[eklipse]

Background:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...t.settlements/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...137618,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1036634.htm

Originally posted by vmarks (here):
...

Meanwhile, as most every cartoonist picks on Israel in mostly failed attempts at biting relevant criticism, they fail to overlook the good that Sharon is working to do at this very moment, beginning the push to remove settlers from Gaza and moving forward by talking about the two-state solution-- something that would have been unthinkable from a Likud member, much less the PM, only a few years ago.

...

I don't understand this statement. Sharon wants to evict people from their homes - and this is a 'good' thing? How is it any better than kicking the Palestinians off their land in the first place?


This is assuming that Sharon is actually being sincere, there are many who believe that he is playing games for a variety of reasons:

• "Usually when the Israeli government speaks about evacuation of settlements, it aims only at public relations," says Saeb Erekat - suggesting that Sharon is only making these statements in preparation for a visit to or from Washington.
• Sharon may be attempting to divert attention from the corruption allegations against him that are currently being investigated.
• Sharon may be 'sacrificing' the settlements in Gaza with the hope of holding on to the settlements in the West Bank - the settlements in both regions are illegal under international law.

Haaretz Article: 'There will be no evacuation from Gaza' (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/391720.html)

...

The problem is with the basic, seemingly rational assumptions, that support the evacuation theory - Sharon will evacuate Gaza because he wants to continue occupying the West Bank; evacuating Gaza will relieve the international pressure, mainly American, on Israel and strengthen the pressure on the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table; leaving Gaza is more acceptable to Israeli public opinion; and finally, terror in Gaza will die down in the absence of available targets like settlements and military forces.

The assumption that evacuating Gaza will facilitate the continued occupation of the West Bank is misleading and dangerous. The Palestinians perceive these two regions as one inseparable unit, the settlers sanctify them both equally and the United States does not regard the West Bank's occupation any more more legitimate than Gaza's. Israel should have learned from experience that partial retreats, deep as they may be, do not bring in their wake gratitude or submission. The partial withdrawal from Lebanon to the security zone lines did not reduce the intensity of war there, and the partial withdrawal from West Bank cities in keeping with the Oslo Accord did not help to legitimize Israel's occupation in the rest of the occupied territories.

The rationale of exchanging Gaza for the West Bank will not stop there. It will be true also of withdrawing from the south of Mount Hebron in exchange for Hebron and Kiryat Arba and withdrawing from Kadim and Ganim in exchange for Ariel and Kedumim. This is the logic trap which will grip Sharon's new theory from now on and shatter the assumption that the pressure on Israel will lessen.

Sharon justified his readiness to withdraw from Gaza by saying "the intention is to relocate settlements from problem-causing places or from places where we shall no longer be in a permanent settlement." Sharon did not elaborate which settlements are "problem-causing," but let's say he was talking about security problems only. Is there a single settlement in the West Bank that does not "cause problems?" A single place that does not require constant close protection? Is there a single place that is not a security burden? Is Sharon's criterion the relation between the number of soldiers needed to guard a settlement and the number of settlers in it? If so, there are quite a few West Bank settlements in which the ratio is no different from that in Gaza.

Now it's the third assumption's turn to break down. The armed struggle against Israel will not stop as a result of the withdrawal from Gaza; it will increase in the West Bank due to the understanding that Israel understands only force. And the Gaza Strip will not sit idly by either. Qassam rockets do not require only settlements as targets. Whoever expects relative Lebanon-style calm following the withdrawal from Gaza will be disappointed. Because in Lebanon Israel has two responsible states at hand, Lebanon and Syria. In the territories there is no equivalent system.

These truths are not lost on Sharon and therefore there is no point in anticipating withdrawal. Still, one riddle remains - why not invite Ahmed Qureia and introduce him to the new Sharon? Give him the plan of withdrawal from Gaza, with a timetable, without prior conditions, just as Sharon presented it to the Israeli public, and continue the negotiations from there? The serious answer to that is that the new Sharon sounds almost like the Mafia boss in Channel 2's satirical program 'Great Country:' "I'll evacuate 20, maybe 30 settlements. A day."

So, even if he is sincere, there is no guarantee that mass evacuations are going to do anything to resolve the conflict or ease tensions. Two wrongs, after all, don't make a right.


Meanwhile, Palestinian militants are back to blowing up crowded buses in suicide bombings and the Israeli army is back to lobbing missiles into crowded streets, killing 14 year old boys.

[gadster]

I can't believe anyone would stick up for Sharon on the one hand, and . . . bah, nevermind.

Sharon could garrotte some members grandmas here, and they'd STILL think he was the next best thing to gefilte fish.

What goes around, comes around.

No wonder the guy looks so cranky. I'm thinking bowel problems.

He does. Look cranky. Seriously.

[vmarks]

There's also some informative writing about the disengagement plan (real name for this withdrawal) that you won't find anywhere else besides haaretz/jpost/maariv.

Sharon's best option: Trouble From Within

and

What does it take to dismantly a settlement which discusses the legal aspects.

As I said in this post

Israelis keep coming to the table with new things to give up, and in some cases, actually begin to act on giving these items up.

What message does this tell Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, People for the Liberation of Palestine, Hizbollah, and others?

It says that they don't ever have to agree to put down their weapons, because Israel will always come to the table.

What does Israel get for this willingness? More violence.

In this post in the same thread OreoCookie says:

Sharon has done nothing that would be considered serious efforts to implement the Road Map. Dismantling abandoned settlements is not much of a risk. It would have been much more interesting if he really tried it with inhabitated settlements.

In this post OAW says

And perhaps if Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza .... completely. Allowed the Palestinians to have East Jerusalem .... where they live anyway. And began to discuss the issue of the Right To Return ... even if only from a perspective of providing compensation for lost property, then maybe Israelis wouldn't find themselves being killed on buses.

So you see, there's a lot of criticism of the existence of settlements, and a lot of support for withdrawing them in the hopes of peace. Sharon has been a strong supporter of settlements in the past, so this move by him shows how badly he wants to bring about peace in his lifetime.

I'm surprised to see you come down on the side of keeping settlements. It strikes me as being out of character for you.

Especially since you agreed that there should be no settlements at all.

I agree that relocating people is unfortunate, but peace comes at a high cost sometimes. There are whole Israeli communities that no longer exist because Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula. Honestly, it was a huge chunk of land that would have been nice to keep, but not being attacked by Egypt has had its benefits, would you agree?

Israel keeps trying to appease, keeps giving away more and more, and still can't seem to satisfy her attackers. The prisoner release didn't help. The relocation of settlers is something you now disagree with. Israel moves forward with items on the roadmap with no reciprocation.

The Qureia meeting is going to happen before the end of February.

What's your answer for the right thing to do?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I'm surprised to see you come down on the side of keeping settlements. It strikes me as being out of character for you.

Especially since you agreed that there should be no settlements at all.

Yes, I agree that there should be no settlements at all - that doesn't change the fact they do exist and it doesn't change the fact that displacing people from their homes is wrong. There are likely families living in these settlements that have no care for the conflict continuing around them - there are likely children that have been born in these settlements who have no knowledge of the history of the conflict and have no wish to play a part in it. These people presumably just want to be allowed to live in peace - why should they be used as pawns in a game of Palestinian-Israeli political chess?

My objection to the removal of settlements stems from the same objection I have to the displacement of the Palestinian people that started of this whole miserable era in the region's history - it is also the same objection I have to the dissolution of Israel as a whole. If you're saying that the removal of settlements and communities is an important step towards achieving peace, why not call for the relocation of the state of Israel altogether? Surely that would achieve the kind of peace being sought? I suspect you would have your objections to any such plan, no?

As I outlined above, this is all reliant on the assumption that Sharon is sincere - I find this doubtful. You say my stance is 'out of character' - Sharon's stance is even more out of character! He shocked his own party when he announced the evacuation plans. As I also pointed out, the timing and the true motives/goals behind his plans are suspicious.

What's your answer for the right thing to do?

The right thing to do is to stop the killing, stop inciting others to kill, stop cherry-picking the people you are willing to deal with, stop building more settlements(!) as you dismantle others, stop snubbing peace initiatives you don't immediately take a liking to and actually work towards achieving a lasting peace that maintains the dignity of both sides.

If that can be achieved, the settlement issue becomes a non-issue. The settlers can be left to live in their own communities under the government of whichever party ends up having jurisdiction in the area - be it guests/citizens of the state of Palestine or citizens of the state of Israel. If they are unhappy with the arrangements, they will be free to relocate by themselves.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:


My objection to the removal of settlements stems from the same objection I have to the displacement of the Palestinian people that started of this whole miserable era in the region's history - it is also the same objection I have to the dissolution of Israel as a whole. If you're saying that the removal of settlements and communities is an important step towards achieving peace, why not call for the relocation of the state of Israel altogether? Surely that would achieve the kind of peace being sought? I suspect you would have your objections to any such plan, no?

As I outlined above, this is all reliant on the assumption that Sharon is sincere - I find this doubtful. You say my stance is 'out of character' - Sharon's stance is even more out of character! He shocked his own party when he announced the evacuation plans. As I also pointed out, the timing and the true motives/goals behind his plans are suspicious.

The timing is suspicious? Out of character? This is not the 70s.
"What was right in the 70s is not right now."

Besides, he knows he's putting his role as PM at stake, and he'll be out on a vote of no confidence in a moment's notice- in fact, it almost happened just by his mentioning this plan.

The right thing to do is to stop the killing, stop inciting others to kill, stop cherry-picking the people you are willing to deal with, stop building more settlements(!) as you dismantle others, stop snubbing peace initiatives you don't immediately take a liking to and actually work towards achieving a lasting peace that maintains the dignity of both sides.

This is interesting- shouldn't the same apply to both parties?

Killing / inciting others to kill? Sure enough, that's what the security fence was proposed to be for. It is intended to stop the inflow of killers without requiring military action.

Cherry picking the people you're willing to deal with? Arafat rendering Dahlan irrelevant, countering Mazen at every turn, and then picking Qureia as a replacement? And thus far Qureia's public refusal to speak with Sharon?
Or how about Sari Nusseibeh and the Geneva accords, cherry-picking who they want to deal with, regardless of authority to deal?

Snubbing peace initiatives you don't immediately take a liking to? Arafat and Mazen at Camp David 2000, who came with the publicly acknowledged intention of rejecting every proposition put forth?

If that can be achieved, the settlement issue becomes a non-issue. The settlers can be left to live in their own communities under the government of whichever party ends up having jurisdiction in the area - be it guests/citizens of the state of Palestine or citizens of the state of Israel. If they are unhappy with the arrangements, they will be free to relocate by themselves.

Same should have been true of Palestinians who ended up within Israel's borders, and yet it hasn't proved so to date. The only evidence to the alternative is that of the Bedouin, Druze, and Israeli Arabs, Christian and Muslim alike. Why have they been able to live in peace within Israeli borders and Palestinians unable?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
This is interesting- shouldn't the same apply to both parties?

Yes, it should - it's interesting (and sad) that you only seem to be able to see one side. The Palestinians and the Israelis have both made (and are continuing to make) mistakes.

The other points you raise have already been discussed - you know my position and I know yours.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes, it should - it's interesting (and sad) that you only seem to be able to see one side. The Palestinians and the Israelis have both made (and are continuing to make) mistakes.

No, I know what you see as Israel's side in it, and I raise the opposing side to lend some balance to that.

The other points you raise have already been discussed - you know my position and I know yours.

Yes, and we're at an end again. Your position continually places the weight of any action on the Israeli end of the balance, and seems to remain dissatisfied when Israeli leadership attempts to do anything remotely positive towards peace.

My position holds both parties responsible, and upon seeing one party consistantly making efforts to talk, negotiate and concede, asks why the other won't.


Thanks again for a civil thread.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Yes, and we're at an end again. Your position continually places the weight of any action on the Israeli end of the balance, and seems to remain dissatisfied when Israeli leadership attempts to do anything remotely positive towards peace.

Well, dissatisfaction depends on one's characterization of 'positive' - but, yes, I tend to put the weight of action on Israel as it is the dominant player in the game.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No, I know what you see as Israel's side in it, and I raise the opposing side to lend some balance to that.



Yes, and we're at an end again. Your position continually places the weight of any action on the Israeli end of the balance, and seems to remain dissatisfied when Israeli leadership attempts to do anything remotely positive towards peace.

My position holds both parties responsible, and upon seeing one party consistantly making efforts to talk, negotiate and concede, asks why the other won't.


Thanks again for a civil thread.

realistically, in this situation, Israel holds all the cards and the power, so in order for an equitable solution to arise they will necessarily have to do more bending than Palestine. Both parties are responsible for the violence, but both parties are not in the same place politically, militarily or structurally to effect a change.

[lil'babykitten]

A proposal to evacuate Jews from Gaza is not, IMO, a move toward a peaceful solution. On the contrary, it's a move likely to create tensions within a new section of the society.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
A proposal to evacuate Jews from Gaza is not, IMO, a move toward a peaceful solution. On the contrary, it's a move likely to create tensions within a new section of the society.

The society in Gaza?

Or society within Israel? As I mentioned previously, Israel's been through this before with Egypt and Sinai.

[itai195]

So basically, the point of this thread is to say "Hey, settlements are illegal!" but at the same time also say "Hey, dismantling settlements is illegal!" Am I correct?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by itai195:
So basically, the point of this thread is to say "Hey, settlements are illegal!" but at the same time also say "Hey, dismantling settlements is illegal!" Am I correct?

Building settlements is illegal - dismantling those that have been built in spite of the illegality may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it a wise and/or considerate idea.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The society in Gaza?

Or society within Israel? As I mentioned previously, Israel's been through this before with Egypt and Sinai.

Israel.

Whether it has been done before is not the point. The Israeli government risks causing another potentially violent conflict, this time with it's own people. When the plans were first announced the settlers there said they would resist them.
Not only would they be dealing with a war on the Palestinian front but they risk creating an Israeli civil war.

Just sort out the borders! There is no reason why the Israelis and Palestinians cannot live together once this happens. If Gaza were to be returned to the Palestinians, that would not necessarily have to result in an Israeli withdrawal. If they would not want to live under a Palestinian state then that would be their choice.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Building settlements is illegal - dismantling those that have been built in spite of the illegality may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it a wise and/or considerate idea.

Israeli settlements in Gaza include over 90% of the arable land, but the settlers are like 0.01% of the population. That should be enough reason for a 'reshuffling'.

I agree 100% with your stance that displacing civilians is wrong, though.

Sharon's proposal (moving settlers from Gaza to the West Bank) sounds just like a ploy to increase his popularity among the secularly inclined; if put into practice it would cause both a radicalization of the settlers and more misery for the Palestinians in the West Bank, adding more fuel to the fire.

[swrate]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Background:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...t.settlements/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...137618,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1036634.htm


I don't understand this statement. Sharon wants to evict people from their homes - and this is a 'good' thing? How is it any better than kicking the Palestinians off their land in the first place?


This is assuming that Sharon is actually being sincere, there are many who believe that he is playing games for a variety of reasons:

• "Usually when the Israeli government speaks about evacuation of settlements, it aims only at public relations," says Saeb Erekat - suggesting that Sharon is only making these statements in preparation for a visit to or from Washington.
• Sharon may be attempting to divert attention from the corruption allegations against him that are currently being investigated.
• Sharon may be 'sacrificing' the settlements in Gaza with the hope of holding on to the settlements in the West Bank - the settlements in both regions are illegal under international law.

So, even if he is sincere, there is no guarantee that mass evacuations are going to do anything to resolve the conflict or ease tensions. Two wrongs, after all, don't make a right.


Meanwhile, Palestinian militants are back to blowing up crowded buses in suicide bombings and the Israeli army is back to lobbing missiles into crowded streets, killing 14 year old boys.

thanks for this


mixed emotions here
very worried, what about golan?
syria, lebanon, it's gun powder there, it has always been.
gaza? ,,,,
1300 BC attested problems and constant invasions



Golan
http://www.golan-syria.org/
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../04/2003086331

lost in this thread, mixed emotions.

such a complicated situation,

it moves all the time,


Ottoman Rule (Eve of WWI) British Mandate 1920-1946 British Administrative Division 1922 - 1946 Britain's Partition 1946 U.N. Partition Plan 1947 The Arab Invasion 1948 Armistice Agreements 1949 The Arab Refugees 1948 The Jewish Refugees 1948 - 1972 Fedayeen Raids 1951 - 1956 The Sinai Campaign 1956 Position of Arab Forces 1967 Six Day War - June 1967 Cease Fire Lines 1967 Egyptian Attack 1973 Syrian Attack 1973 The Golan Heights Cross-section: Golan-Galilee Sinai 1967 - 1982 Judea and Samaria Cross-section Herzliya-Nablus-Jordan River Pre-1967 Distances - Center Missile and Artillery Ranges Pre-1967 Distances - North Flying Time to Israel The Oslo Agreements Peace with Jordan The Wye Agreement - November 1998 Sharm Agreement 1999 Israeli Withdrawal from Lebanon Jerusalem 2000 Gilo 2000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,720353,00.html

and before 1930 .... the split was different.
difficult situation to understand,
*more learning to do

[swrate]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The timing is suspicious? Out of character? This is not the 70s.
"What was right in the 70s is not right now."

...........

Killing / inciting others to kill? Sure enough, that's what the security fence was proposed to be for. It is intended to stop the inflow of killers without requiring military action.

...........


Snubbing peace initiatives you don't immediately take a liking to? Arafat and Mazen at Camp David 2000, who came with the publicly acknowledged intention of rejecting every proposition put forth?



Same should have been true of Palestinians who ended up within Israel's borders, and yet it hasn't proved so to date. The only evidence to the alternative is that of the Bedouin, Druze, and Israeli Arabs, Christian and Muslim alike. Why have they been able to live in peace within Israeli borders and Palestinians unable? [/B]

The timing is good for Sharon, he has to do something to bring his quota up after the corruption scandal. (leaders!!!!)

Sharon snobbed the Geneva initiative because.......
he "didnt immediately take a liking to it"


Jumping in again because I have questions:

Foreigners adapted in the Israeli "borders", good,
what nationality do they have? druzes, bedouins, muslims, christians, jews are not a nationality with a passport.

How come the same is not expected from the Israeli in the Gaza strip?
What is expected in return?

I am sceptical of this new "retournement de situation"

[Face Ache]

More smoke and mirrors.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
More smoke and mirrors.

Most likely.

But isn't it weird how we sometimes let our own defenses down and allow a slim glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, one side occasionally will do the Right Thing?

As much as I believe Sharon should be cold chillin' in The Hague for war crimes (along with his bum-chum Arafat)... I have to admit, I think he's doing the Right Thing in standing up to the hardline settlers. Again, this is likely more smoke and mirrors and only time will tell what really happens.

That said, I'm a little bit surprised to see some people in this thread whinging about the idea of relocating the settlers in order to sort out the borders. Seems like some will never be satisfied no matter what.

I mean, JESUS ****ING CHRIST GET FREAKIN' REAL FOR ONCE!!!

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But isn't it weird how we sometimes let our own defenses down and allow a slim glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, one side occasionally will do the Right Thing?

Hippy dreamer.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Hippy dreamer.

Guilty as charged.

Yeah, I guess it's pretty easy for me to sit here "and make a wish" for World Mellowness.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So, even if he is sincere....

Sharon? sincere? HAH!

Israel approves settlement cash

Israel's government has approved a $22m budget mainly for building Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.

The move has outraged Palestinians, coming two weeks after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pledged to remove all settlements from the Gaza Strip.

...

Meanwhile, the prominent Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Israel of jeopardising peace hopes.

"At a time when they speak about withdrawing settlements from Gaza, they allocate millions of dollars for settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza," he said.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Sharon? sincere? HAH!

Israel approves settlement cash

Nope, the BBC didn't get it right.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/394909.html

It's not about Gaza. It's about East Jerusalem.

Sharon isn't contradicting himself with this budget.

And even that is being held to a request for revote: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/394854.html

More to the point, the PA is beginning to plan for how to handle Gaza after Israel leaves: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/394958.html

If Israel unilaterally withdraws from the Gaza Strip, no governmental vacuum would be formed, Jibril Rajoub, who is Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's national security advisor, said Tuesday.

"We have a plan to handle the territory. We won't mourn the evacuation of the settlers, but we prefer that the evacuation be done through negotiations, not unilaterally," Rajoub said during a press conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Rajoub said that the United States and Israel have no right to decide who would rule the Palestinian people. He said that Arafat was the only Palestinian leader who could sign a peace agreement with Israel, because he is the elected leader, "whether you like him or not."

"Sharon too is also not exactly a B'Tselem activist," Rajoub added, referring to the Israeli center for human rights in the territories, but added that, "Sharon is the only Israeli leader that could lead to peace if he really means it. We are not waiting for Beilin or Sarid to be your prime ministers," Rajoub said, referring to the former justice minister behind the Geneva Accord and the former leader of the left-wing Meretz party.