Gaza: ebb and flow

[ghoullio]

Turkey?

i don't know much about it, but it seems to be a relatively stable and democratic nation...

[SoloNav]

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.

So, to simplify, you are saying that Sharon is taking two steps and advancing one step, in order to gain the one step?
Similar to what Tait, I think, said? That he is removing the proclaimed justification for the tension in that area so as to expose the real objective of the Palestians, which is just to destroy and conquer, under any excuse available? And, I will add: for their own consumption since they cannot advance technologically under their own achievements d/t their being such a primitive and outdated society?

[SoloNav]

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.

Educate me here. Would Iran qualify? Or, are they just consumers of the Western culture?

[WmLambert]

I guess the caveat must be made that the only wealth coming out of these nations is the byproduct of infidels who brought their technology to the backward areas of the Mideast and both discovered the oil, and built the infrastructure to pump it out of the ground for the Islamic owners of the land. At least the Islamic nations were able to build their own fleet of oil tankers and pipe lines to sell their oil... oops!, nope, couldn't do that either.

The problem is innate. The Koran sells infidel=barbarian and that the superiority of the Muslim is unchallengeable. Over the centuries, the Muslim culture has both prohibited and ignored all the major advances from outside its own orb, while producing none of its own. The status quo is one-sided.

The Shah of Iran was pro-Western and brought modernity to Iran - which in turn infuriated the Muslims who overthrew him. Their only advances came as bartered gifts from sponsor/infidel nations.

[SoloNav]

I guess the caveat must be made that the only wealth coming out of these nations is the byproduct of infidels who brought their technology to the backward areas of the Mideast and both discovered the oil, and built the infrastructure to pump it out of the ground for the Islamic owners of the land. At least the Islamic nations were able to build their own fleet of oil tankers and pipe lines to sell their oil... oops!, nope, couldn't do that either.

The problem is innate. The Koran sells infidel=barbarian and that the superiority of the Muslim is unchallengeable. Over the centuries, the Muslim culture has both prohibited and ignored all the major advances from outside its own orb, while producing none of its own. The status quo is one-sided.

The Shah of Iran was pro-Western and brought modernity to Iran - which in turn infuriated the Muslims who overthrew him. Their only advances came as bartered gifts from sponsor/infidel nations.

And, innocents are paying the price both within/without the Arab world. Religion gone wrong, or was it ever right?

[ghoullio]

And, innocents are paying the price both within/without the Arab world. Religion gone wrong, or was it ever right?

whoa whoa whoa!

that's the nuts and bolts, isn't it?

is it harder to sustain an engagement like the one we have before us indefinitely, or is it easier to simply pluck this radicalism from the roots?
the Shiites don't seem to be engaged in killing other Muslims wholesale, it seems to be only a small sect, of them i suspect there are many more secular Muslims than we are being led to believe.

it isn't the Whole of Islam that is bad, merely some of its branches.

was it possible to cut the end off of cruel Christianity without destroying the religion as a whole?

and if Islam IS the source, how does it explain the Muslims living here who join in in deploring these terrible acts of inhumanity?

what is the principal difference between them and the Muslims abroad?

is it simply Western Influence?

[SoloNav]

And, innocents are paying the price both within/without the Arab world. Religion gone wrong, or was it ever right?

whoa whoa whoa!

that's the nuts and bolts, isn't it?

is it harder to sustain an engagement like the one we have before us indefinitely, or is it easier to simply pluck this radicalism from the roots?
the Shiites don't seem to be engaged in killing other Muslims wholesale, it seems to be only a small sect, of them i suspect there are many more secular Muslims than we are being led to believe.

it isn't the Whole of Islam that is bad, merely some of its branches.

was it possible to cut the end off of cruel Christianity without destroying the religion as a whole?

and if Islam IS the source, how does it explain the Muslims living here who join in in deploring these terrible acts of inhumanity?

what is the principal difference between them and the Muslims abroad?

is it simply Western Influence?

WmLambert: "The problem is innate. The Koran sells infidel=barbarian and that the superiority of the Muslim is unchallengeable. Over the centuries, the Muslim culture has both prohibited and ignored all the major advances from outside its own orb, while producing none of its own. The status quo is one-sided. "

The Shah of Iran was pro-Western and brought modernity to Iran - which in turn infuriated the Muslims who overthrew him. Their only advances came as bartered gifts from sponsor/infidel nations."
The reason for the overthrow of the Shah was religious-based, wasn't it? So, which group of Muslims overthrew the Shah? Whoever or whichever group it was hasn't kept Iran from going Western. Sounds more like moderates to me. This group is defininitely not that the same group we are fighting in Iraq, or are we? Educate me here.

[Palladin]

Folks,

Concerning the Gaza settlements,they could never have worked. The reason is Arab mothers have children,Jewish mothers are busy committing demographic suicide like the rest of the west. In order to succeed,you have to have more babies than the enemy,that's how we migrated across this continent,our women had more babies than Indian women,then we had more technology and voila!

The opposite is happening to the Jews,they are not only in a bind in the territories,they are in a hell of a bind in Israel proper long term. Just as Europe is,you can't committ suicide and prevail,simple.

Solo Nav,I understand Iran's revolt was both,cultural and religious. The Shah,unfortunately,had attempted to make Tehran as Paris or Amsterdam. Good looking Persian ladies in hot skirts and high heels,I love it myself,but Abdullah is raised to believe that it might cause him to go to hell,so that ain't acceptable to Abdullah. Thus,the reaction in it's ferocity.

[WmLambert]

The overthrow of the Shah is another one of those legacies left to us by Jimmy Carter. After President Nixon and Henry Kissinger concluded that Iran and Saudi Arabia should be fully supported in its desire to fill the vacuum left by the British as a regional balance of power designed to prevent Soviet intervention in the area without need for U. S. involvement, other than as an arms supplier. President Carter decided differently. He allowed the Twin Pillars policy to wither away because The Shah was considered an autocrat - and the Ayatollah Rouhallah Khomeini was, after all, a religious leader who met Carter's all-important human-rights pedigree.

The Shah was overthrown, and the U.S. scapegoated. The common man wanted a piece of the oil production - so anyone willing to promise them wealth got their support. The Ayatollah was canny and replaced the Shah more by promises of shared wealth than by religiosity. Seizing the hostages seemed to trump all of Carter's vast power cards, and we drifted along under Opec price gouging as an ineffectual giant.

[ghoullio]

and then...? :-s

[Sparhawk]

Gaza controled by Egypt now?

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Egyptian generals take charge of Gaza Strip

August 22, 2005, 1:59 PM (GMT+02:00)

A high-ranking 100-man Egyptian military delegation has taken de facto charge of Palestinian security forces in the Gaza Strip and is handling talks with Hamas to avert an outbreak of terrorist violence. DEBKAfile’s military sources report General Ibrahim Shukri heads the team of three Egyptian generals and several colonels and majors. The same general also led the probe of the October 15, 2004 al Qaeda Taba bombings. His appointment betokens Cairo’s anxiety over the threat of al Qaeda terror infiltration of the Gaza Strip.

Our sources add that all Palestinian operations, including the deployment of 24 battalions in the evacuated territory are coordinated with Israel indirectly through a direct channel set b y by General Shukri and Israel’s Shin Beit HQ.

A second Egyptian general, Muhammed Ibrahim, is in close communication with the Hamas to guard against wildcat action including gunfire on Israeli targets. General Mustafa Bakri has taken practical command of Palestinian security and intelligence units in Gaza. The other members of the Egyptian team have divided Gaza into sectors and assumed command of the Palestinian battalions.

They have installed their own communications and logistics networks in the Egyptian embassy building in Gaza.

The high-powered Egyptian military presence has all but edged Palestinian chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his ministers out of the game. Egyptian officers in command of the Palestinian units call the interior minister Nasser Yousef by the contemptuous Nasser Yuosif meaning Nasser the Sad Case or Mr. Useless. Israeli officers in dialogue with Palestinian opposite numbers check first with the Egyptian officers for their approval of agreements.

Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia visit to Damascus Sunday, Aug 21, was ordered by Gen. Bakri. He was told to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad to force the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to let the Israeli pullout go through without interference.

And Jordan reasserting sovernty of the West Bank?

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Jordan’s King Abdullah warns Israel against unilateral Gaza-type steps on the West Bank

August 22, 2005, 12:43 AM (GMT+02:00)

In notes to US president Bush and Israeli PM Sharon over the weekend, the king warned that any further steps, including Israeli withdrawals from West Bank territory, would be deemed violations of the 1995 Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty - if coordinated only with Washington and the Palestinians. He stressed Jordan would not put up with a Israel-Palestinian settlement that failed to address Jordan’s sovereignty, its interests in the Jordan river basin and the border crossings and in shared strategic issues, such as security and water resources.

DEBKAfile adds: the Jordanian warning was prompted by deep concern over the side-effects of the expulsion of Israeli communities from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria. Amman fears their ripple effect next door to the kingdom on the West Bank. In particular -

1. The king was disconcerted by the words of US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice last week, when she said: Everyone empathizes with what the Israelis are facing, but it cannot be Gaza only. This is taken in Amman to mean that Washington will squeeze Israel hard to pursue further withdrawals in favor of the Palestinians while leaving Jordan out of the picture.

2. Amman fears Washington may demand that Israel forego its control of the Jordan River border crossings too, should a precedent of this kind be set on the Gaza-Egyptian border. Jordan refuses to hear of Palestinians controlling the bridges and the Jordan River valley.

3. Jordan’s king is further disturbed by the possibility of Israel permitting free Palestinian passage from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, lest a land bridge be formed between Gaza and the Jordanian Palestinian community, which already includes 350,000 Gazan refugees.

4. Amman sees Egypt assuming a command role in the Gaza Strip after the Israeli pull-out. Cairo will not be permitted to extend its domain to the West Bank which the Hashemite throne historically and traditionally regards as its back yard.

So much for an independent Palestinian state. This is better.

[mv]

Concerning the Gaza settlements,they could never have worked. The reason is Arab mothers have children,Jewish mothers are busy committing demographic suicide like the rest of the west.

Not exactly right. Jewish birth rate *in the settlements* is nearly the same as Arabs.

And Jordan reasserting sovernty of the West Bank?

I think you misread the Jordan part. Abdullah *does not want* the Pals. For Egypt, Gazans is a small % comparing to the overall Egypt population; for Jordan with its 70% Pal majority already, more Pals means a big headache.



There was a rumor that Jordan entered the 1967 war with the goal of *losing* West Bank; if the current withdrawal actually means returning Gaza to Egypt, perhaps Sharon is sane after all.

[WmLambert]

ghoullio said: "...don't seem to be engaged in killing other Muslims wholesale"

That does not make Shi'ites different than other Muslims who are bound by Shia Law and the direct instructions of the Koran. All Islamic cultures are supposed to follow the Koran unchanged. They are not allowed to have separate sects. Part of the feud between Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds is the ultimate knowledge that only one group is the real Islam and all the others must be corrected. On top of that though, Muslims as a group, hold all non-Muslims as infidels and are considered barbarians. It is a mark of propriety to lie to infidels and treat them with disrespect.

Wholesale killing is part and parcel with Islam. It is spread by fire and the sword - not by faith.

[mv]

Part of the feud between Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds is the ultimate knowledge

Kurds are a nation, not a religion. Most of them are, incidentally, Sunnis, and quite a lot (1mil) are angel-worshippers (you know, the peacock angel etc )

[Gunnen4u]

I wouldn't call them a nation, but an ethnic groups, unless a Kurdish nation comes about..

[mr_yak]

I was arguing this perspective on another site with one of the other posters here. I had trouble answering the poll and so I did not. It's almost like asking if the amputation of a limb will 'benefit' without actually knowing whether the patient is going to survive. The wagons get drawn in, the hatches get sealed, everyone's suffering gets extended into the future. Bleak.

[mv]

I was arguing this perspective on another site with one of the other posters here.

"here"? but I guess I know what you mean exactly.

"this perspective" suffers from the same problems as every other analysis lately: over-optimism.

A leftist is over-optimistic assuming that pals can be weaned off blood.
A rightist is over-optimistic by seeing this as some kind of smart move from Sharon.

Both are wrong.

[mr_yak]

"this perspective" suffers from the same problems as every other analysis lately: over-optimism.

You have GOT to be kidding. How do you figure Krauthammer as optimistic?? We obviously have very different standards. Over-optimism would be some statement that the PA can actually control the violence or create their own independent industries and trade or maybe that the "international community" under the leadership of some hypothetical white knight could go in and begin policing/"nation building" the other side of the wall(s). That white knight is busy and when the it's current tasks are complete I seriously doubt that there will be much enthusiasm for the next job for quite a while. Not after paying the price for the current endeavors ... and it will take quite a while to scrape off the spittle that the "international community" has been haucking on the armor. Not the right atmosphere for a new game of nice nice. Not anytime soon anyway. Pulling in the remote sidewalks, hunkering down, waiting for the rockets and shelling to resume ... and beginning the long undefined wait until the next cycle of world leadership comes along ... that strikes you as optimistic??

[Sparhawk]

Maybe thinking there can be any peace at all is overly optimistic

At least 4 Egyptian policemen killed in two bomb attack in Sinai Wedesday and Thursday. Local Bedouin are freely aiding the Islamist terrorists

August 24, 2005, 2:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

Al Qaeda last struck ten days ago, when one of its explosive devices injured two women sergeants, members of the US-led multinational force in Sinai.

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that the investigation of the Aug. 19 rocket attacks on Aqaba and Eilat disclosed that they were executed by the Sinai networks, namely one of the teams run by Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Egypt thereupon built up its Sinai pursuit force to 4,000 men and equipped the units with armored carriers, armored mobile artillery and helicopters. But the force quickly ran into a major problem. The 1.2 million indigenous Sinai Bedouin are in a state of mutiny against the Mubarak regime in Cairo - and his security services in particular - to the point of being willing to aid and abet any anti-Egyptian force including al Qaeda. In consequence, American and Israeli terror experts define security in Sinai as out of control.

They look askance at Ariel Sharon’s unheeding determination to put through the military protocol with Egypt and rely on Egyptian border guards units to police the strategic Gaza-Egyptian border and Philadelphi border route. Intelligence sources warn that, having lost control of security in Sinai, the Egyptians can by no reckoning be counted on as a bulwark against the free flow across those key borders of human terrorist traffic and weapons from Sinai into the Gaza Strip.

[ghoullio]

well, to me, the more attacks on sovereign Islamic nations is fine with me, as it will draw more and more "allies" into the conflict.