by David Werdiger

Created on: March 22, 2009   Last Updated: March 24, 2009

The decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 has been judged with hindsight as a dismal failure. At the time, I considered Ariel Sharon's possible strategy in this move. It appeared to be along the lines of "give them enough rope and they will hang themselves": The Palestinians have demanded a state of their own so the unilateral withdrawal move was to grant them an opportunity to show the world how they might self-govern in a contiguous region like Gaza that already had an overwhelming majority of Palestinians living there.

Notwithstanding the results, even that strategy was flawed. There were boardly two possible outcomes: either they would make an attempt to establish something that might look like a future Palestinian state in Gaza (which the world considered very unlikely), or they would not. If they would, it could form the basis for an expansion of autonomous rule to the West Bank. If they would not, it could only go pear-shaped for so many reasons.

History has shown that no-one in the regions wants to be responsible for the Palestinians. During the period from 1948-1967, it was Egypt and Jordan who were responsible for the residents of Gaza and the West Bank respectively. But this was reluctant at best. Jordan's brutal attack and expulsion of Yasser Arafat in 1970 was just an indication of the broad Arab view of the Palestinians as a "people". They don't like them. They don't care for them. They only see them as useful pawns in the broader long-term war whose goal is the destruction of Israel.

In the more likely scenario of the Palestinians being unable to run a pseudo-state in Gaza, who would the world consider responsible for maintaining basic humanitarian conditions? Not Egypt, who have successfully washed their hands of the "Palestinian problem". Not the rest of the Arab world, who pay lip service and contribute a bare fraction of what the west does financially in aid. No. For some bizarre reason, this job falls on Israel.

A unilateral withdrawal says: "we are stepping back from this problem". But the world has rejected this, and demands that even though Israel has withdrawn, it is still responsible for caring for the residents of Gaza. Again, going back to 2005, with either Fatah or Hamas in charge, this is something Israel could never do to anyone's satisfaction. Fatah was (and remains) a corrupt and inept organization, and a tacit supporter of terrorism. And Hamas stays open and resolute in its goal to destroy the state of Israel.

Even without the benefit of hindsight, it was clear that there was little upside for Israel in leaving Gaza, and even more limited options beyond that move. Now, with Hamas in charge, Israel has a de-facto state at war with it, and still the world demands that they allow aid and trade with this entity. This is surely a case of "damned it you do; damned if you don't"!

Learn more about this author, David Werdiger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.