Israeli Gaza Pullout

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Any guess how long it will be before Hamas carries out another terrorist attack, resulting in Israel retaking Gaza?

I'm not sure time can be subdivided into such small quantities.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Any guess how long it will be before Hamas carries out another terrorist attack, resulting in Israel retaking Gaza?

I can see IDF forces going into Gaza again and again, the Palestinian security forces have a huge way to go before Israel devolves any control back to them. Yet Israel doesn't have to 'retake' Gaza to improve her security, they can build walls and launch helcopter missile strikes in Gaza city if they want to. Most of the soldiers were there to protect settlers and not police the Palestinians (I accept this can sometimes mean the same thing) As I've said, what's happening Gaza is 95% emotional, Israel knows it is not compromising its security and that the real action is in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The removal of the Gaza settlements also had wide Israeli support.

If you mean retaking in terms of moving back in the settlements, or building new ones, I would be very very surprised for reasons I have already stated.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by jeff

You mean, the previous negotiations, which gave Palestine East Jerusalem and ~93% of West Bank and Gaza weren't "real" (the items you cite, that Israel was signatory too, and which Arafat responded to with the 2nd intifada)

Of course the negotiations were real! I ment Israel really complying with the results...

I quote Dubi Weisglass's, Sharon's senior political adviser (and personal lawyer), intervue with Haaretz last year:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians"
"The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation."
"The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
"There was a very difficult package of commitments that Israel was expected to accept. That package is called a political process. It included elements we will never agree to accept and elements we cannot accept at this time. But we succeeded in taking that package and sending it beyond the hills of time. With the proper management we succeeded in removing the issue of the political process from the agenda."

Cunning, eh? How many different ways can a representative of government say that they're not interested in peace process...
They were scared, though, that the IDF would refuse to evict settlers, which would bring the whole thing crashing down. Apparently it's so far going as planned, and the IDF is taking orders from government. "It's a great day for Israeli democracy", as Shimon Peres joyfully said.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

It wasn't terrorist pressure that caused the withdrawal of Gaza.

Note that I said "whatever the real effects of the pullout the apparent effect is: terrorism forced Israel to do it. Terrorism works. Terrorism can help us achieve our objectives, wahtever they may be. Terrorism is successful".

Reality is in this case less important than perception. Those inclined toward terrorism will see this as a victory for their methods. They will not look any deeper than that.

If our presence in Iraq is a "recruiting poster for terrorists", as some believe, then this is an even bigger one. Iraq thus far is a battle still being contested; Gaza can be presented as a "victory" for the suicide bombers. And it will be. It has been. It is being...

I have no sympathy for the settlers/squatters. But this move has ramifications going way beyond Israel or even the Middle East. It is handing a propaganda gift to thugs with a worldwide agenda.

[Araznal]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Note that I said "whatever the real effects of the pullout the apparent effect is: terrorism forced Israel to do it. Terrorism works. Terrorism can help us achieve our objectives, wahtever they may be. Terrorism is successful".

This is what the terrorists are thinking. And it may be somewhat true, but the real reason is the one most often neglected: economics. The Gaza Strip is nothing but barren crap land that has no significance economically to Israel. In fact, all it's doing is sucking out funds from the government, which is just trying to stop the fighting to protect those who aren't supposed to be there anyway. Now the West Bank is a totally different issue. Sharon would greatly hurt the country economically if he pulled out there.

The way I figure it, they (referring to the remaining bigoted Mideast countries) are lucky Israel didn't take Damascus and all of Syria when they had the chance. But I do agree that the Palestinians deserve their own state (even though it was supposed to be Transjordan... but that's another issue)

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Note that I said "whatever the real effects of the pullout the apparent effect is: terrorism forced Israel to do it. Terrorism works. Terrorism can help us achieve our objectives, wahtever they may be. Terrorism is successful".

Reality is in this case less important than perception. Those inclined toward terrorism will see this as a victory for their methods. They will not look any deeper than that.

If our presence in Iraq is a "recruiting poster for terrorists", as some believe, then this is an even bigger one. Iraq thus far is a battle still being contested; Gaza can be presented as a "victory" for the suicide bombers. And it will be. It has been. It is being...

I have no sympathy for the settlers/squatters. But this move has ramifications going way beyond Israel or even the Middle East. It is handing a propaganda gift to thugs with a worldwide agenda.

No.

You can't say that: "Because there are some Palestinians who are terrorists, any concession to Palestinians is a concession to terrorists." The whole world has called for the withdrawal from Gaza.

Furthermore the illegal occupation, the settlements and daily IDF attacks in Gaza (that killed 1000's of civilians) was 'a propoganda gift to thugs with a worldwide agenda'. Incidently it is very much a regional agenda they are pursuing. Terrorist use conflict, concepts of 'occupation' and images of brutalised civilians as recruitment tools. That is why, as you point out, Iraq is such a useful conflict for them. So if occupation is the greatest recruitment tool, surely withdrawal is not? Do you think that the withdrawal would have happened without Abbass being elected to reform the Palestinian authority?- Does this not show, as has happened in the uK in Northern Ireland, that once a movement sees it can achieve more from politics it listens less and less to the men of violence (who are heard more and more in times of repression).

Saying we're not going to budge 1 inch until we know that every single terrorist in Palestine has given up the struggle is not a workable solution. Do you think that America is going to stay in Iraq/Aghanistan until every terrorist has gone? If not are they also appeasing terrorists? People have to be given an incentive, a political process and a non oppresive social-economic environment/space to stop violence. That's the reality, what you suggest would mean they would still be in the same position in 1000 years.

I also refer to you to Araznal's excellent post to show that many in the Israeli govt could see the long term effects of the withdrawal as a victory in terms of economic, security, political and diplomatic policy. The evacuation of the Gaza settlements has been choreographed superbly by Sharon, it's a major PR victory to see secular IDF forces ripping religious jews from their settlments. It implies a large emotional concession, strength in the face of religious extreemism, a statement that the government doesn't support the view that it is god given Israeli land, it implies Sharon as willing to make difficult desisions for peace, it improves his international standing, it puts pressure of the Palestinians to deliver peace. It creates a smokescreen to improve Israeli security and make territorial gains in areas of geniuine importance to Israel elsewhere. All for the price of land Israel doesn't want. Good bargain.

[jeff]

I agree with the above points that getting out of Gaza reduces Israel's defense commitments, removes a flash point, and plays (at least somewhat) well to the international community. More evidence that Gaza was not worth keeping is that Israel tried to hand it back to Egypt years ago (lest it be forgotten: Egypt had Gaza under military occupation from 1949 till 1967 - where were the international demands for Palestinian self determination then?), and Egypt didn't want it back. All this has to be balanced against Hamas and Islamic Jihad claiming victory - eg: "terrorism works" - and openly saying that this gives them momentum to continue their attacks on Israel, while other Palestinians say that the Gaza evictions simply don't count.

I find Teme's comments off-target for several reasons. Citing Sharon's political advisor about the sincerity of negotiations made by Sharon's domestic political enemies (Peres and Rabin) is like quoting Karl Rove about Bill Clinton's foreign policy, hardly an appropriate source. That said, the context of the "interim situation" is that progress could never be made as long as Arafat was in power. Arafat consistently lied to everyone he dealt with (that he embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars is a mere sideshow), and called for and funded terrorism against Israel (both in the occupied territories and Israel proper) before, during, and after the accords were signed. It's impossible to see how there could be any meaningful "political process with the Palestinians" when they continued their terrorism and calls for genocide. To single out Israel as the insincere party in this is breathtaking.

At any rate, these changes are now underway. The idea of a Greater Israel is over, as far as I can tell, and most Israelis seem to have come to accept the idea of a dual-state solution. Whether or not the Palestinians are willing to accept this idea remains to be seen.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jeff

To single out Israel as the insincere party in this is breathtaking.

At any rate, these changes are now underway. The idea of a Greater Israel is over, as far as I can tell, and most Israelis seem to have come to accept the idea of a dual-state solution. Whether or not the Palestinians are willing to accept this idea remains to be seen.

In situations like this you can go round and round. You can say that the Palestinian leaders have not engaged honestly in a political process. The truth is that Israel has, as a deliberate policy, made it impossible for a truly political and democratic Palestinian authority to emerge-so it cannot really be surprised when it has no trustworthy, democratic or unified political party to negotiate with. It has destroyed any instruments of authority for the Palestinians, bar violence. Most importantly it has created the kind of living conditions and social-economic environment where violence breeds. For the Palestinians leaders to reject all violence they would have to alinenate themselves from their people (who consider the intifada to be resisting an illegal occupation) Then what use would they be?

In Northern Ireland everybody knew that the Sinn Fein leaders were still on the IRA military council and had direct links, and overt sympathies, to terrorists. But the UK realised that if they allowed Sinn Fein to develop into some semblence of a democratic party, it could gradually bring the terrorists on board. There was no point alinetating them because they had links to the IRA and were hard to trust. The point was that they were not fully trusted or fully democratic but they were brought onboard. Now, despite many problems, Northern Ireland and the UK is a much safer places to live than in the 1970-90's. You have to foster institutions that can create a political framework, you then have to tolerate the fact that it takes time for these institutions to have authority. You then have to be wait for the various groups to realise that they have a stake/vested interest in recognising this authority, whilst allowing for the fact that people not used to working within a political framework need time to adjust. You then have to create the right environment, in terms of representation, freedom and economic and living standard improvements to prove that this framework is working to improve peoples lives. Once people see their day to day life improving they then have a stake in the political process continuing and they will see that supporting violence would make their lives worse. I can understand it when Israel says that Palestinians are responsible for the conditions that their people live in. But, regardless of political demands, if they dont improve (and Israel has the power to improve them) then their will never be peace.

Obviously Israel is willing to accept a 2 state solution, but it is a gross simplification to say that all is needed is for the Palestinians to agree to this Israeli interpretation of the 2 state solution. If the idea of 2 state solution means: Israel keeps the whole West Bank, and keeps building settlements there, Jerusalem is annexed for Israel, IDF retains security in Palestinian areas, Palestine is not given ecomomic and poilitical viabilty through materials and trade restrictions, some symbolic concession to refugees............then the they will not accept this as a viable 2 state solution.

I agree that for a 2 state solution to exist, Palestinians must accept the right for an Israeli state to exist. Whilst tv loves to broadcast interviews of enraged arabs in Gaza shouting 'death to Israel', the Palestinian leadership has long accepted Israels right to exist. Therefore it is wrong to say that Palestinians are unwilling to negotiate a 2 state solution, it's is the terms that are obviously important.

[jeff]

pigeonmeister, I have to disagree with some of the things you say above.

To blame Israel for the PA's corruption and non-democratic nature is to blame the wrong party. I can see blaming Israel for the PA's not having military capability, but it's hard to see what alternative they had when the same materiel went directly to the Al Aqsa brigade and other terrorist groups. However, the other - and underlying - problems with the PA are its own doing. It's impossible for me to see why Israel is responsible for the PA not being "trustworthy, democratic and unified". (And if they had influenced PA's politics - the success of that strikes me as damned unlikely - it would just be called "neocolonialistic influence")

During the Arafat regime the total elimination of Israel was the ultimate goal of the PA (that's what they said in Arabic, rather than in English. They were quite open about it when the world media wasn't looking). Even the US refused to deal with Arafat during the last years of his regime - there really was no point to it. If you listen to Hamas right now, they also make it clear: they are not interested in a 2-nation solution; they want the entire area including the pre-1967 Israel. This is one of the reasons the analogy to Northern Ireland doesn't work: when the other side retains its goal of destroying your nation, it doesn't give a lot of room for negotiation. At least Gerry Adams could claim in public that he wanted peace.

Perhaps Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) can repair this, but I have my doubts, considering that he's the author of a book claiming that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to murder Jews ("The Other Side: The Secret Relationship between Nazism and the Zionist Movement") and was interviewed in 2003 by al-Sharq al-Awsat saying that the armed struggle against Israel was to continue. Perhaps he'll continue Arafat's course of alternating between "we're too weak to control the terrorists" (in which case why bother negotiating with him) and privately supporting the terrorists (in which case why bother negotiating with him).

I also dispute the idea that Israel is responsible, or at least solely responsible for the living conditions of Palestinians. Arafat himself stole hundreds of millions of dollars of aid money, and used other funds to continue war rather than build an economy. The surrounding Arab countries also share responsibility. For example, to this day it is still illegal for "Palestinians" living in Jordan to enter most professions, and they are not eligible for education and other benefits available "real" Jordanians. They are deliberately held in camps rather than integrated into society (never mind the argument one could make that Jordan is or should be the Palestinian state). Of course, while we're talking about the disruption to Palestinians, about 700,000 of whom left what became Israel in 1948, we never talk about the approximately equal number of Jews expelled from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon at the same time. People demanding "right of return" for Palestinians (which would mean there would be two Palestinian states, not one Palestine and one Israel) don't seem to like the idea that the principle should be applied there as well.

The first sentence of your last paragraph is correct. The others are not.

[pigeonmeister]

Jeff

A few posts ago you stated that 'To single out Israel as the insincere party in this is breathtaking.' You were right. Yet you seem to think it impossible that Israel has in anyway contributed to the endless cycle of violence in the region, and that essentially the Palestinians are the source of all the problems. I think that the vast majority of the international community would find this equally breathtaking. A lot of people forget that terrorism played a role in the the foundation of Israel. The King David Hotel bombings were ordered by David Ben Gurion (he had tried to stop them when the political climate improved but it was to late- the point is that he was ready to use it). The bombing killed 91 people and was a terrorist effort to remove an oppressive occupation (the Brits), whilst it had been ordered by Ben Gurion the Jewish authorities subsequently condemned the attack but said the Brits were to blame anyway. The terrorists became known, to many jews, as freedom fighters. Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin (who finaly sanctioned this TERRORIST attack) both go on to become Israeli Prime Ministers, Begin gets the Noble Peace prize! Does any of this sound familiar?- or is this another case of History written by the winners.

I agree largely with your assesment of Arafat, I can understand the US and Israeli reluctance to deal with him. Yet what about Sharon? How can you expect the Palestinians to trust a man that was in charge (and found indirectly responsible) for the Christian massacre of Palestinian women and children in Lebanon's refugee camps. How can the jewish people trust a man who used religious zealots, people who Sharon has no similar religious sympathy for, as a physical barrier to protect secular jews- and then tell them not to. How can anybody trust a man who deliberately stirred up trouble by visiting the Temle Mount at a insenstive time. All in order to use the tension to bolser Likuds political position, not because he was defending some human right to visit the site. This was to say the very least maliciously unhelpful.


In 1900 there were practically no Jews living in Palestine, 50 years later because of events in Europe and because of a biblical claim, there was an Israeli state on what had previously been Arab land. Now for too long Arabs have refused to wake up and smell the coffee and live with the fact that you can't destroy a state. Also for too long Israel, bolstered by Religious righteousness, has expected Palestinians to not resent this. Especially when the jews just so happened to want to live in the most fertile, best irrigated land.

Anyway the point is that any second rate analyst of the Palestinian Authority will tell you that they dont have a stated or unstated strategy of destroying the jewish state. That does not mean that in ideal world they would rather the Jewish state had never been founded. Therefore you are totally wrong in saying that the only barrier to a peaceful 2 state solution is the PA refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. As if, once they do accept this, then all will be well. Do your research, you are blindly pro-Israeli when it is clear that both sides are very far from blameless. Both sides are culpable, by their actions, associations and inactions, for the human misery.

Even ex Israeli security chiefs see that Israeli policies are part of the problem.

"We are heading downhill towards near-catastrophe. If nothing happens and we go on living by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud and destroy ourselves,"

ex-security chief Yaakov Perry told the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth,

"We must once and for all admit there is another side, that it has feelings, that it is suffering and that we are behaving disgracefully... this entire behavior is the result of the occupation,"

Shalom, who served as Shin Bet head from 1980 to 1986

"It is dealing solely with the question of how to prevent the next terrorist attack," Gillon said, referring to Palestinian suicide bombings. "It [ignores] the question of how we get out of the mess we find ourselves in today."

Carmi Gillon, whose term as Shin Bet chief was cut short in 1996 when he resigned after agency bodyguards failed to prevent the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist, described the government as short-sighted. Gillon was recently elected head of the Mevaseret Zion council.

[jeff]

Please don't exaggerate my position. I don't say that Israel hasn't contributed to the problem (elsewhere on this board I've said so at length). I say that the preponderance of guilt lies with the Palestinian side - and that they get a mostly free ride - but not all of it.

What I find objectionable is the criticism that is placed on Israel, and not on the other side. The actions in the UN years past, and in Europe to this day exhibit what I consider a deplorable, even racist bias against Israel - but I never said that Israel was wholly innocent. This illustrates my point: Sharon's indirect contribution to the deaths in the Lebanese refugee camps seems to be held to be more heinous than the actual killings by the people that carried them out. Not to mention the Black September killing of 5,000 to 10,000 Palestinians by Jordan (consider that post-partition, Palestinians were the majority demographic in Jordan), or the continuing stream of killings by Hamas, Al Aqsa, Hezbollah, Al Fatah ever since.

I don't think I'm blindly biased at all. I deplored Sharon's move into the territories to create "facts on the ground" (and have said so on this board)), and think it has created much of today's problems (plus the situation alluded to by your quotes from Israelis). He now certainly has trust issues with his original constituency - look at Netanyahu looking to take the Likud leadership from him. But that's a domestic problem that will be solved in a parliamentary way instead of with guns, and itself illustrates that an Israeli leader is willing to cut off his own political base to do the thing that he (even if belatedly) thought was the right thing to do. The comparison with the PA, where the leadership either has been unwilling to do the same (or is simply talking from both sides of their mouths) is very clear. I agree also that his visit to Temple Mount was inflammatory - but it shows how things stand when a member of the government cannot even travel to such a place. Since I like to compare and contrast behaviors: he caused a provocation by going to a historical site, while Arafat at the PA got a free pass while destroying archeological evidence of the pre-modern Jewish presence. Hardly what I call balanced criticism.

(Let me clarify something about "which land the Jews are in": one of the ironies of the modern situation is that the Jewish state was founded in areas that largely were not the biblical Israel, because they were inhabited. Early immigrants bought cheap lands not mentioned in the Bible, and they were not particularly well irrigated until they made it so. Most fertile, best irrigated, because they did it.) I notice that you didn't respond to my comment about the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.

I think that it is exactly a 2nd rate analyst of the PA that says that they don't wish for the complete destruction of Israel - the only thing is that they recognise that at this time it is not realistic (after many attempts), so they're willing to postpone that plan, and instead demand "right of return" so that both Israel and Palestine would have majority-Palestinian populations: 2 Palestines and not one. Certainly, the Hamas, Hezbollah, etc groups have not relinquished their goal of destroying Israel by military means, and they directly say so.

In a previous thread on this subject I mentioned the idea that the terrorist (or revolutionary, or whatever you want to call them) has to eventually put down the gun, which people like Begin eventually did. The government has to control itself by surpressing terrorism "on its own side", as even the early Israel did by sinking the Irgun (Begin's) arms ship Altalena, or (as may have finally happened) Gerry Adams ending IRA terrorism. That is the thing that vividly has not been done by the Palestinian Authority or its predecessor organizations.

[Have At You]

well said. I deplore the loud abuses of Israelis by people who ignore the nastiness committed by the Palestinians. Ditto for those who say both sides are morally equivalent, that both are contributing equally to a "cycle of violence" of Palestinian terrorist attacks on innocent civilians and Israeli defensive acts against those terrorists. Not to say Israel doesn't do stupid things, but to say they're the bad guys or just as bad, is incredible.

[jeff]

Thank you, Have At You. I don't understand how people can consider it moral equivalence when Hamas, Fatah and its ilk target civilians (frequently attacking places that are mostly occupied by women and children) and openly call for genocide, frequently with the support of the PA.

Just a thought.: perhaps it's the same thought process used by people who blame the US for everything. Sure, we do a lot of stupid and wrong things (I think I've made many arguments along those lines on this board), but the people that picket us or label us international criminals give a free ride to North Korea (nuclear blackmail, slave labor, concentration camps, violent repression, kidnappings and murder, mass starvation as a political tool), China (violent repression, slave labor, invasion of Tibet and suppression of its religion, ethnic cleansing, corruption), Iran (direct contribution to terrorism, nuclear blackmail, violent suppression and religious persecution), and similar in Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, Kenya, and many others. Imagine if any of those countries had the most powerful economy and military in the world and ask yourself if the world would be in better or worse shape than it is now.

The evil that others do isn't an excuse for any one else's sins, but it is striking how one-sided the protest and scrutiny are.

[Araznal]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Jeff

The King David Hotel bombings were ordered by David Ben Gurion (he had tried to stop them when the political climate improved but it was to late- the point is that he was ready to use it). The bombing killed 91 people and was a terrorist effort to remove an oppressive occupation (the Brits), whilst it had been ordered by Ben Gurion the Jewish authorities subsequently condemned the attack but said the Brits were to blame anyway. The terrorists became known, to many jews, as freedom fighters. Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin (who finaly sanctioned this TERRORIST attack) both go on to become Israeli Prime Ministers, Begin gets the Noble Peace prize! Does any of this sound familiar?- or is this another case of History written by the winners.

Just was thinking about that. Do you know the difference between that and bombings by Hamas? Ben Gurion's forces actually CALLED up the hotel (being used as a temporary military base I believe) and said, "we're going to bomb this hotel in 20 minutes." The Brits thought it was a bluff and decided not to give into the threat. But, in 20 minutes, guess what happened...
Hamas however, does not target any military institutions (no attacks I've heard of at least) and gives no warning to their attacks.

I agree 100% with Jeff here.

Oh, for the record, I never liked:
Arafat
Barak
Sharon

Simply because they are all incredibly stubborn. Even Sharon's little bend is nothing very special because he's doing it for economic reasons.

[daeceg]

I blame the British.


During World War I, the British and French made plans to divide up the Ottoman Empire. At the same time, the British made overtures to various groups in the Empire, hoping to get those tribal factions to betray the Empire and, if not actively side with, refrain from assisting the Empire's military. At the same time, British leaders made overtures to the European Jewish community with promises of a homeland. British officials actually believed in the myth that the Jews were the secret rulers of Europe and financing a large amount of the Germany/Austria-Hungarian war effort.

Thus, three competing claims for the disposition of the Middle East were established near-simultaneously.

Jews and Arabs were both promised Palestine in return for supporting Allied war efforts. Both groups have some historical claim to the land.