Ariel Sharon's Ariel "full monty"
I was going to title this post "Sharon's bait and switch". As in, making a big show about withdrawing from the tiny Gaza Strip while quietly consolidating Israel's hold on the much larger areas of the West Bank that it wants to hang on to.
Then I thought, "No, he doesn't even feel the need, in front of an 'outraged' international public opinion, for example, to engage in any subterfuge on the issue. It's all fully out in the open. He's saying, in effect-- to Israelis and foreigners alike-- 'You'll see, I'll withdraw somewhat from Gaza (which is a heck of a place to try to administer, anyway.) And I'll hang onto Ariel and all the other places in the heart of the West Bank that I've been building up for some time... Does anyone want to try and stop me?'"
Here's what Sharon said at the large West Bank settlement (colony) of Ariel yesterday:
- "I reiterate and clarify that this bloc is one of the most important. It will forever be part of the State of Israel. There is no other thought and no other direction of thinking.
"I came here today to see how the city can be expanded and the bloc strengthened, as I do and shall do in the other blocs. This bloc will forever be an inseparable part of the State of Israel, territorially contiguous with the State of Israel like the other blocs," he said.
And here is what I wrote back in March 2004 about Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza:
- Unlike many of the Palestinians with whom I talked in February, I believe there is a real chance that Sharon may actually be serious about his proposal to undertake a wide withdrawal from Gaza. I fear he may relish the prospect of seeing the final erosion of the PA's "authority" in Gaza and the emergence there of an Islamist-led administration—one that he would feel able to hit at hard while risking even fewer meaningful restraints from Washington than the small number he has incurred in response to his threats against Arafat. (The Bush administration's notable failure to express any criticism of the outright murder of Ahmed Yassin seemed to prove this point.) Sharon might hope to achieve all this, moreover, while appearing like a "courageous peacemaker" in front of many of his own people and supporters in the West—and all this because he has shown his willingness to pull some 7,500 settlers out of Gaza, an area that most Israelis never considered part of the historic "land of Israel" at all. Meanwhile he has shown no signs of cutting back the support that his government has continued to give to all except a tiny handful of the 430,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
I fear, moreover, that the plans Sharon is pursuing in Gaza may be just a precursor of what his plans for each of the increasingly separated Palestinian communities of the West Bank might be: total encirclement, the undermining of PA power, territorial and political isolation, and the constant threat of punitive raids or provocative patrols from the Israeli forces still poised on the border of each of these enclaves...
And so the plan continues...
In the old days (the 1980s and early 1990s) people who wanted a fair, human-equality-based outcome in Israel/Palestine used to worry that an Israeli disengagement from Gaza might be a problem if it were presented as "Gaza First". But how about if it is "Gaza Only"? Why should anyone expect the Palestinians to be happy with that?
And so, now, before our very eyes and in the 21st century of the Common Era, the Israelis are trying to replay the entire history of 19th-century European colonial conquest of the land of a non-European people. It is bizarrely a-historical and-- just like all its 19th-century predecessors-- an affront to the human conscience.
Cut to the chase Helena, when is Egypt planning to give their part of Gaza to the Palestinians?
Israel is withdrawing because the American's are presssuring them into that. Gaza will become another Lebanon, a rats nest from where they wage war with heavier weapons and one hundred percent impunity. Mark my words and censor me all you want, your censorship will be my badge of honor.
David
"Israel is withdrawing because the American's are pressuring them into that. Gaza will become another Lebanon"
1- This lands its occupied land and there are many UN resolutions demanded Israeli to withdraw from them.
2- I can not agree with your connection "when is Egypt planning to give their part of Gaza to the Palestinians?" this is Arab internal affair, it’s in the hand of the Arab League, I don’t know why you put this theory that will be like south Lebanon? South Lebanon’s problem created by The Israeli occupation?
Richard Pape, who has been invited to discuss his analysis with a bipartisan group of US congressmen, collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for the suicide bombings phenomenon worldwide.
He said that most suicide bombers are well-integrated and productive members of their communities from working-class or middle-class backgrounds.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-06/05/article01.shtml
David, what on earth are you talking about?? The Gaza Strip is a strip of land around the ancient Palestinian city of Gaza, that is part of what was Mandate Palestine under the British. The international border between there and Egypt has been very clearly delineated, is very well known, and is closely monitored on the Egyptian side by a multi-national force led by the US.
Egypt has not been in control of any part of Gaza since June 5, 1967. Israel has been the power that since June '67 has run a belligerent military occupation over Gaza.
So what were you referring to again?
Salah - it's a lot easier for us Americans to just think of suicide bombers as "evil." That way, we don't have to think about what reasons they might actually have for doing what they're doing. Because if you think about that too much, you might start losing "faith." And we all know how important faith is. Faith provides clear answers to questions such as: "Who does God want to own this piece of land?" and "Will I be rewarded with eternal bliss if I blow myself up on this bus?"
Peace.
no suicide bombing...no wall
likewise, no deadly fedayeen raids into Israel pre-1967 and no dismissing the Sinai UN peacekeepers, blocking the Straits of Tiran, mobilizing the Egyptian and Syrian armies and sending them to the border with Israel, there would be no Israeli occupation of any part of the West Bank...it would still be under Jordanian occupation.
no Suicide Bombing...no Wall
likewise, no deadly fedayeen raids into Israel pre-1967 and no dismissing of the UN peacekeepers in the Sinai and no blockading of the Straits of Tiran and no mobilizing of Arab armies and sending them to the border with Israel would mean no occupation by Israel of any part of the West Bank...it would still be under Jordanian occupation.
Dear John C.
First this is a study done in US and it’s not my call, if I forwarded her.
John I am not loosing my faith...
The real Questions what we should do to stop these acts?
You can not acting on others and you expecting there are no backlash from them, John Treat the other as you like to be treated by others.
Dear John C.
The radical Wahabi that supported and enforced by Saudi Royal Family to serve their emption for the power and money when they came to the power after WWI, now almost 100 years the breed nest give the world these terrorist, when Saudis built and spent money on the schools and groups around the world to serve them by radical Islam far from the soil of the Islam Faith originally build on peace and forgiveness and freedom.
Now they try put some makeup on their regime which terrorized the entire world because Whahabi regime.
Helena's article on Ariel Sharon essentially accuses him of waging war. Well, yes, that is what he is doing and has been doing since he came into office. The Intifida is a kind of war. It is a small war but it is genuinely a war.
Helena is somehow shocked that in war, Ariel Sharon is bent on defeating his enemy while minimizing his own casualties. I am not shocked.
It is astounding that Helena can be up in arms about the killing of Hamas leader Yassin, a man who was clearly responsible for the killing of numerous Israelis who did nothing more than ride the bus, but be totally unperterbed by the killing of those Israelis. There is a name for Helena's attitude, in fact, there are several names: Anti-Semitic, terrorist supporter, bloodthirsty, evil, Satanic, and just plain wrong.
The facts are that the Peace Wall and the deaths of Yassin, Rantisi and Arafat have combined to lower the body count on both sides. This is something you would cheer about. But only if you are a civilized human being.
Warren W and all readers should be well aware that I am opposed to all acts of violence, and especially those that kill civilians. WW has no evidence whatsoever that I am "unpeturbed" by the killings of Israelis. On numerous occasions I have expressed my real sorrow for those killings and my support and empathy for the bereaved.
For him to make this outrageous and slanderous allegation against me indicates that he is not now (and perhaps never has been?) a good-faith participant in the discussions here.
Salah - I violated Helena's "irony alert" rule again. I agree with you in most respects. My apologies for causing another misunderstanding.
The problem with faith is how easily it can be manipulated by unscrupulous and despotic "leaders" on all sides. Bin Laden uses faith to motivate his suicide bombers. Bush uses faith to fire up public support for the neo-colonial invasion of Iraq. Sharon uses faith to justify the continued annexation and military occupation of Palestinian lands. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, etc.
These comments of Helena's mourn Yassin without mouring Israelis:
click
click
Has some duplicates of above and new stuff:
click
The Boston Review article mentions Yassin almost in passing yet also has no sympathy (or mention) of the Israelis he killed:
click
I was unable to find the article in which you condemn the Terrorism of the Palestinians and "expressed my real sorrow for those killings and my support and empathy for the bereaved" -- can you provide a URL?
I'm glad you might see the Israelis as humans, but I'm not ready to decide my comments were too harsh -- I'd like to see these mournful comments of yours.
Warren, I've disagreed with many of the things Helena says about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including this post. But to my certain knowledge, she doesn't have a racist or "evil" bone in her body.
Helena,
The ancient Gaza and its demographics do not follow the arbitrary British Mandate borders. There are cities split in the middle in Gaza with Palestinians on both side. Why don't the Egyptians contribute these areas to a Palestinan state as well? God knows they can use the area and the family unifications.
Salah, what does it mean that it is an Arab internal affair? There is no Arab governance as such, and if you call the Arab League that, they are not accountable to anybody. Internal affair sounds like a Don Corleone system.
Cars, trucks, trains, and busses are blowing up in half the world because of the failures of what you label as Arab internal affairs. Get your act together before making ambitious demands of others.
David
The ancient Gaza and its demographics do not follow the arbitrary British Mandate borders.
First the Arab Land was one land there are no borders David, no one can denied that the British and others decided to created them to share the Walk cake after WWI, and to create Israel. Why you don’t put the truths and keep playing in the history as you like.
All Arab are one nation speaks one language having same history and they lived on the land thousand’s of years, you coming now telling us the Britt mandate did this and that.
Secondly when you write her its free speech ok David, if you see this place not your favourites its better go ales where and spades your thought as you like.
Be Honest and be real hold these thoughts of untruth some like you trying to show others this is the problem. David.
"I'm glad you might see the Israelis as humans,"
And the Palestinians not! WarrenW
"But only if you are a civilized human being." In your mind?
Outrages
Dear David,
see how's your Taxdolla spent
Here's what we know at present about this particular version of La Dolce Vita:
* The CIA agents took rooms in Milan's 5-star hotels, including the Principe di Savoia ("one of the world's most luxuriously appointed hotels") where they rang up $42,000 in expenses; the Westin Palace, the Milan Hilton, and the Star Hotel Rosa as well as similar places in the seaside resort of La Spezia and in Florence, running up cumulative hotel bills of $144,984.
* They ate in the equivalent of 5-star restaurants in Milan and elsewhere, evidently fancying themselves gourmet undercover agents.
* As a mixed team—at least six women took part in the operation— men and women on at least two occasions took double rooms together in these hotels. (There is no indication that any of them were married—to each other at least.)
* After the successful kidnapping was done and the cleric dispatched to sunny Egypt, they evidently decided they deserved a respite from their exertions; so several of them left for a vacation in Venice, while four others headed for the Mediterranean coast north of Tuscany, all on the taxpayer dole.
* They charged up to $500 a day apiece, according to Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, to "Diners Club accounts created to match their recently forged identities"; wielded Visa cards (assumedly similarly linked to their fake identities); and made sure they got or used frequent flier miles. (The Diner's Club, when queried by Tomdispatch, refused to comment on any aspect of the case.) Our master spies "rarely paid in cash," adds Whitlock, "gave their frequent traveler account numbers to desk clerks and made dozens of calls from unsecure phones in their rooms."
* To move their captive in comfort—for them—they summoned up not some grimy cargo plane but a Learjet to take him to Germany and a Gulfstream V to transport him to Egypt, the sorts of spiffy private jets normally used by CEOs and movie stars.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050722/they_put_the_cia_in_ciao.php
Sorry Helena for being out of top
David Edelstein:
Helena says that Israel fighting the war it is in is "an affront to the human conscience". This is at least cheerleading for the Arab side, which certainly isn't Pacifism. It can only be an affront to the human conscience if the existence of Israel is an affront.
Being against just one side in war isn't Pacifism. Pacifism is being against war itself. Supporting "Colonial" or "Anti-colonial" wars is not pacifism. It's the abuse of an idealistic idea in the name of agression.
By complaining about the killing of Hamas mastermind Yassin, Helena validates his life work of killing Jews.
"The problem with faith is how easily it can be manipulated by unscrupulous"
John C., I appreciated you for indicated this point, I believe this very important point.
We “Muslims” we understand this point very well, and easy for us to figure out the radical groups those used Islam to colour themselves within Muslim society, Bear inmind there is few foreigner groups or foreigner support for some individuals or groups.
In the West the Islam all or Muslims victimized by association which brings a lot of problem to Muslims specially they living in the west (US specially) in addition the Muslims (Arab mainly) comparing their life under regimes supported and protected by the West create a lot of graveness for this double standards in dealing with whole issue.
WarrenW, Helena was discussing Israel's illegal settlement and annexation of the occupied territories. How did that turn into "the war Israel is fighting in" in your mind?
David said
"Salah, what does it mean that it is an Arab internal affair? There is no Arab governance as such"
Is this a jock, who you are saying there is “no Arab internal affair? There is no Arab governance”.
You see David how your mind full of bathetic thinking and thoughts
Dear Salah,
You don't know how good your English is, my brother.
"Bathetic jock" is just about perfect to describe David and the other bathetic jocks like WarrenW, Wm Tyroler, Freiheit (sorry jocks if I've left any of you off the list).
No Preference:
Territorial expansion is a strategy of warfare, to gain the upper hand over one's enemy. To deny the enemy economic resources and launching areas for attack. Depriving one's enemy of territory also encourages the enemy to come to the negotiating table with a more accomodating frame of mind.
Even in a war without perfectly drawn "Front lines", there are fronts, and moving the front, that is, enlarging your own territory while shrinking your enemy's, is still a very fundamental strategy.
The original Israeli position on the borders given by the Partition of 1947 was a mixture of joy and regret, with acceptance of the borders as reality. Continued Arab rejection of Partition and Arab military adventurism, together with endless cries of "Drive the Jews into the Sea", transformed Israels attitude to a determination to create "Defensible borders". This usually means gaining control over some surrounding territory at least until Israel can get a Treaty of recognition and an End of Claims from the various Arab parties, although interpretations vary. Many believe that peace will never come and the only way for Israel to survive is to continue military domination and territorial control.
For example, when attacks against Israel were being launched from the Sinai peninsula, Israel took it over, likewise with southern Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. The old borders have become something of a distant memory however, and nobody knows how things will end up.
Israeli attempts to suppress attacks from Egypt in the 1950's resulted in a firm alliance between Egypt and the USSR. Attempts to suppress attacks from Lebanon resulted in the creation of Hizbullah, and the response to the war of 1967 resulted in the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and the creation of an independant PLO. So peace is not the automatic result of attempts to suppress combat. On the other hand, Israel survived all these attempts at annihilation.
To get back to your question, Israel's keeping the territories of the Gaza and West Bank was only intended as a lever to extract a peace treaty from the Arabs. This "Land for Peace" strategy worked in the case of Sinai and peace with Egypt, but hasn't worked (yet) with the Palestinians.
I really am sorry to be so long-winded today.
You managed to type several paragraphs and only address the point in two sentences.
Your statement that Israel started the settlements as a bargaining chip with the Palestinians is absurd. Whatever your rationalizations, all of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories - including East Jerusalem - are illegal. International bodies have confirmed that time and again.
The Israeli settlements don't strengthen Israel militarily. The vulnerable Gaza settlements, for example, were a huge military liability. The settlements are an expression of the Zionist drive to expand Israel's borders.
Finally, as far as I have been able to find out no Arab ever said "Drive the Jews into the sea". It's purely an Israeli propaganda line. So stop putting it in quotes.
No Preference
The Israeli policy of controlling Gaza and the West Bank was part of the idea of exchanging "Land for Peace" that worked with Egypt: Israel traded the Sinai for a peace treaty. It hasn't worked (yet) with the Palestinians but that is the primary reason for it. The other reason is that it eases military suppression of Palestinian weapons factories and so on.
There are two things going on here, Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli settlements in those territories. The reason Israel puts in settlements isn't necessarily the same reason Israel retains military control of Jenin and Rafeh.
The settlements which were created as a follow-on to the land-for-peace policy are a mixed bag of a) pushing harder on the Palestinians but also b) making it politically harder for Israel to trade land for peace. Ariel Sharon is trying to trade Gaza for nothing and that is harder yet.
If you have evidence that Israel has another reason for controlling the West Bank and Gaza I'd like to know. Declaring the settlements illegal doesn't change the Israelis reason for controlling the territories. I don't see what point you are making about Israeli motives when you call them illegal.
If Zionist expansionism were the reason for Israeli control of the territories then they'd have done it sooner and they'd have evicted the Palestinians. Ever since 1967 Israel has said that the territories are not part of Israel. It is only the settlement areas that de facto expand Israel.
The old Mufti of Jerusalem and Gamal Abdul Nasser are widely quoted as saying they'd "Drive the Jews into the Sea". Google comes up with over 4000 references for that phrase and I can't read them all. This one gives names and dates, but most don't. In any case it's quite clear that a huge number of Arabs want to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish State, which amounts to the same thing (the Jews would have to leave, one way or another).