I do not agree. Concentrating 2 million Palestines in a 10 by 25 km zone is quite effective in order to reduce the problem to manageable proportions. Attempts should be made to transfer the West Bank Palestinians to the Gaza Strip as well. I would like to call to attention that no terrorist attacks, barring Qassam rockets, have been staged from teh Gaza Stri;.

Posted by: Germen Roding at August 9, 2005 4:55 PM

And once again we will turn the lights on and see what this act of capitulation brings to Israel. And we will watch as the usual true colors of the Palestinians unfold over the next 2 years. What will Israel gain from this retreat? What other obvious provocations will develop to keep and maintain Palestine in a state dar-al-harb with Israel?

Is there a strategy that we don't see in this---- "see I told you so scenario".

No one better understands the determination of the Palestinians then Sharon. Who is setting who up for the whole world to see? Is it really as simple as withdrawing from Gaza?

There has to be not only the exit strategy but a strategy that is prepared to deal with any demographic advantage that the Palestinians may perceive as their military gain from occupying Gaza. Could Gaza be the belly of a trojan horse? There has to be more than what meets the eye in this demographic shift for whose advantage. If Israel knows that there are no jewish settlers in the gaza then it is easier to spot the source of any aggressive attacks .

Posted by: Mackie at August 9, 2005 5:15 PM

The ideal thing would have been for Jordan to become democratic - with its 70% "Palestinian" population able to vote there could be no argument against Jordan being the Palestinian homeland.

The next best thing would be for the non-indigenous Hashemites to give some of its land on the East Bank to the Pals. After all, look at any old map of the region and you'll see that a third of the region of Palestine was in today's Jordan.

I suppose we are stuck with Sharon's plan to give away bits of hitorical Israel - after the Jews have been ethnically cleansed (for the second time this century).

This of course leaves Israel wide open for attack - and with AQ setting up shop and Egypt already talking about selling armoured personel carriers to the PA (soon to be known as "Hamas"), I don't hold out much hope for the risable concept of "land for peace".

However, as the Palestinians are being given such responsibility, there must be some way to legally ensure that giving them land will ensure peace.

The Gaza deal is done and dusted - I've already given up hope.

But before ONE SQUARE INCH of the West Bank is given away, there needs to be a formal contract between (primarily) Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria & Egypt - witnessed and ratified at the UN, signed by Britain, Russia, The US, France and all Arab countries.

Any land given to Palestinians is contigent on four strict rules:

1) They are entitled to no more land from Israel and will therefore claim no more land from Israel. The borders are final and entrenched permanently in a Palestinian constitution.

2) Peace - is guaranteed. Israel is formally, and permanently recognised.

3) Should they break rule one or attack Israel then a) the UN pledge to support Israel militarily b) The Palestinians permanently lose any claim to the West Bank & Gaza c) The Palestinians will be absorbed into neighbouring Egypt, Syria & Jordan - with it being up to those countries to supply land to them (should they wish to).

Israel's responsibility ends the moment she is attacked for more land.

Of course clause 2.c. is never going to happen - when the Palestinians make the next move to grab the rest of Israel for the Ummah, they will do so with the full backing of Syria, Egypt & Jordan, but at least having this as clause will force all parties involved to put their money where their mouth is.

I mean "surely if this is the end of the matter and the Pals don't want the rest of Israel, then there's no problem underwriting this".

Having it agreed, signed and ratified at the UN should ensure that the final borders are irrevocably set in stone like any other country and that Israel can no longer over be accused of being "occupyers" or "temporary inhabitants" of "Palestine".

Now if the Arab world can't agree permanently recognise the State of Israel and pledge to leave her in peace, then the world will know who's fault the continuing stalemate is.

Not that they'll care. Antisemitic bastards!

Posted by: reactionista at August 9, 2005 5:35 PM

It should have been clear long ago, decades ago, that Arab and Muslim opposition to Israel is simply a classic Jihad against an Infidel state. Such opposition can not be dampened by any concessions short of that Infidel state's disappearance, or its agreeing to submit to the classic status of the dhimmi -- living only on sufferance, at the whim of the circumambient Muslims.

There are several reasons by the Israelis themselves, and hence those who claim to "support Israel" but never bother to learn much about its plight, or the reasons for its permanence.

The first was the ignorance of Islam. The Israeli elite knew all about the Nazis, and soon enough learned about the Communists. But they did not know about Islam. Even Jabotinsky, who realized that only an "Iron Wall" would cause the Arabs to cease trying to destroy Israel, never understood that the basis of their opposition was Islam -- and not simply the fact that "Arabs" would not accept "Jews." He was a well-educated and worldly man, but among his vast store of knowledge, Islam had no place.

The second reason was that the Israelis wished to maintain and even cultivate ties with whatever Muslim states might not be aligned so strictly with the Arabs. There were two: there was Kemalist, "secularist" Turkey, which even today, when it tries to win points in Washington, does so, among other strategems, by showing less hostility to Israel. But as Turkey's backsliding shows, Kemalism is temporary, and Islam is forever. And there was Iran of the Shah, the Shah who whatever his faults was far more advanced, in his treatment of non-Muslims, than any Arab regime could possibley be, and of course far more than the primitives who succeeded him. Israel and Iran and Turkey shared some common enemies and some common interests, and it was understandable that Israelis would not study too closely the doctrines of Islam. Indeed, for years Bat Ye'or was virtually unrecognized in Israel, or given short shrift -- some believe that this short shrift, by Prof. Amnon Cohen and others, may also have been encouraged by Bernard Lewis. As long as Iran and Turkey were allies, it seemed preposterous to find Islam as the source of Arab opposition to Israel.

Still another reason for Israelis not to understand Islam was the phenomenon of the "Palestinian" islamochristian -- Bishop Cappucci, the icon-thief and gun-runner, Hanan Ashrawi, George Habash, and others who were Christians, but dhimmified Christian Arabs, who had thoroughly digested and internalized the Arab Muslim view of Israel, and thinking that this would help deflect Muslim hostility, echoed those views.

Finally, there is the psychological need of many, possibly most, Israelis, the need to believe that this conflict with the Arabs can be solved through acts taken by the Israelis themselves. Although those supporting the withdrawal from Gaza, for nothing in return (not that anything could be offered by Muslims to Infidels save some agreement on the model of Al-Hudaibiyya), like to present themselves as stern realists, who expect little and who "can always go back into Gaza" (what kind of attitude is that to justify negotiations that, like every single treaty or agreement the Israelis have ever made with their enemies, has been the source of further woe for Israel later -- or sooner).

It is obvious that the Israelis, who among all the Infidel peoples should have learned first, and most thoroughly, about the nature of Islam, have done no better, and in some cases a good deal worse, than those other Infidels. For Israelis, unlike Americans, are faced not only with a war without end, but one which they cannot imagine is one in which they can prevail. Alone, they cannot. As part of an aroused Infidel world, they most certainly can -- simply by waiting out the Arabs as, during the Cold War, the Communists of the Soviet Empire were checked where necessary, and waited out, until they themselves became demoralized, divided, and chose to jettison Communism once they fully recognized, first in Eastern Europe, and then in Russia tiself, how it had failed. That is a not impossible outcome for the Infidels now realizing that Islam will not go away, needs to be constrained as Communism was during the Cold War, and its weaknesses exploited and everywhere encouraged.

Of course "first Gaza, then Jerusalem." The subject worthy of analysis is not so much waht the Arab Muslims so obviously want, but the reasons for the failure of the Israelis, and of other Infidels, to admit to themselves what the deepest promptings of the Arabs and Muslims are. May in the West see this catastrophic (to Israeli morale and possibly to Israel's military posture) withdrawal from the Gaza as either "a useful first step" (the clueless E. U.), an "appropriate step toward the "two-state solution" (the hectoring, too-sure-of-herself-in-her-ignorance-of-Islam Condoleeza Rice), or a painful but "necessary means to strengthen Israel's hold elsewhere (the obstinate, bullying, inflexible and thick-in-ever-sense Ariel Sharon).

One hopes that the United States will learn far more quickly than the Israelis what Islam is all about. It is a pity, of course, that the Western world seems likely to learn about the Jihad and what prompts it, and what is the only way to deal with it, just as the Western world learned about the Nazis -- too late, that is, for the Jews, either those of Europe, or perhaps, those of Israel. One would like to think that the Israelis themselves will come to their senses rather quickly in the next few months. But given their dismal record, anything is possible.

Posted by: Hugh at August 9, 2005 5:44 PM

Don't believe you lying eyes: From LGF:

The Shredder is worried:

IAEA Springs Into Action
Even some European leaders are beginning to openly express fear about Iran’s nuclear aspirations. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said today, “I am worried about Iran’s current policy.”

In a sign of the increasing seriousness of the global community, the International Atomic Energy Agency is considering issuing a new warning.

VIENNA, Austria - Iran’s president said Tuesday he will submit new proposals in negotiations over his country’s nuclear program but denounced a European offer of aid as an “insult,” as the U.N. nuclear agency tried to resolve the crisis without referring Tehran to the Security Council.

While the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board considered a new warning to a defiant Iran to suspend its atomic activities, fresh areas of concern emerged Tuesday.

An exiled dissident said Iran recently produced 4,000 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons grade. Alireza Jafarzadeh, who helped uncover details of Iran’s program in 2002 that fueled U.S. suspicions the country was trying to build a nuclear bomb, told The Associated Press the centrifuges are ready to be installed at the nuclear facility in Natanz.

Not to worry! Intrepid supersleuth Mohamed ElBaradei is on the case.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he hoped the standoff was “simply a hiccup in the process and not a permanent rupture.”

“We have made a very good progress in the last couple of years with regard to clarifying Iran’s past nuclear activities,” ElBaradei said. “The important thing is to go back to the negotiating process and avoid any escalation of the situation.”

Posted by: Terminator at August 9, 2005 7:06 PM

Terminator,
Do you post at LGF? What is your nic?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 9, 2005 9:16 PM

I have to agree with Hugh on this one-

The Israelis are pursuing the unspeakable for an outcome that is inedible.

I have always thought that Israel made its snowballing original error in 1967 (when they won that minor 'war", reclaimed the Wailing Wall, and made other crucial historical territorial gains) when they chose NOT to expel ALL of the "Palestinians" right then. (Into the Sinai, perhaps.) With victory fresh and their power at its height. Ridding the land of an intolerable "fifth column" who would ONLY bring terror, and ALL-TOO-PREDICTABLY aid in the endless infiltration of outside jihadists.

The world would have howled, but then what else did they ever do if Israel was successful?

When the Israelis missed this opportunity to secure some rational borders, and end the lunacy of this absurd condition of a "pre-invaded" nation, their future was guaranteed to degenerate into what is has become: pointless appeasement and endless attacks.

(The Israel-Palestine 'problem', of course, goes back to the U.N. formulation of the original "states". Nothing could have ever arisen from this "splattered bugs"-shaped "two state" folly but exactly what has occured: endless conflict. Until they re-address this root idiocy, the rest is just re-arranging deck chairs in a cyclotron.)

1967 passed, and their last real chance to re-form a secure, un-infiltrated state was let slip away.

Now they pay for their 'reasonable' pussyfooting.

A classic folie circulaire.

Meanwhile-

I have to spend my worry on problems with some possiblity of a solution in this millenium.

Like Iran's pursuit of one of the horses of the Apocalypse.

The charger named Yellowcake.

And how we can 'cut their saddle straps'.

Dumping them into the dust.

Bin.

Of.

History.

Posted by: BigSleep at August 9, 2005 11:26 PM

Israel is unfortunately in a no-win situation. If it pulls out, it emboldens the terrorists. If it doesn't pull out, it infuriates the terrorists. One thing is for certain: Israel will always be an enemy of the Muslim world even if it were to fulfill all Palestinian demands. Many Muslims would welcome the annihilation of Israel (as do anti-Semites worlwide). There is no logic behind this hatred.

India faces a similar problem with Kashmir. If India were to grant Kashmir independence, it would likely be engulfed by Pakistan which would install nuclear batteries there. If India does not grant independence, the extremists continue to murder innocent Muslims and Hindus.

The "Islamic Bomb" now in the hands of Pakistan and soon in the hands of Iran as well will be sought by radicals to be used against Israel and India. Whether Israel and India acquiesce to the bigots or not.

Barry Kumar

Posted by: barry at August 10, 2005 2:41 AM

am i to assume that the 8,000 isrealis being evicted are leaving behind their houses, farms, orchards, etc, or are they being bulldozed? are the palestinians being handed a ready-made civil infrastructure, in essence a jumpstart towards being a productive community? i would be interested to see how they treat this. will they
take this gift and run with it or will they let it decay into the usual arab squalor. or were the isrealis basically building forts?

another point: after the usual celebrations, self-congrats, and that irritating ululation, it won't take 10 minutes for the next demands to surface, this was a giveaway, BUT;

Mackey: to be continued? there has to be a plan behind this. and you're right, clear the "field of fire" of friendly civilians and your job is that much easier.

Posted by: t-ham at August 10, 2005 10:18 AM

"Today your love, tommorrow the world!"
There should be a push-in, not a pull-out!

Posted by: Dumbo at August 10, 2005 12:47 PM