Israel out of Gaza

[Tgace]

So. What do you all think this will result in? Whats next?

 

[Loki]

I personally never got too involved in the whole story, but it all reeks with corruption. Israel gains virtually nothing by disengaging and Sharon has much personal gain. I'm not spewing right-wing rhetoric (in fact I have no solid political opinions), all of this can be verified.

It doesn't bode well for the time after the disengagement. Palestinian total control over that Gaza strip allows for the creation of a strong terrorist infrastructure. No agreement was reached between Israel and the PLO or Israel and anyone else, for that matter. This a one-sided move. I fail to see the advantages of this other than pleasing Bush.

A related question I'd like to ask those replying to Tgace's post: if something similar were to happen in your country, do you think the decision should be based on (or at least advised by) a national referendum?

 

[MisterMike]

So. What do you all think this will result in? Whats next?

Hammas has already stated they still will not sop killing Jews.

 

[ave_turuta]

I happen to have very good friends on both sides of the conflict. As an outsider, it is difficult for me to position myself without getting entangled in all the emotional dimension that this conflict carries with it. Some of my pals live in Tel Aviv, others in Jerusalem, Nazareth Ilith, Gaza or Ramallah. I have visited Israel/Palestine and have talked and engaged in conversation with numerous people. The general feeling is one of tiredness: of all the violence, of all the nonsense. Just as radical Jewish settlers do not represent the whole of Israeli society, neither does Hamas or the Islamic Jihad represent the whole of Palestinian society. Fortunately, there are sane and clear voices on both sides of the conflict, voices that unfortunately have been silenced far too often.

As a historian, I can see how anyone can suscribe to either one view or the other. They both present clear-cut, mythical visions of two national histories. Both Jewish nationalism (i.e. zionism) and Palestinian nationalism emerged out of a context of deprivation and oppression: Jewish nationalism out of the oppression of the galut (exile) in Europe, pogroms, extreme anti-Semitism, etc., and Palestinian nationalism as the result of British colonialism and later of dispossession after 1948. Both ideologies (and herein lies the crux of the conflict) lay a let´s say "totalitarian" claim to the land, i.e. they both believe it is "their" right to "own" the land. In a purely abstract sense, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are mutually exclusive: they cannot coexsit because their claims over the territory aim at denying the existence of the other. But this is ideology, and ideology is fortunately not applied 100% (otherwise we would witness many more genocides than we would like to see). The bottom line is, at the heart of this conflict lies the hard question of whether coexistence is possible or not. Make no mistake: the settlers being dislodged from Gaza are no different from the radical Hamas terrorists, and viceversa. The same ideology of doom and extermination of the Other inspires both of them, and Baruch Goldstein (the terrorist who killed more than 20 Muslims who were praying in a mosque) was no different than the Engineer (one of Hamas´leading terrorist leaders).

Will the disengagement plan lead to a more peaceful coexistence? I personally doubt it. Years of conflict and extreme violence on both sides have left very, very deep marks of mistrust in both populations. Disengagement will not solve any problems, but it will legitimize and strengthen the position of politicians avid for both votes and attention on both sides of the Green Line. In my opinion, change cannot come from above: the willingness to coexist must emerge from the people themselves. I am a fluent speaker of Arabic and a decent speaker of Hebrew: I know there is much more to the conflict than what our media portray, and that there are voices that are willing to work for a true and genuine peace leading to coexistence. If only we would let them speak.

Peace,
A.T.

 

[ave_turuta]

This a one-sided move. I fail to see the advantages of this other than pleasing Bush.

I don't think this assessment is correct. Israeli politics are much more complex than this, and neither Sharon (who, btw, was a big opponent of the disengagement solution which was mainly sponsored by Ehud Olmert and others before Sharon even got involved in it) nor the other poponents of the disengagement options are unaware of this fact. Somehow there is alwyas the perception that people in other partsof the world do things looking to the White House. Sometimes, this logic does not apply. Israel's demographic is changing rapidly: massive immigration from the ex-soviet Union after 1990s dramatically changed the political landscape in the country (today, Russian is spoken by more than one million Israelis and I must say that the Hebreization of Russian immigres has been quite a challenging task: last time I visited I was shocked to see a considerable number of business where the only language spoken was Russian, adn Hebrew was practically non-existent). Add to this the demographic growth of Palestinian Arab communities with Israeli citizenship along the green line (Wadi Ara, the Galilee, etc.) and you will see that Sharon and in general Israeli politicians have more than one constituency to deal with. Being one of the smallest and less populated nations on earth, it is also one of the places where politics is the most complex, there being numerous left and right wing political parties with very different views on most of the important issues that pertain relations wth a future palestinian state and also very different understandings of Israel's history. So no, not every politician in Israel does things having Washington in mind....

I guess my point it: there is not one single Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but as many conflict as differing political visions exist in the landscape. A Russian emigre voting for Israel Be-Aliya (Sharansky's party) holds a very different opinion than a settler from the West Bank or a secular leftist Jew from Tel Aviv. And, no matter what Sharon and his successors do in the future, they will still have to do with the fact that their country is very plural, and very heterogenneous. And looking to Washington will not help them solve the problems...

Peace,
A.T.

 

[mrhnau]

I'm sitting here watching the seige on the synagogue in Gaza. I find myself wondering about some of the fundamental differences between what AT refers to as the "radical jews" or Zionist and groups such as Hamas and in some part the PLO.

What I see going on are Jews sitting on top of the synagogue, some of them praying, some of them throwing water or oil-like substance on the police. They are talking with the police. The obviously feel extremely wronged to be removed by force from their homes. What I do -not- see are suicide bombers, violent resistance or weapons of any sort. They had plenty of time to prepare and hold a military resistance against the police/military.

I find myself wondering. Lets say that Gaza is handed back to the Jews in 5 years or so. Would we observe such a non-violent response? Would it be a military resistance like what we are seeing in Iraq now?

Does anyone believe this will pacify the PLO/Hamas? Hamas has already stated they want Jerusalem, which Israel has stated they will not concede.

Personally, I do not hope the situation degrades any further and things turn actually violent. I'm between laughter/disgust listening to the news agencies talking about the "violence and injuries" so far, which so far amount to police slipping and getting bruised.

 

[Phoenix44]

I believe that Israel has to withdraw from Gaza or there can be no peace, but I don't believe the withdrawal insures peace. If the Palestinians cannot or will not rein in its terrorists, forget it.

 

[Tgace]

The Palestinian authority is now "up against it" IMO. The Israelis made the first move. If the terrorists use this as an opportunity for more violence, support for their cause is going to be tougher to garner.

 

[ave_turuta]

I'm sitting here watching the seige on the synagogue in Gaza. I find myself wondering about some of the fundamental differences between what AT refers to as the "radical jews" or Zionist and groups such as Hamas and in some part the PLO.

What I see going on are Jews sitting on top of the synagogue, some of them praying, some of them throwing water or oil-like substance on the police. They are talking with the police. The obviously feel extremely wronged to be removed by force from their homes. What I do -not- see are suicide bombers, violent resistance or weapons of any sort. They had plenty of time to prepare and hold a military resistance against the police/military.

I find myself wondering. Lets say that Gaza is handed back to the Jews in 5 years or so. Would we observe such a non-violent response? Would it be a military resistance like what we are seeing in Iraq now?

Does anyone believe this will pacify the PLO/Hamas? Hamas has already stated they want Jerusalem, which Israel has stated they will not concede.

Personally, I do not hope the situation degrades any further and things turn actually violent. I'm between laughter/disgust listening to the news agencies talking about the "violence and injuries" so far, which so far amount to police slipping and getting bruised.

Are you familiar with the fact that all settlers are actually armed? (and I am not talking small handguns but heavy machine guns). The media can show whatever it wishes: the settler movement is composed of a majority of religious fundamentalists whose worldview is not that dissimilar to that of HAMAS. Settlers inflict violence on Palestinians (including children) almost on a daily basis (I myself have wtinessed settlers shooting at a Palestinian playground one afternoon after classes were over). The incidents are there; go and check it for yourself. Of course the only image you will see of the settlers is that of peace-loving individuals, their black-and-white worldview being conveniently sanitized and glossed over in current media portrayals. Additionally, not everybody adores the settlers in Israel. Secular Jews are quite fed up with the enormous amounts of money the settlements absorb as they are fed up with the arrogance of the settler movement in general and the obstacles they present to peace.

As I said before: this is a highly charged and emotional issue, even for Israelis themselves. It is very issue to offer an opinion based on what CNN or whatever news channel feeds us at one particular time. But remember that this is not what reality looks like on the ground: settlers are for the most part not peace loving, flower-waving people. They are at odds with a considerable section of the Israeli Jewish population, who sees them as both a burden and a bother, and they have a record of extensive violence against Palestinian civilians.

Peace,
A.T.

 

[still learning]

Hello, War , Hate , and Love makes our world today.....Enjoy the moments?.........Man has not learn yet how to live with each other...In time?

Aloha

 

[Loki]

Are you familiar with the fact that all settlers are actually armed? (and I am not talking small handguns but heavy machine guns).

Heavy machine guns is going overboard. They HAD M-16s which were all rounded up before the disengagement began.

The media can show whatever it wishes: the settler movement is composed of a majority of religious fundamentalists whose worldview is not that dissimilar to that of HAMAS.

In terms of unwillingness for a compromise on terms of peace, yes, that's right. In terms of extremism, there's an obvious difference.

Settlers inflict violence on Palestinians (including children) almost on a daily basis (I myself have wtinessed settlers shooting at a Palestinian playground one afternoon after classes were over). The incidents are there; go and check it for yourself. Of course the only image you will see of the settlers is that of peace-loving individuals, their black-and-white worldview being conveniently sanitized and glossed over in current media portrayals.

Daily basis? Not true at all. Rarely? Yes.

Additionally, not everybody adores the settlers in Israel. Secular Jews are quite fed up with the enormous amounts of money the settlements absorb as they are fed up with the arrogance of the settler movement in general and the obstacles they present to peace.

As I said before: this is a highly charged and emotional issue, even for Israelis themselves. It is very issue to offer an opinion based on what CNN or whatever news channel feeds us at one particular time. But remember that this is not what reality looks like on the ground: settlers are for the most part not peace loving, flower-waving people. They are at odds with a considerable section of the Israeli Jewish population, who sees them as both a burden and a bother, and they have a record of extensive violence against Palestinian civilians.

You're right, peace isn't the settlers number one priority, but neither is violence. Like mrhnau said, look at the methods they're using: Eggs, water, oil, singing, talking. Outright violence is not rampant during the process. They're displaying a wonderful example of civil disobedience, despite how hard this issue is for them (and the evicting forces are displaying a wonderful example of sensitivity and compassion). So yeah, while there probably are many people who are at odds with the settlers, I think few are the people who are sitting at home and watching the disengagement and think "serves those dumb bastards right".

Make no mistake: the settlers being dislodged from Gaza are no different from the radical Hamas terrorists, and viceversa. The same ideology of doom and extermination of the Other inspires both of them, and Baruch Goldstein (the terrorist who killed more than 20 Muslims who were praying in a mosque) was no different than the Engineer (one of Hamas´leading terrorist leaders).

Oh no? How many Jewish terrorists do you hear about as opposed to Palestinian? How many Baruch Goldstein wannabes have you opposed to Ichi Ayash (Engineer) wannabes? The settlers don't want to kill and exterminate the Palestinians, they just don't want to give them the land they're living on (without debating whose it is). There's no room for comparison.

As a historian, you should double-check your sources.

 

[ave_turuta]

Loki:

I can provide you with enough references regarding settler attacks if you are interested to prove that the attacks are not "rare" but rather frequent. On the other hand, however, and as my initial post made clear: I have witnessed first hand too much suffering on both sides of the conflict to begin splitting hairs over how the violence of the settlers can be "better" or qualitatively different than that of Hamas. To me, they are both representative of extremist nationalist ideologies that ultimately call for the expulsion/extermination of the Other/Enemy. Violence is violence, and the effects are the same whether the victim is a Palestinian, a Jew, or whoever it is that has the unfortunate luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not interested in discussing the history of the conflict (there are thousands of books out there to talk about this) but was just trying to offer a more personal take.

Peace,
A.T.

 

[Loki]

I'd like to see these references.

It's fine to have a view on things, but when you make a claim like there being no difference between the settlers and Hamas terrorists, that's going too far.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's a risky move on Israels part. They have little to gain and much to lose.

What will likely happen is Hamas will continue attacks against Israel in the form of suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks.

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will have a very public (and likely very fabricated) feud of words about continued Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel. The Palestinian Authority will declare that it doesn't have the power to reign Hamas in, but it will claim that it is doing everything it can to bring peace. Hamas will continue to operate at will in Palestinian territories.

At that point Israel has three options:

1) Continue to sit, and have it's citizens blown up in the streets and do nothing except beg the Palestinian Authority do something. This will be perceived by the Palestinians and the arab world as a victory against Israel, and sign they have Israel on the ropes.

2) Reoccupy Palestinian Territory and try and hunt down Hamas factions.

3) Conduct limited strikes in to Palestinian Territory to attempt to hit Hamas members and infrastructure.

Option one will elicit sympathy and token support from the international community (Who still won't really care, and many will likely secretly cheer the perceived Palestinian victory) but not much else, except an emboldened Hamas.

Option two and three will elicit condemnation from the international community, and Israel will, again, be labelled a rogue state for responding to aggression that it has tried to appease, and the Palestinian Authority will claim aggrieved status.

Again, Israel is in another tough situation.

I'd like to see these references.

It's fine to have a view on things, but when you make a claim like there being no difference between the settlers and Hamas terrorists, that's going too far.

There is a difference between Hamas terrorists and Israeli settlers....UN Ambulances don't haul weapons and explosives for Israeli settlers.

 

[Phoenix44]

The Palestinian authority is now "up against it" IMO.

Tgace, SgtMac: There's an editorial in Newsday today that expresses the same opinion. The writer isn't optimistic.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opklu194389026aug19,0,2330506.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

 

[DngrRuss]

My hope is that the portions of the population on each side who support peace finally gains a voice and demands an end to the violence and take steps toward coexistence. I am also not optimistic in this regard.

I think it is more likely that the Hamas, the PLO, and their compatriots will take this opporitunity to escalate the violence. I think that they will see this as a first step toward taking Jerusalum and exterminating the Jews from the area. If that occurs, I think that the Isreal's leadership will say, "see, we tried and look what it got us." They will then escalate their own violence and military action to ensure their "security".

My hope is for positive change. My fear is that this will ultimately either stay the same or get worse.

 

[Loki]

Just something I thought I'd add:

The people that were forcefully evicted from the synagogues on Thursday aren't settlers. They're anti-disengagement right-wing extremists. An important distinction when opinions on settlers are made based on these people's actions, I think.

 

[Marginal]

Yeah, hurling lightbulbs filled with oil, and tossing acid on police officers doesn't strike me as civic-minded.