Evacuating the Gaza Strip

[misskitty]

Hey there everyone,

I keep hearing about the Gaza Strip and how the Israelies are trying to evacuate it. I've tried to watch the news to figure out what's going on, but I have gotten no where. I was wondering if we could discuss what exactly is going on, whose idea it is and what justification they have to do this. And what is all this about a "Midnight Deadline" everyone is talking about?

Lost and confused,
~Kitty

 

[Burnsys]

I gues those right wing jews in the setlers are now experiencing a little of Right wing policies from sharon.

 

[misskitty]

That wasn't quite what I had in mind for an explanation.

 

[stoned]

why are those settlers buldozing and destroying their homes?

 

[misskitty]

I'm not sure, but I would really like to know why. All of this began happening a few days ago. The news channels have been trying to cover it, but they are doing a poor job of it.

This morning as I was watching the news the brief segment on the goings on should the military forces attempting to push through a line of civilians who had joined arms to keep them out. There was not gun fire or fist fighting or anything like that. No one died or was said to be injured. However there were many people crying and fighting to keep the military out. The elusive 'Midnight deadline' was also mentioned. Other than that no information was provided and the station switched to the ex-president's cd compilation of his favorite songs. For some reason I believe the story in the Gaza strip is more important than Clinton's favorite songs.

~Kitty

 

[Monique]

This has been going on for decades.

The military has reached their ultimatum last monday and started evacuating the Jewish settlers (colonists) in the Gaza Strip, Palastinian land. The evacuation right now is voluntary, after the deadline tonight the army is allowed to use force to evacuate the colonists.

 

[Monique]

Here some reading: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/15/gaza.pullout/index.html

 

[Mental Gridlock]

But not all those settlers want to evacuate. Some of them are happy in their home. So Sharon would like to force them out. This is very similar to the Kelo vs. New London contraversy (govt. taking property via eminent domain). Some settlers just don't want to leave from what they consider home, but Sharon wants them to, hence the contraversy. He's been talking about this for months now, but now it is actually coming to pass. Hope this clarifies it. You are right that news coverage on this topic is horrendous and vague so I'm not even 100% myself.

 

[misskitty]

Good to hear from you Monique! It clarrifies it a little bit Mental, but this seems to be an all of a sudden things with the relocation of the settlers. It seems very fast. I know the conflict has been going on for many years but this is the first I have heard of any type of evcuation attempt.

~Kitty

 

[misskitty]

Monique, the link is good. Where are these settlers supposed to go? What is going to happen to the settlements?

~Kitty

 

[sid_galt]

Here is the wiki article on the '67 war which lead to Israel occupying the Gaza strip. Be aware that the article may be biased against either side.

After '67, many Jews moved into the Gaza area. The Palestinians said that they were killing Israeli civilians because Israel had occupied the Gaza strip in '67 and East Jerusaleum. Sharon declared the Gaza pullout plan in '04 (or '05) in exchange for the terror attacks stopping. Mohammad Abbas agreed. Hamas didn't because it wants the death of Israel (link ) and establishment of Islamic theocracy in Palestine and Israel. Now the people living in Gaza are being forced out of their homes.

The attacks are still continuing anyway.

On a personal note, I find it ridiculous that anyone could support Palestine.
1. They are killing Israeli civilians for something their ancestors did.
2. Palestinians have no right criticize the Israeli occupation of Gaza if all they want to do is establish a theocracy there.

 

[misskitty]

Why are the Palestinians so passionate about that one small section of land? Are they even considered to be their own Nation? If they are not soverign and independent then they have no claim to that land.

~Kitty

 

[misskitty]

Sid, on your personal note, I happen to agree with you.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Why are the Palestinians so passionate about that one small section of land? Are they even considered to be their own Nation? If they are not soverign and independent then they have no claim to that land.

~Kitty

Being rational has nothing to do with it.

 

[misskitty]

That's true. However I can't see what justification they have for that specfic plot of land. I believe it has something to do with a Biblical promise of land, but that was on the Jewish side in the Torah. The Palestinians are Muslim and when I studied that religion I don't remember reading anything about a Biblical promise of land to the Islamic people from Allah. I could be wrong.

Palestinians have not claim to that land. Maybe there is something wrong with me since I can't understand why they are acting in this manner.

~Kitty

 

[BobG]

It's a long history of two groups of people who, at one time, were both pretty weak. The entire area used to belong to the Ottoman Empire of Turkey until WWI, when the British became responsible for it. The British waffled back and forth on what to do with the area depending on world events. At one time, the area was supposed to turn into Palestine. Proposals for a split or combined Jewish/Palestinian nation were floated around, as well. As the world got closer to the start of WWII, the British went back to the idea of the area becoming a Palestinian nation, since the British wanted Arab support during WWII.

After the war, the British and the UN decided on both a Jewish nation and a Palestinian nation (I guess Arab support during WWII didn't meet expectations). The Palestinians rejected that idea. Mainly because they had an overwhelming majority and more power than the Jewish population, didn't want a Jewish nation in the first place, plus the borders drawn up by the British were ludicrous - gerrymandering may work for dividing up a congressional district, but it works pretty poor for establishing national borders, especially when the area isn't even continuous. The Jews accepted the British proposition, but only since it was a lot better than they were likely to get by any other means. A war over Israel broke out between Israelis, Europeans, and Americans against Palestinians and Arabs, with the end result being a Jewish country, Israel, getting the entire area (except for the West Bank of the Jordan River, which Jordan hung onto) and the Palestinians getting nothing. The Palestinians had no nation and weren't accepted by neighboring countries, so you've had a Palestinian refugee problem since around 1948.

Israel fought against Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan kind of sporadically. One those sporadic wars was over the Suez Canal in 1956. The idea was for Israel to invade the Sinai Peninsula, then Britain and France could step in and maintain the peace. That would put the Suez Canal under international control instead of Egyptian control (ironically, the US squashed that idea by threatening to sell off all of its holdings in British currency and bonds).

In 1967, things heated up again. Ironically, bad intel contributed to a war that probably didn't have to happen in the first place. The Soviet Union provided Egypt with bad intel that indicated Israeli troops were building up on the Syrian border. In response, Egypt closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, a move that would destroy Israel's economy. Additionally, Egypt started building up either to defend their border or to invade Israel. Israel didn't wait to find out. Israel responded by destroying the Egyptian Air Force in a single day, then invading Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon and defeating all four countries in just six days. The Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the West Bank were all territories the Israelis won in the Six Day War.

After years of negotiating, the Israelis are finally relinquishing the land they won nearly 40 years ago.

Who's right or wrong about the original issue, how to divide up Britain's former colony into one or two countries, is hard to say. Both sides were weak and both would have been handed a bad situation that was almost guaranteed to result in conflict. The winner-take-all philosophy after Israel's independence didn't do much to ensure peace, either.

After nearly forty years of living as refugees, the current deal doesn't look so bad to the Palestinians any more, even though it's much worse than what they were originally given right after WWII. Considering how long it seems to take for nations to forget past defeats, I wouldn't bank on it bringing long term peace, even if it might at least bring a few years peace.

 

[russ_watters]

Weren't these territories part of Egypt and Jordan prior to '67? Have either of these countries made a claim of ownership?

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

Why are the Palestinians so passionate about that one small section of land?

~Kitty

thats a big part of their land.
gurkha-war-horse

 

[russ_watters]

That's true. However I can't see what justification they have for that specfic plot of land. I believe it has something to do with a Biblical promise of land, but that was on the Jewish side in the Torah. The Palestinians are Muslim and when I studied that religion I don't remember reading anything about a Biblical promise of land to the Islamic people from Allah. I could be wrong.

Palestinians have not claim to that land. Maybe there is something wrong with me since I can't understand why they are acting in this manner.

~Kitty

Both sides have claims to the land, whether from the Bible, from previously living there, or whatever. But that is only slightly relevant to the tactical situation today.

The tactical situation today is that Israel and her surrounding Arab neighbors are engaged in a sort of war and until recently, neither side was willing to concede anything to get peace started. Israel has decided to unilaterally (ie, with no promies of peace from their enemies) remove these settlers and give back the land (to whom, I'm not certain). The ball is now in the arabs' court - do they make an overture toward peace or don't they? There have been some disturbing signals: terrorist groups are saying that this concession is a victory for terrorism, which may signal an increase in terrorism in the coming months. If they do that, however, the gloves come off for Israel and they may start an all-out war.

The current situation holds some promise, but there is also great risk.

edit: The risk here is greater for the Palestinians and other neighboring Arabs than it is for Israel. Israel is a stable, prosperous, and militarily strong country who'se existence is not challengeable. Most of the surrounding Arab countries are poor, unstable, and weak and risk further upheaval (or, almost as bad, prolonging their 3rd world status). And the Palestinians' main risk is for another generation to die without having their dream of a Palestinian homeland realized.

 

[TRCSF]

Both sides have claims to the land, whether from the Bible, from previously living there, or whatever. But that is only slightly relevant to the tactical situation today.

The tactical situation today is that Israel and her surrounding Arab neighbors are engaged in a sort of war and until recently, neither side was willing to concede anything to get peace started. Israel has decided to unilaterally (ie, with no promies of peace from their enemies) remove these settlers and give back the land (to whom, I'm not certain). The ball is now in the arabs' court - do they make an overture toward peace or don't they? There have been some disturbing signals: terrorist groups are saying that this concession is a victory for terrorism, which may signal an increase in terrorism in the coming months. If they do that, however, the gloves come off for Israel and they may start an all-out war.

The current situation holds some promise, but there is also great risk.

Eh, I don't think Israel is being as generous as they appear. They're only relinquishing territories of small value that are of great expense to defend. From what I understand they're expanding in other territories.

 

[russ_watters]

Eh, I don't think Israel is being as generous as they appear. They're only relinquishing territories of small value that are of great expense to defend.

Its a token gesture, for sure, but it is a step forward - something their enemies have been utterly unwilling to do.

From what I understand they're expanding in other territories.

Not sure what you mean there - Israel hasn't taken any new territories in decades.

 

[Smurf]

Why are the Palestinians so passionate about that one small section of land? Are they even considered to be their own Nation? If they are not soverign and independent then they have no claim to that land.

How do you reason that? A large segment of a population have no claim to land just because no government represents them?

 

[TRCSF]

Its a token gesture, for sure, but it is a step forward - something their enemies have been utterly unwilling to do. Not sure what you mean there - Israel hasn't taken any new territories in decades.

They're expanding their other settlements.

As for token gestures, they're token gestures.

 

[Smurf]

On a personal note, I find it ridiculous that anyone could support Palestine.
1. They are killing Israeli civilians for something their ancestors did.

It's not a matter of revenge sid. The Palestinians have no home, no country will accept them and they've been nothing but refugees for generations, the youth are born refugees because they have no where to go. Keep in mind the Israeli's are shooting and killing them too, it's not like they suddenly picked up guns and shouted "Let's kill israeli's because we lost face a few decades ago" it's been an ongoing conflict and people have continued to die through it all.

2. Palestinians have no right criticize the Israeli occupation of Gaza if all they want to do is establish a theocracy there.

That's better than Israel, which has no right to it at all. And I believe the palestinians have the right to autonomy, autonomy of their choosing. Besides, right now what they have is less than a Theocracy, just anarchy.

 

[TRCSF]

That's better than Israel, which has no right to it at all. And I believe the palestinians have the right to autonomy, autonomy of their choosing. Besides, right now what they have is less than a Theocracy, just anarchy.

Is the PLO any less secular than the Israeli government?

 

[Yonoz]

Nice work BobG, but you have some factual errors in your description of the event. I also disagree with non-factual statements.

After the war, the British and the UN decided on both a Jewish nation and a Palestinian nation (I guess Arab support during WWII didn't meet expectations).

Or you could also guess the world realized Jews deserved a homeland after the holocaust.

...plus the borders drawn up by the British were ludicrous - gerrymandering may work for dividing up a congressional district, but it works pretty poor for establishing national borders, especially when the area isn't even continuous. The Jews accepted the British proposition, but only since it was a lot better than they were likely to get by any other means.

Fact: Modern day Palestinians were not organised in any way at that time, and could not accept or reject it. Rather it was the Arab nations that rejected the partition plan. I would even go as far as to claim there was no Palestinian people at that time, though many would disagree with that statement.
Fact: Much of the area proposed for the Jewish State was uninhabitable desert, thus you cannot judge the fairness of the plan on land mass alone.
I think claiming a proposed border is "ludicrous" is a rather opinionated way of describing this disagreement. I also disagree with your description of the reasoning for the acceptance of the partition plan on either sides.

A war over Israel broke out between Israelis, Europeans, and Americans against Palestinians and Arabs, with the end result being a Jewish country, Israel, getting the entire area (except for the West Bank of the Jordan River, which Jordan hung onto) and the Palestinians getting nothing.

Fact: The European and American powers played no role in the Israel War of Independence, other than the British who were still in control during the first stage of the war that consisted of civil hostilities.
Fact: Israel did not get "the entire area" - far from it. Some Jewish settlements were lost and the area left under Egyptian or Syrian control. Furthermore, Jerusalem was parted between Israel and Jordan. The territories that were meant to become the Palestinian Nation were under the control of the neighbouring Arab nations - who preferred keeping them their own, rather than giving the Palestinians their own country as per the UN Partition plan.

Both sides were weak and both would have been handed a bad situation that was almost guaranteed to result in conflict. The winner-take-all philosophy after Israel's independence didn't do much to ensure peace, either.

You describe the situation as if Israel won all and gave nothing. First, Israel did not "win all" as I've explained earlier. Second, most the land meant for the Palestinians was held by Arab nations who chose to keep it.
The civil hostilities before the full-fledged war distinguished between hostile and friendly Arab villages. Surely you do not think the newly formed state, barely able to defend itself, should have allowed those who attempted to destroy it to return to the same strongpoints they used to attack and besiege its citizens...
Those peaceful Palestinians living in territories that fell under Jewish control are today full Israeli citizens. They were treated fairer and better then African-Americans by some US states and Aboriginies by the Australian government. I do not think one can describe this as a "winner takes all philosophy".

After nearly forty years of living as refugees, the current deal doesn't look so bad to the Palestinians any more, even though it's much worse than what they were originally given right after WWII.

This is no deal. It is a unilateral move, because of the Israeli public's distrust of the Palestinians following the Oslo accords and the subsequent violence.

 

[Yonoz]

Eh, I don't think Israel is being as generous as they appear. They're only relinquishing territories of small value that are of great expense to defend.

These people are not leaving their homes willingly. I suppose you view tearing tens of thousands of peaceful residents from their homes and crops for the past 30 years as ungenerous. Had Israel done this to Palestinians, it would have been termed "ethnic cleansing".

 

[Yonoz]

Is the PLO any less secular than the Israeli government?

I believe you mean the PA, not the PLO. They are secular, however in the recent elections Hamas - a radical religious movement - gained the majority of the votes in large parts of the strip.

 

[arildno]

Or you could also guess the world realized Jews deserved a homeland after the holocaust.

Not at the expense of people already living there, whether they constituted a "state" or not. What Jews suffered during Holocaust, is in this context IRRELEVANT.

A much better proposal would have been to clear out prime regions in Germany to constitute a Jewish state, for example by expelling all Bavarians from their county.

 

[TRCSF]

I believe you mean the PA, not the PLO. They are secular, however in the recent elections Hamas - a radical religious movement - gained the majority of the votes in large parts of the strip.

Yes, the PA. Thanks.

 

[TRCSF]

These people are not leaving their homes willingly. I suppose you view tearing tens of thousands of peaceful residents from their homes and crops for the past 30 years as ungenerous. Had Israel done this to Palestinians, it would have been termed "ethnic cleansing".

More like 8,000 people, most of whom are leaving peacefully. The ones creating the problems are rightwing nationalist agitators that are busing in.

As for Israel displacing Palestinians, I was under the impression that's what this whole thing started with.

 

[Yonoz]

Not at the expense of people already living there, whether they constituted a "state" or not. What Jews suffered during Holocaust, is in this context IRRELEVANT.

No one claimed it to be at their expense. The Jewish settlement in Palestine was peaceful and lands were bought legally from their owners.
I do think the holocaust is relevant [EDIT] in the context of its right of existence [/EDIT] because it proved to Jews and the world there is a need for a Jewish State. It is however irrelevant in the [EDIT] context [/EDIT] of its location.

A much better proposal would have been to clear out prime regions in Germany to constitute a Jewish state, for example by expelling all Bavarians from their county.

There was already Jewish settlement in Palestine. I do not think ethnic cleansing is a solution to genocide. Furthermore, many German Jews are even today unwilling to set foot on German soil or speak a word of German.

 

[arildno]

Yeah, very peaceful!
And Moshe Dayan was a dove who never led massacres on civilian populations.
Please, spare me..

 

[Wardw]

Ok let's throw this into the ring and see who bites.
Firstly, I am not anti semetic, let's get that clear. But after following this issue since the late 70's, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps Israel should never have been allowed to come into existence. Truman was not a great supporter. Who was pushing the collective guilt issue. Was Europe happy just to finally be able to" get rid of" them once and for all. The reality is that Jews were not well liked in Europe...why? I'm too young to know.
If the claim that Israel was given by god is the only proof of claim, then we are all lost.
Even most religons and theologians now accept the first testament as a "cute" little series of myths and nothing more.
If we all started staking claim using similar criteria we would all wind up back in the trees.
The high level of US and British financial support for Israel seems to me somewhat unatural, as is the great Israeli lie about nuclear technology.
Why why why...Oil Oil Oil...Control Control Control.

 

[Yonoz]

More like 8,000 people, most of whom are leaving peacefully.

Those leaving peacefully are doing so under protest. They are not leaving willingly. Maybe the lack of violence confuses you - not everyone in the Middle East is a savage.

As for Israel displacing Palestinians, I was under the impression that's what this whole thing started with.

How cynical, and still untrue.