AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Gaza: ebb and flow
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
quick blurb here as i wanted to get a quick thought out...

i am listening to Laura Ingrahams show,and there is a guest speaker on. he just read a news update about how an Israeli who has chosen to stay in Gaza and fight for his home, grabbed a assault rifle and shot, in cold blood, a group of Palestinians. i don't have any links top it yet, I'm still searching to verify.

but something occurred to me. i have always had a hard time determining an opinion about the Israel/Palestinian situation; its too complex, and i don't know enough...

but lets say that this withdrawal has some merit to it, that it might actually serve in the best interest of Israel.

what would some of those benefits be?

when i heard this story,and if it is true, it might actually succeed in killing off some of the "extremist" Jews who are giving the nation of Israel a bad name.

now, it could create more sympathy for the Zionists, but couldn't it also serve to trim the fat, get rid of some excess baggage?

i don't understand Sharon's 180, so i assume there is some good that is in this withdrawal.
Quote:The day has arrived. We begin the most painful step of all - evacuating our communities from the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria. I, like many others, hoped that we could hold on to Netzarim and Far Dar om forever. However, the changing reality in this country, in this region, and in the world, required a different assessment.

More than a million Palestinians live in Gaza, and they double their numbers with every generation. They live in cramped refugee camps, hotbeds of ever-increasing hatred, with no hope on the horizon.

The unilateral Disengagement Plan, which I announced two years ago, is the Israeli answer to this reality. The ID [Israel De fence Forces] will redeploy on defensive lines behind the Security Fence. Those who continue to fight us will meet the full force of the security forces.

We await the Palestinian response - a hand offered in peace or continued terrorist fire. To a hand offered in peace, we will respond with an olive branch. But if they choose fire, we will respond with fire, more severe than ever.
Residents of the Gaza Strip, today marks the end of a glorious chapter in the story of Israel, and a central chapter in the story of your lives as pioneers who bore the security burden for all of us. Your pain is an inseparable part of the history of this country. Whatever disagreements we have, we will not abandon you, and will do everything in our power to rebuild your lives.

Soldiers of the ID: standing before you is a difficult mission, not an enemy but your brothers and sisters. Sensitivity and patience are the order of the hour. I am certain that this is how you will behave. I want you to know: the entire nation stands behind you and is proud of you.

Citizens, I initiated this plan because I believe it is vital for Israel. We are embarking on a new path which has many risks, but also a ray of hope for all of us. With the help of God, may this path be one of unity and not division, of mutual respect and not animosity, of unconditional love and not baseless hatred. I will do my utmost to ensure that it will be so.

(Ariel Sharon - televised address 16/08/05)
When Sharon was in the military, his job was to whip the Arabs, which he did effortlessly. And when he was a politician, he was scratching and clawing to reach the top. In order to get there, he has to be the perfect hawk in all things. This meant forcing settlements in areas that were not strategically advantageous. The idea was to keep building and pushing.

But now that he is on the top of the heap, and holds the ultimate responsibility, he is looking at thing differently, and this is natural. now he sees a lot of holes in his strategy. So he is trying to act responsibly and placate all sides, INCLUDING Israel's patron, the US.

So that is why he is not looking different from his early man. It is only natural.
i think its a good choice to make, personally.

this way it will highlight the acts of Hamaas and Hezbollah in the light of an Israeli evacuation. i think it will also embolden the Terror Orgs, which will remain to be seen how effective their propaganda will be, as I'm sure the UN isn't helping any making the banners and contributing to these propagandists.

but its a start over, isn't it?

i mean, form here, we can finally (again) say that everyone is on neutral ground and open the talks for a permanent solution?
Selecting the pullout date to coincide with the greatest tragedies in Jewish history is interesting. No way do I believe no one pointed out to the policy-makers that the date is the Ninth of Av in the Jewish calendar - the date of the destruction of the First and Second Temples of Jerusalem, the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman exiles, European Catholic Crusades, Spanish and Portuguese Catholic Inquisitions, Ukrainian Chmelnitzki massacres, Nazi German Genocide ("Holocaust"), the current Rosh HaShanah War/Philistine Chaos ["Palestine Authority"] Pogrom, and other tragedies that befell the Jewish People.

There is no date in Israeli history with more import to the Israelis.

It was selected to raise it to historic Biblical proportions.

Dr. Amiel Ungar, a lecturer at Judea and Samaria College Ariel, noted that the occupation of Gaza was a byproduct of the '67 War. Before the terror one rarely encountered a roadblock and Palestinians could freely enter Tel-Aviv. Israel entered Judea and Samaria as a result of the war which if she had lost would have led to her extermination. People who launch wars of aggression should not be expected to go back to the starting lines.

He said: "The best way to encourage the Palestinians to make peace is to have them understand that the longer they tarry the less they will get. Given this week's precedent why should they make peace and end the state of occupation if they can expect to receive everything and even get the State Department to thank them for their munificence in accepting Gaza on a platter."

"...there is something morally unbalanced in the assumption that areas under Arab sovereignty must be judenrein in the name of ethnic homogeneity but Israel must host a sizable Arab population. Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party will fight the next election on a platform that will swap areas such as Uhm el Fahm with a sizable Arab population for Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria. If there is to be a two state solution let it at least be one where Israel has a homogeneously Jewish population.

"...Reciprocity is the key. Not only are live Jews expected to leave Gaza but we must take our dead as well. This buttresses the Arab fallacy that they truly belong and we are Crusader like transients."

Perhaps one of the long-range goals of this Gaza Pullout is a future swap of Jerusalem for contiguous lands for Palestinians.
Wm Wrote:Perhaps one of the long-range goals of this Gaza Pullout is a future swap of Jerusalem for contiguous lands for Palestinians.

Huh?

Stratfor, incidentally, is very pessimistic about the pullout results.
2 views of it

1)It is an Israeli abdication to the radical Hamas,with attendant security losses.

2)It frees up the IDF to stop having to constantly protect Israeli citizens in an area that is never going to be Israel and it relieves the state of any concern for Jewish civilians when they decide next time to knock the snot out of these Philistines.

Sharon,as JL states,spent his life in the field protecting Jews against Arabs,he is hardly becoming a softy,IMO.
You may find David Warren's explanation interesting and educational...as an example of unbased optimisim running amok...

Warren usually is quite good, but not this time.

I'm linking via an FR thread where essentially everyone found *different* things to disagree with. One of the guesses was that Sharon has been blackmailed by the Israeli leftists over his financial dealings; a more likely possibility is that the blackmailer was Junior, who, thanks to WoT, has a good access to international financial records.
Stratfor seems to have forgotten Occam's razor.

The Jewish settlers in Gaza were just targets of opportunity, protected at an enormous cost - that protection being as big a propaganda tool as this removal from their homes. The Palestinians who will rush into the area as soon as they can will definitely make political coin from this.

What Sharon gets is not blackmail protection - but a chess set with an advancing wall of black pawns taken out of action by sacrificing a few white ones. Now he can move his power pieces around without anchoring his queen and rooks to protect against pawns. The black pawns are blocked from attack, and only get in the way of Black's own power pieces. Yes, they are still on the board - but now they are not preventing White from setting up new lines of attack with more interconnected and supported opportunities.

To complete the metaphor - the winner may be whoever has the most brilliant talent - but the law of averages says the better strength on the board is what will most probably create the victory.
WmLambert Wrote:Stratfor seems to have forgotten Occam's razor.

The Jewish settlers in Gaza were just targets of opportunity, protected at an enormous cost - that protection being as big a propaganda tool as this removal from their homes. The Palestinians who will rush into the area as soon as they can will definitely make political coin from this.

What Sharon gets is not blackmail protection - but a chess set with an advancing wall of black pawns taken out of action by sacrificing a few white ones. Now he can move his power pieces around without anchoring his queen and rooks to protect against pawns. The black pawns are blocked from attack, and only get in the way of Black's own power pieces. Yes, they are still on the board - but now they are not preventing White from setting up new lines of attack with more interconnected and supported opportunities.

To complete the metaphor - the winner may be whoever has the most brilliant talent - but the law of averages says the better strength on the board is what will most probably create the victory.

i hate chess.
I coach soccer coaches the same way. Control of space is a primary goal. i.e.: When setting up corner-kick set-pieces, players begin their runs from disguising positions - but when it is time for the ball to be delivered they will arrive to control specific spaces on a predesignated open or closed echelon.

Again - the scheme does not guarantee anything - but a properly-run play sure enhances the probability of a good outcome.
i hate soccer.
I bet you really don't - but are uncomfortable with being unfamiliar with it and holding unsubstantiated preconceived notions that bother you.

Almost all the kids I've ever coached (high-level athletes) were good at all sports and preferred soccer over our more traditional ones. I was Captain of my High School football team and all-conference in both football and baseball (I thought I might go pro in baseball - too small at under 200 lbs to play Defensive End at Michigan.) and only learned and played soccer as an adult. Having played and coached all the sports - I have to say I'm a convert.

Watching or participating in a soccer game is so much more exciting than either football, baseball, basketball, or hockey that there is little doubt why it is the world's most popular sport. My own kids are better athletes than I ever was, and also agree on soccer as a great sport.
my first realization of Military tactics came when i was reading a book with some experts form Patton in it. in the experts, he talked about cutting across the enemies axis, it effectively cuts their line of supplies, forces them to maintain a defensive posture all while giving the attacking side control of the kill box. you can then set the agenda, and destroy the enemy as you will.

it took some time to sink in, but when i finally got it, i applied it to other areas i encountered in my life. it taught me the existence of a 3-dimensional world of thought, where a more evolved mind is dominant, and the physical opponent is left with a natural and unconcealable defensive posture of having to defend that which you are fighting for.

everyhting you swallow up will require defensive measures.

when i applied this to our current enemy, the Guerrilla Terrorist, i came to realize his line of axis IS his existence. he exists to attack his base, he has no land or territory to worry about defending, and can often overcome the superior force of OUR army by getting inside our cycle.

we react to them rather than they react to us.

we have done a good job by forcing the enemy to converge into our kill boxes, but for the most part, we are relying on Intel to capture suspects, rather than fighting a column of soldiers with an explicit supply line.

our enemy is getting weapons from everywhere, they're in no short supply. they apparently have a large base form which to recruit, and while it serves in our interests to suck Jihadis into Iraq to be slaughtered, it cant go on forever, and we will have to leave Iraq at some point. they have an excellent on the job training program, and is just as effective at finding raw recruits into suicide attacks as we are of encouraging the Youth to sign up for a life long career in the Military.

my point, is this.

land lost in a tug of war like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will do nothing to end their conflict. they both seem to be engaged in a war of Ideology, while the blame largely lies in Arab hands, the taint of Zionism isn't exactly endearing allies to their cause. who gives up what lands or who conquers who's invading Army isn't going to bring an end to infatadas and jihads. Iran and Saudi Arabia have shown how to fight abroad without the use of their conventional forces. they get to set their global agenda, all while keeping their troops at home.

what would it bother if we really withdrew from these territories, enforced our own borders with the active military, and used what would amount to mercenary Special Forces to hunt down and kill the rabble who continue to participate in these conflicts?

is it "letting the terrorists win", or is it fighting this war in the only fashion it can be won?
WmLambert Wrote:Stratfor seems to have forgotten Occam's razor.

The Jewish settlers in Gaza were just targets of opportunity, protected at an enormous cost

I'm actually unsure if this is true or relevant; it might be interesting to check what was the actual cost...Asaik, Gaza settlements were in the middle of the desert, most of protection was in the *availability* of air power.



As for Sharon's chess abilities --- it is far from clear that they are sufficient to ensure his own survival as a PM for long. One large terrorist attack now (either a physical attack by the Pals, or more requests from Rice), and his rating will nosedive. Before long, it will be someone else (Nataniyahu?) left to finish the game.
Well mv, Benny (I think thats his first name), isn't too keen on moving out of Gaza and the West Bank. So if Sharon goes, and Ben comes in, you may see the game never finish for the time being, unless another result is achieved..
Here is Wesley Pruden's take on Sharon and the Gaza pullout.
Quote:what would it bother if we really withdrew from these territories, enforced our own borders with the active military, and used what would amount to mercenary Special Forces to hunt down and kill the rabble who continue to participate in these conflicts?

is it "letting the terrorists win", or is it fighting this war in the only fashion it can be won?
Sounds brillant to me! And, I think it would work IMHO of the female mind.

But, I'm not completely sure that "winning" against the terroristsat this point in time is our side's only objective here. I'm feeling there is something more afoot.
I think we could have already won IF we'd really, really had this as the only objective. Something political is going on behind the scenes, and among several nations..............something connected to, but completely separate from Israel/Palestinian conflict which is merely being encapsulated in this overall something.
However, this is just my uneducated female instinct going here based upon how quickly the victories in the past in this area have been won. What do I know?
more than you think you know, probably.

i think the objective is to reeducate the Middle East. it needs to r organize and re-prioritize in order to maintain itself. if it keeps on in its present fashion, it is destined for oblivion.
I think ghoullio has a point. The culture coming out of the Mideast can be compared to a creature that consumes its environment until it can't support itself. In order to survive it must expand and continually feed upon those places it hasn't yet ruined. The proof of this logic is simple: name any of the 50 Islamic nations that is not teetering on the verge of bankruptcy and ruin. Name one Islamic nation that has a positive trade balance or produces new technologies or services.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5