The Unilateral Withdrawal Syndrome

Moshe Arens - Haaretz,  June 5th, 2012

It seems that some of our military men turned politicians are suffering from the unilateral withdrawal syndrome. It may be typical of the military mindset: Get it over with! Finish the job! Do something! Do anything! Actually, on some occasion that may be the correct strategy. It usually comes under the heading of “Cut your losses”. But often it may be the wrong way to go.

Two of our illustrious military leaders seem to have been afflicted by this syndrome. One was Ariel Sharon, who peremptorily decided on the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif and the forceful uprooting of 8000 Israeli citizens from their homes, in the expectation that that move would ease Israel’s defense problems and advance the peace process. The other is the present Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who has a long record of espousing unilateral withdrawals in the expectation that therein lay the solution to our problems, or else that that was the way to evade an oncoming Tsunami which he thought he saw approaching on the horizon.

His first opportunity came in 2000, when as Prime Minister and Defense Minister (he insisted on holding both positions), he decided on the unilateral withdrawal from the south Lebanon security zone, abandoning Israel’s ally, the South Lebanon Army, and bringing the Hezbollah terrorists up to the border fence in the north. He expected that this move would transform Hezbollah from a terrorist organization into a Lebanese political party which would abandon its policy of launching attacks against Israel, or alternately that Israel, after the retreat would be able to deter Hezbollah from continuing its terror attacks against Israel. It didn’t work. But that mistake did not lead him to change course. Switching to the “territories for peace” paradigm he continued by offering the Syrians the Golan Heights in the expectation that they would then rein in Hezbollah in Lebanon. We can today consider ourselves fortunate that that plan was not brought to completion. Trading territories for peace simply did not work, nor did deterrence work against terrorists. Hezbollah celebrated the Israeli withdrawal, strengthened its hold on Lebanon and amassed a vast arsenal of rockets that could reach a good part of Israel. These rockets came down on Israel’s civilian population during the Second Lebanon War, which was a direct outcome of the unilateral withdrawal from the south Lebanon security zone. Hezbollah rockets are today in far larger numbers poised to threaten Israel’s civilian population in all of the country. We may want to believe that we are capable of deterring them from launching these rockets, but just to be sure we in the meantime are investing tremendous resources in preparing the civilian population for such an attack. Unless these rockets are removed they are going to be launched against Israel’s civilian population at a time chosen by Iran, Hezbollah, or both.

But Barak cannot get unilateral withdrawal out of his mind. Now he suggests that we consider staging a unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, thus putting the central population areas of Israel in the range of Kassam rockets to be launched from there.

Over the years, slowly, gradually, almost imperceptibly, Israel’s civilian population has been brought to the front line alongside the armed forces in time of war. Ben-Gurion’s strategy of securing their safety in case of war has been abandoned. This happened first in the border areas of the Galilee, then in the areas surrounding the Gaza Strip, then in all southern Israel. At present all of Israel’s civilians have been allowed tobecome the first victims in case of terrorist rocket attacks or outright war.

During the First Lebanon War Israel decided to defeat the terrorists and brought about the expulsion of Yasir Arafat and his PLO forces from Lebanon. During the Second Intifada, in operation “Defensive Shield” Israel chose to defeat the terrorists in Judea and Samaria. Even though it has been demonstrated that terrorists can be defeated, nevertheless, deterrence, unilateral withdrawals, and “territories for peace”, have become the strategy of choice, despite their proven shortcomings. These strategies are carried out on the back of the civilian population. They have now become equal partners with the IDF in the war against Israel’s enemies. That is not the way it was supposed to be.

Bookmark and Share
Print

Tags:

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

4 Responses to “The Unilateral Withdrawal Syndrome”

  1. NORMAN HAUPTMAN says:

    NATIONS THAT APPEASE
    PACE THEIR SAFETY IN DANGER

  2. Kate says:

    I pray that Prime Minister Netanyahu is guided by the wisdom of his Blessed father and the patriotic courage of his beloved brother. Let his mind not be influenced by appeasers who consistently fail to understand anything of the enemy's thinking.

    Appeasement signals weakness to all Arabs. They will destroy Israel if any more land is given away in the hope of peace. Annex Judea and Samaria as quickly as possible. Let the Arabs choose whether to remain as citizens of Israel or transfer to the area ruled by Abbas. Methinks many will choose to the freedom and security of Israeli citizenship. The Abbas regime is as corrupt as that of Arafat and the Arabs of the area know that well.

  3. bernard ross says:

    Barak is the worst PM and DM Israel ever had. Why does BB keep him???? The reverse of withdrawal will work; expand the bordeers of Israel int to neighboring territory; push back the enemy from Israel civilian centers.

  4. Ferdinand says:

    Israel must realise that the land of Israel does not belong to them! It belongs to G_D Eternal, Israelis are only custodians of that land, they can not and must not to give away which belongs to G-D. HE made Everlasting Covenant of peace with them and every time Israel backs up from it they actually making the situation worse than before. Each time the enemy declared war Israel won that war, gained more territory and then under the "promise of peace" they returned it back to their enemies, what a ridiculous idea! Don’t the leaders realise that even if they did not returned the land the enemy would be the same as today, no matter what, but Israel would have bigger territory where they would use it for their defense and their G-D would be pleased with them. Now Israel is on it`s own.
    Remember, Israel, G-D is with you, so are many people around the world!
    Chazak – Chazak! ve`nit chazek!!!

Leave a Reply