As Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan for disengagement from the Palestinians is debated and contemplated in the halls of power, the university’s Jewish community has been abuzz with a cacophony of views, both in favor of and against the contested plan.

The plan, which centers on the unilateral abandonment of the Jewish presence in the Gaza Strip — and the evacuation of its 8,000 Jewish residents — as well as in parts of the northern West Bank, has already been welcomed by President George W. Bush, who called it “a real contribution towards peace,” and said it was consistent with his vision for peace in the Middle East.

In an Apr. 14 letter to Sharon, Bush also asserted that “a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue… will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel,” dealing a heavy blow to Palestinian claims of a “right of return” to Israel proper. The president further noted that it was “unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” and that “final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes,” to reflect “new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers.”

This has been taken by many on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides as tacit U.S. recognition of the acceptance of some Jewish settlements in the disputed territories. While the legality of the settlements has never been disputed by the United States (with the sole exception of a brief period during the Carter administration), the president’s remarks essentially overturned decades of policy statements that regarded the settlements as a hurdle in the path towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Reactions to the Sharon plan both in Israel and around the world have been mixed. On May 2, members of Sharon’s own Likud party rejected the plan by a 20 percent margin in a party-wide referendum, raising questions about whether or not Sharon can proceed with his plan without his party’s backing. In an ironic convergence of opinion, the right-wing National Religious Party and the left-wing Yahad Party both called for the plan to be scrapped following Sunday’s referendum. Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres called for Sharon’s resignation.

Outside the Jewish state, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has stood solidly in favor of the plan, while French President Jacques Chirac said it was “doomed to failure.”

Here in College Park, there seemed to be a cloud of confusion surrounding the plan, with a number of students not even knowing what it was or what it contained. One student suggested that perhaps the term ‘disengagement’ was a reference to an upcoming Arab boycott of Israel, while another wondered if it indicated a plan for the Palestinians to lay down their weapons and ‘disengage’ from Israel.

Among those familiar with the plan, however, opinions were sharply split.

“I’m in favor of it,” said Karen Perolman, a senior Jewish studies major and a leader of the Reform community on campus. “I think it’s a brave decision, one that is really tough to make, and I hope [Sharon’s] government supports him.”

Jason Schoenbrun of the Zionist Organization of America’s campus chapter disagreed. “I think we’ve already learned that ‘land for peace’ doesn’t work,” said the junior computer engineering major. “Disengagement will only allow the terrorist infrastructure to strengthen and make for bad neighbors with Israel.”

Members of TerPAC, the campus chapter of the American Israel Political Action Committee, supported Sharon’s plan and lobbied five congressmen on behalf of AIPAC last month to support disengagement.

“We were actually among the first pro-Israel groups to meet with these congressmen after the Bush-Sharon conference,” said Adam Kaplan, the group’s political director and a senior English and government and politics major. “TerPAC does support the initiatives that came out of that conference, and we see it as both positive steps towards peace by the Israelis in the absence of a viable Palestinian peace partner and as reaffirmation of America’s unyielding support for Israel as a Jewish state.”