A reader questions my assertion that ?moving quickly towards an agreement that will end the occupation by definition means moving towards a resolution of Israeli violence against Palestinians,” and notes that, ?You may have heard that the settlements in Gaza were removed some time ago and the thugs residing therein sent packing. I am not aware that these actions have relieved the citizens of Gaza of Israel’s kind attention.? The reader asks, ?Why do you suppose that a retreat from the West Bank would have a better outcome?? Thanks very much for this interesting question.

First of all, it should be noted that I am not advocating an Israeli “retreat” from the West Bank, but rather a negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which includes an end to the occupation. The unilateral redeployment of troops in Gaza and removal of settlers, in spite of frequent disingenuous claims to the contrary, was not connected to the quest for peace, but rather was a function of the continuation of the conflict. For more than a decade before it actually happened, most senior figures in the defense and military establishments in Israel had been strongly considering the move because of the serious burden attached to defending a small group of settlers in a very exposed situation and in an area generally not considered strategically, religiously or historically important to the Israeli national project. It was an action taken by the Israeli military on behalf of the Israeli military without consideration for the Palestinian people, their national aspirations or rights, or in anyway connected to peace gestures with or towards them.

The fact that the situation in Gaza degenerated to the point that it has following the redeployment is, to a very large extent, a predictable consequence of the fact that Israel’s withdrawal to the peripheries of Gaza was done unilaterally and was not pursuant to any kind of understanding with the Palestinian people. The reader doubts whether ending the occupation would really end Israeli violence against Palestinians, because of the experience of Gaza. However, this very same experience leads some Israelis to question whether ending the occupation would lead to an end to Palestinian violence towards Israel. What both of these arguments miss is that there was no agreement connected to the Gaza redeployment. It was not the function of a peace treaty, reflective of a mutual decision on the part of both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to make a change that would benefit both peoples. It was a unilateral Israeli decision made exclusively by and for the Israeli government. And, of course, the fact is that Gaza remains under occupation until today, and under siege to boot.

I do think that ending the occupation is the key to ending both Palestinian violence against Israel, which is primarily motivated by a desire to end the occupation, and to ending Israeli violence against Palestinians, which is primarily motivated by the desire to enforce the occupation. The occupation is the context and proximate cause of most of the violence on both sides, although of course there are some extremists in both societies that conceptualize their violent acts in broader terms. Such extremists will have to be dealt with by the police of both Israel and the Palestinian state, but I do not believe they will be a major problem if there is an agreement that ends the occupation. Therefore, ending the occupation through a negotiated agreement that serves the interests of both Israel and the Palestinians would, in fact, end the cause and the context of violence, and therefore bring an end to most violence.