Academic Lack of Perspective

I found this article from 2005 and I ask you to spend two minutes and read the abstract and come to the realization that the reality - continued terror, Hamas takeover, etc. - is missing from this academic analysis:

Disengagement - And What After?
Hasson Shlomo
2005
Abstract of publication #3/37e

What will happen the day after the disengagement? Will disengagement herald tranquility and stabilization for Israeli-Palestinian relations, and enable the parties to resume negotiations and progress toward a permanent status agreement? Or, will the opposite occur, and disengagement will reinforce extreme Islamic factions who believe that only force can influence Israel? This essay examines these questions, through the perspective of four central and prevalent geopolitical approaches in Israel:

* The Inevitability of Separation: this approach holds that demographic and security considerations make Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria a necessity – even unilaterally, if need be.

* The Two State Solution: this approach supports a final status agreement, based on the principle of two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea, in which both peoples will exercise their right to self determination.

* The Greater Land of Israel: The Greater Land of Israel approach calls for Israel to remain in the territories, for various reasons: National-Religious circles, who believe in territorial integrity, justify their position through national and religious reasoning. Security circles supporting this approach argue that given the present security circumstances, and especially in light of threats of terrorism and the weakness of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should not leave the territories.

* Bi-National State: This approach, which characterizes Jewish post-Zionist circles in Israel and nationalist circles among Israeli Arabs, sees a bi-national state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as inevitable.

The essay presents the various approaches, elaborates the scenarios relating to them, and points out the signs marking the realization of each approach. Analysis of the various geopolitical approaches suggests two main options, which are, in my opinion, those which will stand at the center of the internal Israeli political debate, and around which the main political positioning will be formulated:

1. Containing itself inside the border
2. Deployment in the frontier area beyond the border.

A geopolitical approach is a sort of psycho-political pattern of thought, resulting from life experience and affiliation to a defined cultural group. It reflects one’s personal and collective beliefs and life experience, the opinions one is exposed to, and the social groups to which one is connected. It acts as a filtering lens, through which reality is examined, processed and interpreted. Based upon this processed reality, one reaches conclusions regarding the desirable course of action.

Underlying each geopolitical approach is a basic assumption; an irrefutable axiom. This assumption is sometimes displayed as an imperative, or as an inevitable process. The Inevitability of Separation approach assumes that the demographic process endangers the State of Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish and democratic state, and therefore, that disengagement is inevitable. The Two State Solution approach assumes that moral imperative and economic needs necessitate separation and the achievement of peace. Supporters of the Greater Land of Israel believe that settling the Land of Israel accomplishes a national vision and fulfills a divine imperative. The Bi-National State approach is based on the assumption that both communities, Jewish and Arab, are irreversibly intertwined, territorially and community-wise.

Despite substantial differences between the four approaches, they all share the historicist approach: the view that historical development is not a matter of chance, and that there is a constitutional logic at its foundation, which determines the direction of events. The approaches differ regarding the identity of the factor which determines historic development. Each emphasizes a different, exclusive factor which determines historic development in general, and, specifically, the nature of the relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These factors, which include demography, morality and progress, national vision and divine promise, and irreversible intertwining, determine the history of the relations between Israelis and Palestinians. These factors determine who will take part in shaping history, and which political views and strategies will shape the settlement map.

The essay is guided by an approach of skepticism regarding the validity of the historicist worldview, that is, the worldview which seeks out a logic which determines the path of history. It also distances itself from philosophical-political relativism, which assumes that every geopolitical approach is legitimate. Policymakers must base their geopolitical approach upon a system of criteria maximizing the number of advantages. The essay presents six criteria, whose essence is the existence of a Jewish democratic state, living in security and peace and enjoying internal solidarity and international support. True statehood is the choice, between geopolitical options, which strives for harmony between the various principles, while moderating the contradictions between them and preserving proportionality in their realization.

The geopolitical option proposed in the essay in light of these principles, is an Israeli initiative to rein in within the borders and to stabilize the frontier beyond the border. This option fits the Inevitability of Separation approach, but is also aware of the dangers indicated by Greater Land of Israel devotees. It does not stop at the inevitability of separation, rather continues in the direction of a two state solution, while understanding that the process will be slow and paved with crises, as predicted by the Inevitability of Separation approach. The two state solution scenario will not be manifested in a complete separation, due to the special circumstances of the two states as indicated by the Bi-National State approach, and a certain amount of common space will exist in the future as well.

However, most of the public in Israel oppose such a state, whether as the Greater Land of Israel or as the post-Zionist version of a bi-national state. Israel cannot eternally maintain a situation of separation amidst increasing enmity; reality necessitates progress from unilateral separation to a two state solution of the conflict.

Worthless dribble for which he got paid.