Israel To Exit Gaza

[Biggles]

Sharron has proposed that Israel removes all settlements from Gaza.

Is this participation in the Road Map or bunker mentality? (or perhaps a little from column A and a little from column B?)

Without descending into entrenched positions (too much), will this help kick start the peace process or will it result in internecine politics in the Knesset?

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by Biggles@3 February 2004 - 22:53
Is this participation in the Road Map or bunker mentality? (or perhaps a little from column A and a little from column B?)


Could it be that Sharron is just playing politics?

[Billy_Dean]

It's a ruse, the land they really want is in the West Bank, the so called "Security Wall" will annexe that.


<_<

[mogadishu]

yea, IMO its public relations.. this kind of movement could take years to actually happen. But I dont want to sound like everything Israel does is bad... I mean, we shouldnt shoot down sharon, because theoretically doing this is good.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by mogadishu@4 February 2004 - 22:32
yea, IMO its public relations.. this kind of movement could take years to actually happen. But I dont want to sound like everything Israel does is bad... I mean, we shouldnt shoot down sharon, because theoretically doing this is good.
As there are over 300,000 settlers in Gaza and the west Bank whichever option is taken it will be a slow and delicate process. I suspect that some would like to make the new "wall" the border. All the settlements on the wrong side (and there are a fair few) will be sacrificed for a defendable border. This will not go down well with those who would prefer to clear Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians and take all the land. Sharron will have his work cut out to sell this to the religious parties.

Those Palestinians on the wrong side of the wall won&#39;t exactly be dancing for joy either although potentially there may be some trade off for housing that is cleared by the settlers.

Those with unwavering views on either side of the divide that compromise equates to defeat will continue to make any political settlement a project fraught with difficulties.

[putty]

Originally posted by Biggles+5 February 2004 - 19:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 5 February 2004 - 19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-mogadishu@4 February 2004 - 22:32
yea, IMO its public relations.. this kind of movement could take years to actually happen. But I dont want to sound like everything Israel does is bad... I mean, we shouldnt shoot down sharon, because theoretically doing this is good.
As there are over 300,000 settlers in Gaza and the west Bank whichever option is taken it will be a slow and delicate process. I suspect that some would like to make the new "wall" the border. All the settlements on the wrong side (and there are a fair few) will be sacrificed for a defendable border. This will not go down well with those who would prefer to clear Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians and take the all the land. Sharron will have his work cut out to sell this to the religious parties.

Those Palestinians on the wrong side of the wall won&#39;t exactly be dancing for joy either although potentially there may be some trade off for housing that is cleared by the settlers.

Those with unwavering views on either side of the divide that compromise equates to defeat will continue to make any political settlement a project fraught with difficulties.[/b][/quote]
74% of settlers would be willing to pick up & leave if given compensation from Israel.

Regarding illegal outposts, 66 percent of respondents said they should be dismantled.

When asked whether they would oppose the evacuation of settlements, 90 percent of respondents said they would not break the law in response to an order to evacuate settlements,

According to the Peace Now poll, 64 percent of settlers believe that the Israeli government has the authority to decide on evacuating the settlements (compared to 54 percent in the last survey), while 26 percent accept the rabbis&#39; [I assume they mean settler rabbis here] authority to decide on the matter (down from 30 percent in the 2002 poll).

Just 14 percent of settlers say the rabbis represent their beliefs, while even fewer settlers (12 percent) said that the Yesha Council of Settlements represents their views


http://www.peacenow.org/PNintheN/haaretz29.html

Although settlers are commonly grouped together as a ideological zealots, the majority of settlers live in suburbs of Jerusalem and moved there for economic reasons. The wackos on hilltops make up a tiny minority of settlers. They do grab the headlines, however.

[Biggles]

Putty

Interesting statistics.

It is high time the media gave more prominence to those Israelis and Palestinians who are prepared to talk about peace and less to the whackos on either side.

[putty]

It is high time the media gave more prominence to those Israelis and Palestinians who are prepared to talk about peace and less to the whackos on either side.

Amen. The problem, though, is ratings. Extremists make headlines.

I&#39;m just always shocked by how so many eagerly accept the notion that US headlines focus on Palestinian extremists, while they pay no attention to the fact that their own media does the same wrt settler extremists.

These poll results are not new. The vast majority of settlers have felt this way all along.

[putty]

Contrast those poll results to these from Oct 03:

44.6% of Palestinians say the goal of the intifadah is to get Israel out of the occupied tettitries.

43% say that the goal is to "liberate all of historic Palestine"

61.8% support "suicibe bombings against Israeli civilians".

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2003/no49.pdf


:(

[Biggles]

I have to say I am not surprised at these findings, or rather I am surprised they are not even higher.

With only a grievance to hold them all together and refugee camps that have become sprawling ghettos to nuture their children, it is not surprising that their emotions can be whipped up by those who preach the politics of hate.

Given that there is a bedrock of 40% who would appear still resistent to such calls just imagine what could be achieved if they actually had something worth holding on to. I tend to subscribe to the view that the Palestinians are so marginalised that they have little to lose from extreme and desperate action.

It will never be possible to stop individuals determined to blow themselves up, but it would be a mistake to allow them to dictate the speed of change and progress. it will, however, take a very brave, Israeli politician to make the necessary moves, it has already cost one Premier his life.

[putty]

Originally posted by Biggles@6 February 2004 - 00:47
I have to say I am not surprised at these findings, or rather I am surprised they are not even higher.

With only a grievance to hold them all together and refugee camps that have become sprawling ghettos to nuture their children, it is not surprising that their emotions can be whipped up by those who preach the politics of hate.

Given that there is a bedrock of 40% who would appear still resistent to such calls just imagine what could be achieved if they actually had something worth holding on to. I tend to subscribe to the view that the Palestinians are so marginalised that they have little to lose from extreme and desperate action.

It will never be possible to stop individuals determined to blow themselves up, but it would be a mistake to allow them to dictate the speed of change and progress. it will, however, take a very brave, Israeli politician to make the necessary moves, it has already cost one Premier his life.

Given that there is a bedrock of 40% who would appear still resistent to such calls just imagine what could be achieved if they actually had something worth holding on to.

I just can&#39;t help but think back to 1996 when Peres and Netanyahu were running for PM after Rabin&#39;s death. Peres was ahead in polls by 20% a couple months before the election while suicide bombing after suicide bombing hit Israel draining his support. I remember wondering what the hell Arafat was doing by not confronting Hamas and putting a stop to it.

Since de-arming Hamas wa part of Oslo, Netanyahu used it to his advantage to point out that Arafat cannot be trusted.

59 died in those bombings and polls showed support for Peres dropping by the bombing with Netanyahu eventually winning by less than 1%. For the Palestinians to go from Peres (everything) to Netanyahu (nothing), wow.

[ironoxide]

Originally posted by Biggles@3 February 2004 - 22:53
Sharron has proposed that Israel removes all settlements from Gaza.

Is this participation in the Road Map or bunker mentality? (or perhaps a little from column A and a little from column B?)

Without descending into entrenched positions (too much), will this help kick start the peace process or will it result in internecine politics in the Knesset?

History will repeat.

It&#39;s election year in the US
It&#39;s politics as usual in Israel
It&#39;s Sharron, not Ghandi
Expect more bloodshed this year in the name of politics

[tralalala]

getting out of gaza = the best decision this jerk sharon (and im an israeli :P ) has made since he was elected...
now, get all the settlements out of there, then all the settlements out of the west bank, sign a full peace treaty, and were done :)



tralalala

[fugley]

I have no comment to make at this time. I have decided I need more time to consider my position.

:blink:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by putty@6 February 2004 - 05:15
I just can&#39;t help but think back to 1996 when Peres and Netanyahu were running for PM after Rabin&#39;s death. Peres was ahead in polls by 20% a couple months before the election while suicide bombing after suicide bombing hit Israel draining his support. I remember wondering what the hell Arafat was doing by not confronting Hamas and putting a stop to it.

Since de-arming Hamas wa part of Oslo, Netanyahu used it to his advantage to point out that Arafat cannot be trusted.

59 died in those bombings and polls showed support for Peres dropping by the bombing with Netanyahu eventually winning by less than 1%. For the Palestinians to go from Peres (everything) to Netanyahu (nothing), wow.
Arafat cant confront Hamas due to Israeli policy.

At the time of the creation of the Palestinian Authority, the PLO were the main Palestinian representative organisation, helped by its withdrawal from terrorism. It was the natural Palestinian Government.

However after the new spate of violence flared (last 10 years or so) and the Israeli&#39;s moved back into the area (terrorism by Hamas etc) the Palestinian Authority made political protests etc etc etc, but didnt actively do anything as its infrastructure was destroyed, to defend against the Israeli&#39;s...

The Palestinians started turning to organisations that appeared to DO things..ie Hamas etc...

The popularity of these organisations now is such that any move by Arafat to remove them will start a civil war between the Palestinians that the Palestinian Authority would lose.


Ive said again and again, the only way back from here (and that way will take years)...is for it to appear that the PLO is making things happen, not Hamas etc... ie Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

This will increase the popularity of the Authority and give it the power and mandate from its people to get rid of Hamas etc...

Hamas is not a Palestinian organisation, its a fundamental Islamic organisation from all over the Arab world..you cannot negotiate with it. Palestine is only the beginning for this entity..


Its just a shame that the PM of Israel and Arafat hate each others guts so much, due to the betrayal of the Palestinains by Sharon in Lebanon...for which he was eventually sacked by the Israeli Governemnt of the time (But only after the Israeli citizens demanded that when they eventually found out about the massacre)


As ive always said;

1/ Israel is lead by a bunch of Murdering Thugs that should be shot.

2/ The Terrorists (Hamas etc) are a bunch of murdering thugs that should be shot.

Once we get those 2 points sorted, the vast majority of people in the region that want to just get on with their lives (Israeli and Palestinian) will be free to do so....

I make no appology for the Israeli Government being named 1st, someone has to be...and Sharon is, in my opinion, the main reason for the last 10 years of violence.

[fugley]

I too agree with Mr Sharons decision - he should indeed remove himself - or dare I say it withdraw - from kazaa and perhaps try emule instead.

:blink:

[putty]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@6 February 2004 - 22:42
However after the new spate of violence flared (last 10 years or so) and the Israeli&#39;s moved back into the area (terrorism by Hamas etc) the Palestinian Authority made political protests etc etc etc, but didnt actively do anything as its infrastructure was destroyed, to defend against the Israeli&#39;s...

After reading this I realize that much of this was mentioned in my last post in that other thread, but...

The problem with this is that Hamas was not disarmed back in 93, which is what Oslo called for. As Israeli troops pulled out, the PA did take over but pretended that Hamas didn&#39;t exist as it continued to bomb Israel. The PA infrastructure was only targetted starting in 2001.

Arafat was so afraid of confronting them that he let them roam free and created a monster because now he doesn&#39;t have infrastructure and he doesn&#39;t have control. But for 8 years he sat on his ass, contrary to what he agreed to at Oslo.

The rest of your post, I pretty much agree with. I just wonder wonder why you include all of the Israeli leaders. I have no love of Sharon but ther are others who oppose him. Also, why no Arafat? If you blane Sharon for being responsibile for Sabra & Shatilla, how is Arafat not directly responsible to all the PLO hijackings, Munich Olympic murders, etc? Not to mention all the death he is indirectly responsible for by his decisions. I hope you just forgot to include him.

[Rat Faced]

Anyone in the Israeli Government that opposes Sharon, as long as they do it as long as they want peace and are willing to take hard decisions to get that and arent just after political points...

....i will willingly take off my hit list ;)


Arafat condemns terrorism now, and has done for many years.

Yes; he is a murderer and was a terrorist, however i still feel he is the lesser of the evils, and is the best hope (on the Palestinian side) for peace...but he cant work miracles.

Getting the support of the Palestinian people will need results they can see "from him" 1st...... ie it has to appear to them that "He" got the results, not Hamas/Terrorism. (I know that there is more than one terrorist organisation, but hamas is easiest to spell....in the good old days they used letters to make it easy )

[putty]

Arafat condemns terrorism now, and has done for many years.

Publically, yes. If you read the Arab press, you often get a different story.

Check memri.org. Yes, I know that it is pro-Israel but all they do is expose what is written and said in Arabic press that is not said in english.

I don&#39;t think Arafat is the lesser of any evil. Anyone who targets air/cruise travellers (because of their religion) and Olympians (because they are citizens of a specific country), deserves no credit.

I don&#39;t see how Sharon can be viewed as responsible for not stopping Sabra & Shatilla while Arafat gets a free pass for not stopping Hamas and Islamic Jihad from 1993-2001, that is when he had a full intact police force armed and responsible for areas vacated by the Israelis.

I&#39;m not sure how old you are so I can&#39;t ask you to remember back to the days when airplane hijackings were common because of Arafat. He wouldn&#39;t fly the planes into buildings, he&#39;d just kill the Jews & Americans and hold the rest hostage.

Do you believe that Israel has always been led by a bunch of murderous thugs, or just the Sharon govt?