I generally avoid writing about Israel-Palestine issues out of fear that I’ll alienate friends and make enemies. I’m also not terribly well-informed about the conflict, and have no special information about what’s happening on the ground. But it’s just impossible to avoid the subject at such a pivotal point as the implementation of Ariel Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan, scheduled to commence in a matter of hours.
In spite of my ignorance, I have done some reporting (see the August issue of The American Prospect) on how the withdrawal is impacting the policymaking community that watches the region from Washington, DC, looking specifically at how Sharon’s strongest advocates among the American neoconservative community are handling the move. I can tell you that the right has undergone a serious split between those who continue to pledge blind loyalty to Sharon, and their colleagues who feel betrayed by the Prime Minister and now side with the settlers against him. In many ways, the split among Washington elites reflects the political polarization in Israel.
Why does this matter? Everyone agrees that America has a huge stake in settling the conflict, along with enormous leverage in the peace process. For a very long time, forward-thinking, moderate voices on both sides of the debate here have been silenced by the shrillness of ultra-leftists and ultra-rightists, neither of whom have anybody’s interests but their own at heart. True, the ultra-leftists never really mattered, but the ultra-rightists undoubtedly dominated the discourse for years, making it almost impossible for those with fresh ideas to have a voice. Withdrawal has caused the latter to collapse into internal bickering. That gives progressives committed to security, justice, and stability for both sides, instead of revenge and partisanship, the chance to chart a course by which Israel and Palestine can peacefully coexist in alliance with the US.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Just another WordPress weblog