Israeli withdraw first step to peace

House Editorial

The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote. Those whose policy clashes with the demands of the times doesn’t.

The times demand peace and now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rightfully adapted his policy so that peace may prosper, Israelis may prosper and Palestinians may prosper — even at the risk of his own government’s stability. Whether he intended to or not, Sharon took the first step toward peace in a historic parliamentary battle Tuesday night. For the first time since the nation’s founding in 1948, Israel agreed to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Four West Bank settlements and 21 Gaza settlements would be dismantled. The vote aims to resettle all 8,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza that also is home to 1.3 million Palestinians by next September. But action is contingent upon four cabinet votes— each threatening to resign unless a referendum is held. Sharon has refused because he says the referendum is only a delay tactic to halt his plan.

The Prime Minister maintains — and the 67 deputies who voted in favor of the plan seem to agree — that surrendering part of Israel’s Jewish heritage is a small price to pay for peace in Gaza, an end to terrorism and the livelihood of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Political pressures principally considered, the price for peace is especially high. Leaving Gaza will make Israel safer as long as Sharon continues to withdraw from the West Bank.

Many doubt his commitment, and rightfully so, for Sharon was the leader foremost responsible for creating the settlements following victories in the 1967 war.

But even if the Gaza withdrawal only serves to undermine a chance for Palestinian statehood, even if Sharon simply is "cutting his losses," even if pulling out resettles Israelis in the West Bank, some facts remain the same. Israelis would no longer reside in Gaza. Terrorism on this tiny, entangled strip of land would subside. The first step toward peace is taken — regardless of suspicions questioning Sharon intentions.

In such a position of power — in such a web of mounting political pressures —Sharon’s steadfastness is rare and should be commended. His parliamentary victory is testament to the nation’s newfound commitment toward peace.

Even if Sharon now faces rebellion from within his own party, he has been right to be ruthless. (Following the vote, he fired two ministers who chose to not vote party lines.) Peace is costly. Despite intent, Sharon proves he grasps the realities that bind disengagement. Withdrawal allows negotiations and compromise with Palestine.

So be wary of Sharon’s intentions. His track record should be questioned. But be more wary of any leader unwilling, or unable, to adapt his policy to the times. Sharon’s first step is promising.