Plocker Fell Off His Rocker

In my life I've read some pretty lousy opinion pieces. Sometimes these op-eds include misinformation, sometimes ignorance, sometimes faulty logic. Sever Plocker over at ynet has managed to include all of these elements in his latest article, End of unilateral withdrawals? The title of the article was actually encouraging, and I thought that I may have found another sign of increasing sobriety among one of Israel's leftist journalists. After starting to read, I realized that I had been mistaken:

Just a few months ago, Israel appeared as though it had successfully completed two unilateral withdrawals: from the security zone in Lebanon and from the Gaza Strip.

Indeed! I am sure that the residents of the Western Negev were just thrilled with the results of the Gaza withdrawal. After all, most Israelis get to see fireworks only once a year, on Independence Day. The Gazans supplied the people of Sderot with "fireworks" almost daily. Sever then qualifies his statement:

Although the calm on the borders between Gaza and Lebanon was not complete, occasionally violated by the firing of rockets and mortar shells, the feeling among the public was that Israel had found the magical formula for a settlement with its neighbors, namely unilateral withdrawal from all territories occupied after the Six Day War. To withdraw, to build a fence and a wall – and to hope that nothing terrible would happen.

I wonder who "the public" is in Plocker's eys? I and almost all of my friends never believed in such foolishness. Further on Sever writes an obvious truth that I agree with:

In Middle East reality, however, the unilateral withdrawal was interpreted as folding up, as fleeing as succumbing to terror. The Israeli move was perceived worldwide as a weakness, the inability of Israelis to endure a prolonged war of terror.

It is just too bad that Mr. Plocker did not write this last year. The truth is, he enthusiastically supported Sharon's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. Here is what he wrote in February 2005:

The Israeli government, therefore, took a precedent-setting decision and cannot turn back from it. The decision marks Israel's satisfaction with a Jewish, democratic state whose borders are congruent, more or less, with the map of Israel prior to the Six-Day War, with agreed upon corrections.

Any other interpretation of the disengagement plan's approval marks a twisting of the truth, perpetrated by politicians who need to face, in public, the change in doctrines, views, and beliefs they held in the past.

The Greater Israel dream has dissipated and is no longer on the agenda, at least in this generation.

Israel under the leadership of Ariel Sharon is pulling out of Gaza and evacuating all its communities from there as a first step – and not a last step – ahead of a return to its proper borders.

So much for the pundit Plocker circa 2005. I return to Plocker circa 2006, where he writes a real whopper:

It may perhaps sound strange to Israeli ears, but when the Arabs sign agreements, they usually abide by them. Even the Hizbullah and Hamas made an effort to abide by the agreements made with them.

Ribono Shel Olam! Is there anyone who knows anything about the Israeli-Arab conflict that can read those lines and keep a straight face? The Arab violations of the Oslo Agreement are recent history! Plocker then suggests that we return to the old formula of "land for peace":

Agreements the dovish camp describes as "Land for Peace," and as Benjamin Nethanyahu put it during his term in office as prime minister, "if they give – they'll get; if they don't give – they won't get."

This suggestion has already been tried, and it has failed. The only true path to peace is to fulfill the Torah commandment of conquering and inheritting the land, without apologies and excuses.