versus Islamic) and competing visions of a future Palestinian state. Thus, although Israelis have finally reached agreement on the future of the West Bank and Gaza, they must now wait for the Palestinians to resolve their own internal debate before this future can arrive.
