Israeli Gaza Pullout

[esskreemr]

What do you think? I've been hearing the same ole' think ever since I was born,so I'm somewhat skeptical that there will ever be peace.

[scrapinpeg]

If I may reveal my utter ignorance on this topic, what is the issue here?

I pretty much skip news articles about Israel and Palestine. Can't name any of the players, don't know what their goals are, and don't know what they're doing to advance their goals (apart from the vague perception that the palestinians are prone to lawless violence in furtherance of their goals, and that the israelis use violence more defensively).

Can the issue be summed up in a quick post that someone like me could understand?

[keith]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Can the issue be summed up in a quick post that someone like me could understand?

any statement that might possible construed as having some bias for either the palestinian or Israeli position (for example not using a capital P) will immediately be flamed all over for;

1) not appreciating the wrongs down to the party biased against.
2) not showing adequate support for the side biased for.

....you already have the right idea don't ruin it now.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

If I may reveal my utter ignorance on this topic, what is the issue here?

I pretty much skip news articles about Israel and Palestine. Can't name any of the players, don't know what their goals are, and don't know what they're doing to advance their goals (apart from the vague perception that the palestinians are prone to lawless violence in furtherance of their goals, and that the israelis use violence more defensively).

Can the issue be summed up in a quick post that someone like me could understand?

Palestinians: "Israel took our homeland and they're oppressing us and we have discrimination and they're attacking us with tanks forcing us to retaliate with terrorism."
Israel: "Palestinians are bad people who blow us up with bombs, forcing us to attack them with tanks and take away their liberties for our own protection."

Also, Palestinians want their own country, while Israel is unwilling to give up land, as nearly all Israeli land already has Jewish inhabitants that don't want to move or live in Palestine.

[keith]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Also, Palestinians want their own country, while Israel is unwilling to give up land, as nearly all Israeli land already has Jewish inhabitants that don't want to move or live in Palestine.

well they did have their own country until guilt ridden europeans let the zionists take it away from them

flame on

[scrapinpeg]

Okay, I understand the general positions of Palestinians vs. Israel.

What I'm really asking is, what's at issue in this whole Gaza hooha?

[keith]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Okay, I understand the general positions of Palestinians vs. Israel.

What I'm really asking is, what's at issue in this whole Gaza hooha?

symbolism, in the same way that the withdrawal from the lebanon 'buffer zone' was symbolic. There is a belief that this brings closer the day when Israel withdraws from nearly all the west bank (remainder of the 'occupied territories').

This bothers two groups of people; the settlers and other 'greater Israel types' for obvious reasons and the more cynical palestinians since an Israeli withdrawal on unilateral terms will wrap Jerusalem into the state of Israel with a palestinian enclave inside the city and outside any future palestinian state.

[Teme]

If it really happens, it will be historical in a sense that it's the first time ever Israel makes a real move towards peace with Palestinians.

It also conveniently takes away the pressure to yield to Oslo Accords, The Road Map for Peace or Geneva Initiative.

[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)

[keith]

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)

and we're off!!!

You mean the negotiations which led to accords which Israel repeatedly violated - you know suspending settlement activity, that kind of thing?

[jeff]

Yup, exactly those - violations included. Which doesn't eliminate the context in which they were nonetheless real, that they were violently rejected by a "partner" who had no intention of treating with them at all, and which led to Likud's Sharon becoming PM. Now, the irony of Sharon ending the Gaza settlements he himself encouraged 20+ years ago.

I agree with what I assume is your meta-comment: that this thread and any defense of one position over another is unlikely to shed any light or change anyone's opinion.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

Yup, exactly those - violations included. Which doesn't eliminate the context in which they were nonetheless real,

well they are only 'real' if both sides honour them.

Originally Posted by jeff

that they were violently rejected by a "partner" who had no intention of treating with them at all

this would by and large apply to both sides - the 'accords' where only acknowledged in the breach rather than the observance. But hey the rest of the world felt great that the Israelis and Palestinians had sorted out their problems; lets all just pretend they don't have to agree about what to do with Jerusalem .

Originally Posted by jeff

Now, the irony of Sharon ending the Gaza settlements he himself encouraged 20+ years ago.

Agreed, but back in the day the idea was that the palestinians could be shipped out to Jordan and that would be the Palestinian state. Without a way of displacing the palestinians Gaza (and to a lesser extent the west bank) were always going to be untenable - at least from a PR position.

[pigeonmeister]

In a nutshell:

1947 1,000 Lebanese, 6,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 5,500 Egyptian, 6,000-9,000 Transjordanian troops and unknown number of Saudi and Yemenite troops invaded Israel. Israel defeated the Arabs and in 1949 Israel was generally able to draw its own borders, occupying 78% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted it. These borders were known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

1967 Arab troops, funded with oil, armed by Soviets and emboldened by the surge in Nasser's Arab nationalism that followed Suez, massed on Israel's border. Suitably scared Israel launches a pre-emptive war and wins convincingly. The Six-Day War left Israel in possession of Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, which it took from Egypt; Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which it took from Jordan; and the Golan Heights, taken from Syria. Land under Israel's jurisdiction after the 1967 war was about four times the size of the area within its 1949 armistice frontiers. The occupied territories included an Arab population of about 1.5 million.

In 1973 Egypt joined Syria in a war on Israel to regain the territories lost in 1967. Israel, forced to compete with the nearly unlimited Arab resources, was faced with a serious financial setback. Only massive U.S. economic and military assistance enabled it to redress the balance. The Arabs are defeated again.

So basically the settlements were a way secular right wing Israelis could use Jewish religious zealots (who think god has given them the land of palestine) as physical block to secure Israel's weakest point (the west Bank). Annexation means you increase your state and increase the buffer zone between your enemies. Now Israel faces only an internal threat, the gaza settlements are counter-productive to Israeli national security. They are also a barrier to an economically viable Palestinian state (cos they settled on the best land and control most of what little water there is). The settlements are internationaly condemned and not suported by the people who basically think a few thousand religious nutters make even more suicide bombers come to Tel Aviv.

So Sharon placates the international community, gives Palestinians some hope and spares the army the expense of defending Gaza settlements which are not important to Israeli national security anyway. It's all a smokescreen. What Sharon cares about is Jerusalem and the West Bank, and this is the crux of the issue. Israel maybe dismantling gaza, but at the same time is building more illegal settlements on the west Bank and shutting the Palestinians out of Jerusalem. They also still exclusively control airspace, sea space and overall security and border control in Gaza. Also remember that the incorporation (in some tangible form) of jerusalem into any future Palestinian state is a non negotiable for the Palestinians. As such the issue of Jerusalem is, sadly, almost impossible to resolve. The Palestinians themselves have suffered hugely, but have also been consistently poorly led and manipulated by external forces with their own agenda. Israel owes massive compensation to Arabs and the IDF have consistently acted illegally, but at the end of the day Israel has spent her whole existance surrounded by nations with the avowed policy of her universal destruction.

[scrapinpeg]

Thanks PM, that cleared it up nicely for me. Rep coming your way!

[Mr Epee]

I think that Israel should be extremely careful in this delicate situation.

God struck Onan dead for pulling out early.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I think that Israel should be extremely careful in this delicate situation.

God struck Onan dead for pulling out early.

I repped you too recently to do so again, but this post is genius.

[Have At You]

Here's a take on this I hadn't seen before. (Haven't thought about it, either, so I'm neither endorsing nor attacking this guy's observations."

---


"The real danger from Gaza may not be to Israel but to the rest of the West. The Israeli army has battled terrorist groups in a way that the Palestinian Authority has neither the power nor, in all likelihood, the desire to do. If, following the Israeli pullout, Gaza becomes another training ground for Islamo-fascist fanatics -- a successor to Afghanistan under the Taliban - the resulting terrorists will find the U.S. and Europe much easier targets than Israel, which is the world's most heavily defended state. Irony of ironies, perhaps in a few years enlightened Westerners will rue the day when Israel gave up control of Gaza"

-- L.A. Times columnist Max Boot.

[Inquartata]

I think it's a very dangerous thing, because 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. The head of Hamas for one has said as much: that they should celebrate having 'forced' Israel to abandon Gaza. Al Qaeda has supposedly just announced that it will be setting up operations in the area.

So not only does this open up a new staging center for further attacks on Israel, and no doubt Egypt and elsewhere as well, and an area with access to sea shipping and proximity to Europe, it provides encouragement for the vipers there and elsewhere to redouble their efforts. Bravo, Mr. Sharon.

I understand the stated reasons for the policy, and yes, it will reduce Israel's "front", and their military will not need to be spread so thin. I still don't think the payoff is worth the cost.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I think it's a very dangerous thing, because 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. The head of Hamas for one has said as much: that they should celebrate having 'forced' Israel to abandon Gaza. Al Qaeda has supposedly just announced that it will be setting up operations in the area.

So not only does this open up a new staging center for further attacks on Israel, and no doubt Egypt and elsewhere as well, and an area with access to sea shipping and proximity to Europe, it provides encouragement for the vipers there and elsewhere to redouble their efforts. Bravo, Mr. Sharon.

I understand the stated reasons for the policy, and yes, it will reduce Israel's "front", and their military will not need to be spread so thin. I still don't think the payoff is worth the cost.

It wasn't terrorist pressure that caused the withdrawal of Gaza. It was the fact that the right wing secular jews no longer found it usefull for religious zealots to illegally occupy land that even the UN said wasn't Israel. In fact pressure from the American government, and the wider international community (and not hamas) is the other large factor in the withdrawal. Plus you are missing the point that israel still retains the right to control all aspects of security in Gaza. Plus your missing the fact that Israel is strengthening it's state in the west bank and Jerusalem to more than compensate any concession to the Palestinians in gaza.

[L.O.A.S.]

Any guess how long it will be before Hamas c