Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on July 20, 2005, 05:18:59 am
-
I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet, esp. with the 20,000 demonstrators marching toward Gaza over the past couple of days. Anyway, I read this (http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/6066.htm) and thought it would be of interest to those comparing the evacuation of Yamit in the Sinai in 1982 to the (planned) Gaza Withdrawal of 2005.
[q]Vive La Difference
By David Bedein July 20, 2005
The situation 23 years ago
People often ask why there is any reason to be so excited about what the Sharon government proposes when it proposes the demolition of 26 Jewish communities in Katif and in Samaria.
After all, didn't Sharon demolish 16 Jewish communities in the Sinai in April, 1982, in his capacity as Israel's Minister of Defence?
So why is this removal so different from any other removal?
Back in 1982, as a community organization social worker, I was one of many mental health professionals asked to render assistance to residents of Yamit who were being evacuated from their homes after living there for several years.
The process of counseling people in such circumstances was not an easy one. Families were falling apart at the seams. A couple whom I knew had been prosperous and happily married saw their lives torn apart in a process that destroyed their marriage.
Yet the Yamit counseling process was doable, for many reasons.
The compensation offered was good.
The people being evacuated were comforted to know that the government of Israel had achieved a solid clear peace treaty with Israel's most powerful adversary in exchange for total withdrawal from the Sinai.
Cabinet Ministers, including Prime Minister Begin, invited the evacuees to hear their plight, and the people of Yamit and the other 15 evacuated communities felt that they were still appreciated and respected by the government of Israel and by the media.
In addition, then-Defence Minister Sharon helped communities to relocate -- as communities -- to places that the government cleared for settlement, over a period of three years, from the moment the peace treaty was signed in 1979 until their relocation in 1982.
Sharon personally helped people from Yamit resettle families to Elei Sinai, in the Northern most part of the Gaza Strip, in an area that had been no-man's land, patrolled by the United Nations forces from 1957 until Egypt demanded that the UN pull our in 1967.
The government of Israel helped the agricultural community of Atzmoneh move to a new location under the same name in Katif, while the government also helped the Yamit Yeshiva move to a new location in Neveh Dekalim in Katif.
While the demolition of Yamit and its suburbs was indeed a trauma, it was a trauma that people were able to cope with.
But the most important precedent set with Yamit was that Israel would trade settlements only for a solid peace treaty with an Arab entity. And people have felt safe and secure in the notion that no Israeli government would ever dismantle Jewish communities for anything but a solid peace treaty with an Arab neighbor.
In that spirit, Israel's Zionist peace movements -- Meretz in the Knesset and "Peace Now" in the streets, stuck to their philosophy of "territories for peace", based on the Yariv-Shaem Tov formula, named for Israeli intelligence chief Aharon Yariv and Israeli Mapam leader Victor Shaem Tov.
This "territories for peace" formula was far different from the platform of the anti-Zionist Left led by Matzpen, Uri Avneri, General Mati Peled and the Israeli Communist party, all of whom advocated the unilateral abandonment of Israel's Jewish communities established beyond the 1967 lines, with no "quid pro quo".
That position was firmly opposed by the Israeli Zionist Left.
As General Aharon Yariiv told me in an interview on February 24th 1988, "We advocated territory for peace, not territory before peace", since territory handed to an enemy at war with Israel could simply be used as a launching pad for attacks against Israel.
The ten essential differences: Yamit vs. Katif/Shomron
Let us now turn the clock from 1982 to the 2005 lightening bolt process of the Sharon government, which has suddenly adopted the position of the Israel Communist Party, in favor of "territory before peace".
Let us look at the ten fundamental differences between the two situations.
[list=1]
- 1982 involved ceding land to an Arab state making peace, while 2005 involved ceding land to a PLO promising continued warfare with Israel.
- Yamit and its surrounding agricultural settlements were of little significance to the economy of the state or people of Israel. Katif provides $62 million of agricultural exports for Israel, along with hundreds of teachers for the communities of the Western Negev.
- Yamit and its surrounding agricultural settlements held little strategic significance for Israel. However, Katif's location in five parts of Gaza was planned as a way of slowing the advance of any potential invasion from the south, while allowing vital intelligence listening posts for continuing surveillance of Gaza and the sea. Meanwhile, all four hilltop settlements slated for abandonment in the Shomron are places from which the PLO can attack anywhere on the coastal plain of Israel.
- Compensation being offered is much smaller. The Florsheim Institute of Social Research has shared its research with the Knesset to show that the government offers less than one tenth of what was offered to the people in Yamit.
- The Israeli government cannot show that there is any peace treaty or any inkling of a peace arrangement with the PLO, despite the fact that the brochure issued on May 1st, 2005 by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates that "disengagement will lead to peace".
- While people in Yamit and its surrounding agricultural settlements were there for an average of 5 years, most of the families in Katif have lived there for as long as 25-30 years.
- Yamit residents were never demonized by the Israeli government media outlets. For the past year, the Israeli government owned and operated TV and Radio media has consistently portrayed the residents who oppose their eviction as unreasonable fanatics, and worse.
- Yamit residents had three years to plan their future from the time of the signing of the April 1, 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty on the White House lawn until its implementation on April 30th 1982, when the settlements in the Sinai were uprooted. In contrast, the Katif/Shomron communities had to plan their future from the day of Knesset ratification of the compensation bill in February, 2005 until August, 2005, when the law evicted them from their homes and farms, or face the prospect of criminal prosecution.
- While Israeli government officials maintained a continuing dialogue with the people of Yamit, Israeli cabinet officials have for the most part refused to speak with them. The secretary of Kadim in Shomron shows that all letters to Israeli cabinet officials to ask them why they were demolishing their community of 21 years, went unanswered. Residents of Ganim who decided to leave were denied requests to meet with cabinet members and say that they were treated like criminals throughout the process. Katif residents only heard about the details of their abandonment from radio and internet reports, while cabinet members would not answer requests to meet with them. And when Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz did come to the Katif community center, I witnessed his refusal to answer any questions.
- While the June 6th, 2004 provision in the Israel government decision clearly states that no homes or assets from Jewish communities would be ceded to anyone "involved in terrorist activity", the government of Israel simply eliminated this clause from its June 23rd, 2004 agreement with the World Bank, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry brochure of May 1st, 2005 simply eliminated the clause. Such an omission allows Muhammad Dahlan, fingered by Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in The Wall Street Journal of June 2nd, 2002 as the man responsible for the campaign of cold blooded murder against the citizens of Israel, to be the man whom Israel is nurturing to take over assets of abandoned Jewish properties. This, despite the fact that Olmert stated in that article that Dahlan should be executed by Israel for his crimes. Imagine what would have happened if, while consoling the people of Yamit, we would have broken the news to them that the Islamic Brotherhood of Egypt would be taking control of their homes and property.
Preparing for massive military action
All this is written as a backdrop to the reality that the Israeli army is amassing more than 40,000 troops and police near Gaza to forcibly remove Jews from their homes. The Israeli police force has purchased 500 horses from Germany to aid them in their task. Former Israeli intelligence official, Rony Shaked, now a senior correspondent for the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot has written that the IDF now has specially trained dogs who can pull people out of their homes and onto the streets. And the IDF troops near Katif have been handed a document which explains under what circumstances will they be expected to open fire on protesters. The document concludes with an estimate that 300 residents and/or protesters will be killed in the process.
A far cry from Yamit.
[/q]
Anyway, for those of you interested in hearing a Bible-believing Christian perspective on the whole thing, you can listen to it here (http://www.kokaj.org/word/messages.htm#20050717) (July 17th).
-
Interesting.
But isn't there a prohibition on making treaties with Egypt in that book of yours? And buying horses? :p
-
I applaud Israel for moving out of these settlements, in a clear attempt to show that it's willing to make sacrifices for peace.
In all this, the IDF soldiers that are going to have to keep the peace, and get those people out are the ones I feel the most for. It has to be one of the worst jobs thinkable, really.
-
Goob, I don't think they consulted that book when they signed the treaty with Egypt. Just like they aren't consulting that book now, when they made the decision to give up Gaza. :sigh:
Originally posted by kasperl
I applaud Israel for moving out of these settlements, in a clear attempt to show that it's willing to make sacrifices for peace.
Laying aside whether I think it should happen or not, if it does happen, I can only hope that somehow, peace will come out of it, and not encouragement to continue the violence and incitement.
-
well doesn't that book say, you'll make peace with your enemies, just before the war that brings God back? so isn't it a good thing?
-
Like it'll do anything to stop the Palestinians... In fact, I think you can expect a new surge in terrorist activity after this is implemented, based on the "infidels are retreating, strike them while they're weak" mentality.
-
Or civil war as the various factions vie for power in the evacuated areas; IIRC there are already gunfights going on between militants and the Palestinian police.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Like it'll do anything to stop the Palestinians... In fact, I think you can expect a new surge in terrorist activity after this is implemented, based on the "infidels are retreating, strike them while they're weak" mentality.
as pessimistic as this is, i really hope not (although my inner cynic agrees with you)... enough blood has been spilt over Gaza already.
we can only hope for peace.
-
[q]until Egypt demanded that the UN pull our in 1967.[/q]
This is the part I find amusing. Egypt demanded the UN pull out, despite the fact we [the collective military peace keeping force of all UN nations] could piss on them if we so desired.
We set this up to happen and now we're upset the Israelis and Arabs are blowing each other up?
-
Sandwich: even from the position of an Israeli nationalist, the pullout makes sense. OK, I understand the mentality that no land should ever be returned/abandonded, but taken as a whole the Gaza pullout, at least the way I see it, is favourable to Israel. They evacuate the Gaza settlements, who's Jewish population is too small to be sustainable, and relocate the settlers, or replacements, to some of the bigger West Bank settlements to bolster their presence. If and when some sort of deal is made in the future, Israel will try to stake a claim to part or all of the West Bank, that's a given, and by relocating settlers from a tiny, crowded slum to the West Bank, where their presence is far bigger, they will increase the legitmacy of the settlements there and better their chances to keeping the land. Plus, this pretty much gives any future government (as well as this one) carte blache to implement whatever agenda they want, since "Hey, we gave them Gaza, what more do you want. We made out goodwill gesture, from now on the gloves come off". That's how I see it.
By the way from what I understand, Israel will retain control over Philadelphi Road (or whatever the border with Egypt is called.) Is this right, or was it part of some earlier version of the plan that has now een scrapped?
-
I think Israel were trying to convince Egypt to police the border, although I'm not 100% sure. I don know that Israel will still control the sea, borders and airspace around the Gaza strip.
-
do or don't know?
-
Do know.
oops. :o
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well doesn't that book say, you'll make peace with your enemies, just before the war that brings God back? so isn't it a good thing?
Ohh ohh! I call dibs on Sajuuk!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Sandwich: even from the position of an Israeli nationalist, the pullout makes sense. OK, I understand the mentality that no land should ever be returned/abandonded, but taken as a whole the Gaza pullout, at least the way I see it, is favourable to Israel. They evacuate the Gaza settlements, who's Jewish population is too small to be sustainable, and relocate the settlers, or replacements, to some of the bigger West Bank settlements to bolster their presence. If and when some sort of deal is made in the future, Israel will try to stake a claim to part or all of the West Bank, that's a given, and by relocating settlers from a tiny, crowded slum to the West Bank, where their presence is far bigger, they will increase the legitmacy of the settlements there and better their chances to keeping the land. Plus, this pretty much gives any future government (as well as this one) carte blache to implement whatever agenda they want, since "Hey, we gave them Gaza, what more do you want. We made out goodwill gesture, from now on the gloves come off". That's how I see it.
To a point, this is all true. However, logical doesn't really come into play when you're told to drag somebody from their home by force.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the small Jewish population in Gaza amidst a sea of over 1 million Arabs is untenable, then it also follows that the small Jewish state of Israel amidst a sea of over 250 million Arabs is equally untenable.
Make of that what you will - it's been proven both in the past and in the present that Jews and Arabs can live as wonderful neighbors, enjoying each others' hospitality, children playing together, etc - it's a matter of education. There's not some silly "genetic" incompatibility between the two nationalities or anything of the sort. It's pure upbringing.
Originally posted by Rictor
By the way from what I understand, Israel will retain control over Philadelphi Road (or whatever the border with Egypt is called.) Is this right, or was it part of some earlier version of the plan that has now een scrapped?
I love you (not like THAT!). You said "Philadelphi", not "Philadelphia"! ;)
I'm not sure what the current state of that issue is; last I heard, there were opponents to either the idea of Egyptian border police being allowed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, or the idea of relying on Egyptian forces to prevent weapons smuggling across the border.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
It's pure upbringing.
It's the fact that you both do such a good job of continually pissing each other off.
-
Exactly. The 'upbringing' doesn't just coalesce from nothing, it has some basis or foundation that leads to this animosity.
-
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the small Jewish population in Gaza amidst a sea of over 1 million Arabs is untenable, then it also follows that the small Jewish state of Israel amidst a sea of over 250 million Arabs is equally untenable.
Which is why it should never have happened in the first place...
1948 was a very bad year - the setting up of the State of Israel should have happened somewhere else, somewhere NOT in the middle of Arab countries that were instantly hostile.
There must have been other options... whoever made that decision (The UK?) should be shot...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
To a point, this is all true. However, logical doesn't really come into play when you're told to drag somebody from their home by force.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the small Jewish population in Gaza amidst a sea of over 1 million Arabs is untenable, then it also follows that the small Jewish state of Israel amidst a sea of over 250 million Arabs is equally untenable.
Make of that what you will - it's been proven both in the past and in the present that Jews and Arabs can live as wonderful neighbors, enjoying each others' hospitality, children playing together, etc - it's a matter of education. There's not some silly "genetic" incompatibility between the two nationalities or anything of the sort. It's pure upbringing.
Regardless of what you, I or anyone may think of it, thems the brakes. Israel, as a legal entity and a soverign nation-state has borders at certain points. What should happen to those borders is a matter of opinion, and personally I would be all in favour of expanding Israeli territory if not for the people which would have to be kicked out. I've said it before and I'll say it again, demographics are a powerful weapon.
As for the animosity between Arabs and Israelis, I never said they couldn't live together. Hell, the Muslims are boyscouts compared to what the Jews suffered under powerful Christians in history. In thoery, it's simple "just stop teaching the kids to hate each other". But unfortunately it's never that simple. To a large extent, the hardcore on both sides consider it to be the holy land. You can't really settle something like that, since it's about territory.
By the way, I don't know what you think of these ("http://www.jtf.org/") guys Sandwich, but I listed to their radio show last week and...well, I can only hope the Israeli right has better spokesmen then that, for their own sake. Everyone from Ben Gurion (the, uhm, founder of Israel) and Golda Meir down to Sharon is a self-hating Bolshevik dictator. :rolleyes: :D
-
Technically it was an international decision. It just so happened that we pwn3d the land involved.
I do concede however we should've expressed how much of a really bad idea it was. Then again, with Israeli terrorists blowing up British citizens we were in a pickle.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
By the way, I don't know what you think of these ("http://www.jtf.org/") guys Sandwich, but I listed to their radio show last week and...well, I can only hope the Israeli right has better spokesmen then that, for their own sake. Everyone from Ben Gurion (the, uhm, founder of Israel) and Golda Meir down to Sharon is a self-hating Bolshevik dictator. :rolleyes: :D
Holy ****. It's a Jewish White Supremacist group... I never thought that possible.
-
I don't have a problem with Israel or Jews, it's just a location thing...
It's like "Lets build our firework factory next to this petrol lake"
-
Originally posted by Clave
I don't have a problem with Israel or Jews, it's just a location thing...
Neither do I, but that doesn't change the fact we were under attack during the decision making process.
It's amazing to think my Great-Uncle marched as protection for the Jews going into what was soon to be Israel just after WW2. He was HLI - the once best of the best Scottish regiment... anyway, I digress .:nervous:
-
Kahanists, baby. Check them out, it's really interesting.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Regardless of what you, I or anyone may think of it, thems the brakes. Israel, as a legal entity and a soverign nation-state has borders at certain points. What should happen to those borders is a matter of opinion, and personally I would be all in favour of expanding Israeli territory if not for the people which would have to be kicked out. I've said it before and I'll say it again, demographics are a powerful weapon.
As for the animosity between Arabs and Israelis, I never said they couldn't live together. Hell, the Muslims are boyscouts compared to what the Jews suffered under powerful Christians in history. In thoery, it's simple "just stop teaching the kids to hate each other". But unfortunately it's never that simple. To a large extent, the hardcore on both sides consider it to be the holy land. You can't really settle something like that, since it's about territory.
By the way, I don't know what you think of these ("http://www.jtf.org/") guys Sandwich, but I listed to their radio show last week and...well, I can only hope the Israeli right has better spokesmen then that, for their own sake. Everyone from Ben Gurion (the, uhm, founder of Israel) and Golda Meir down to Sharon is a self-hating Bolshevik dictator. :rolleyes: :D
Muslim Nazis and Bolshevik dictators, eh? Whatever next.
-
Originally posted by Clave
There must have been other options... whoever made that decision (The UK?) should be shot...
God?
Anyway, Israel was a barren wasteland in 1948. Nobody wanted it. In fact the prevailing opinion at the time was, "Get the Jews out of our countries. Send them to the Palestinian desert; they'll be out of our way there."
-
in other news suicide bombers are still planning attacks.
-
It's interesting to note the aerial differences between Gaza / West Bank and the rest of Israel - you can actually see the "borders" as a difference in land coloration.
-
Nice view! I remember that from my trip to Beirut