Many would say that the evacuation of the Gaza settlements represents an unprecedented opportunity for Middle East peace. After all, Israel has shown an unquestionable commitment to co-existence with the Palestinians, giving them a significant swath of land, and also a commitment to preserving Palestinian autonomy, at least on the ground, even if not the air or sea. They have done this, furthermore, without a single counter-expectation of action by the Palestinian Authority, or its leader, Mahmoud Abbas.
As the day of post-disengagement Israel dawns on the Middle East, the question of sustainable, human rights-based peace is on the minds of all who take interest in this volatile region, or make it their home. Is such a peace possible as a result of disengagement, and if so, is it a realistic possibility for the near future?
First, the operating assumption here will be that the pullout was ultimately for economic reasons. The views which follow are about peace prospects, but this is not to suggest that they are the only or even primary impetus for Gaza disengagement.
A brief consideration of the question of sustainable Middle-East peace requires outlining its intrinsic conditions. Unfortunately, it seems only too clear that these conditions are not in tandem with the current situation on the ground in Gaza and Israel.
An Israeli and Palestinian commitment to peace will require more than just a cessation of violence. The two nations must be willing to show commitment to the basic well-being of each other's constituents as well. For the Palestinians, this will require a basic recognition at all levels of Israel's right to exist as a state. Furthermore, the Palestinian people will need to be empowered by their government to create the infrastructure which is so vital to the well-being of any autonomous state.
For Israel, the fundamental question of whether the state is a Jewish Democracy or Democracy of Jews will need significant treatment. Israel must also be willing to respect Arab nations' concerns that it is an intrusive Western cultural machine in the center of Arab civilization. Most importantly, of course, Israel will need to demonstrate explicit commitment to the preservation, and in some cases re-instatement, of Palestinian human rights. Bulldozing houses of suicide-bombers' families may be justified under rules of engagement, but not under any basic conception of human rights. And while the international community and several NGOs have shown what can only be described as an abnormal amount of concern for Israel's actions (about 30 percent of U.N. Security Council Resolutions over the past 35 years were in regards to Israel, according to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs), the fundamental nature of identifying as a liberal democracy is dichotomous: either you do or you don't.
On the surface it would seem on the surface that a withdrawal from Gaza would be effective, because it would increase the amount of trust between the two nations, an element of negotiation that is crucial for sustainable peace to be an outcome.
However, the problem with unilateral disengagement is just that: it's unilateral.
Over the past four years, the basic structure of intifada violence has been unilateral as well. Side A bombs Side B, which retaliates against Side A, which responds again against Side B. And while one should be loathe to term this a "cycle" of violence due to inescapable normative disparities, ultimately the point proven was that pointing fingers and assigning blame led to nothing in terms of sustainable peace. Certainly the disengagement increases significantly the amount of trust between sides (which suicide bombs and missile strikes did not). However, the unilateral nature of Gaza disengagement impairs it fundamentally as a tool for sustainable peace, because it requires no mutual commitment to a pulley system of coexistence. Rather, it acts as a lever, with blame as the fulcrum.
Or consider another analogy: the political implications of Gaza disengagement are comparable to paying a $300 bribe to Donald Trump. It would certainly have positive value to him, but it would not stop him from, say, changing his signature hair style, an issue of character more than economics.
Likewise, while Gaza is certainly of immense value to the Palestinians and the groups which represent (or "represent") them, there are several other fundamental issues at stake that prevent Palestinian power holders from negotiating, issues more important to them than Gaza (or a hair style). And while one could very reasonably argue that these power holders are foolish for not realizing just how valuable a gift they have been given, the facts on the ground are that issues such as the right-of-return for refugees, human rights guarantees, and compensation for previous wrongdoings, are all factors that stand in the way of unilateral disengagement from Gaza meaning anything to these power holders.
Ultimately, it is joint efforts, and joint efforts alone, that can lead to sustainable peace in the Middle East. One-sided efforts, be they positive initiatives like disengagement or negative initiatives like divestment, cannot force the joint action required by both sides to achieve sustainable Israeli-Palestinian peace. Sustainable peace is not a state to be forced upon two entities, like war or colonialism. Rather, it must be the fruits of the efforts of all parties involved. By cultivating dialogue initiatives, trade agreements, and education programs, supporters of Israel and/or the Palestinians can increase both trust and the chance of peace as a possibility in the near future. But no matter how well-intentioned (or purposefully ill-intentioned) a unilateral plan may be, a one-sided approach to peace is ineffective, futile, and ultimately unfair to the citizens of the Middle East and the world who deserve so much better.
Scott Weiner is a sophomore who has yet to declare a major.
