Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Israel says: Bush capitulated.

  1. Apr 19, 2004 #1
    Israel says:"Bush capitulated."

    Straight to the Heart
    Der Spiegel
    Published: April 19, 2004

    But the prime minister sees himself as a victor - and he knows that public opinion is on his side. The Israeli newspapers celebrated the summit meeting with the US president with such headlines as "Sharon got everything he wanted," and "Bush capitulated." Sharon, acting on his own, had sealed a sensational deal in Washington. In return for Sharon's removing Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip, the US president gave his blessing to more settlements in the occupied West Bank. One paper even celebrated the triumph in Washington by printing its headline in the national colors, white and blue.

    Will Israel truly withdraw from the Gaza Strip? If one is to believe Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he intends to clear the impoverished, overpopulated Palestinian territory within a year. 7800 settlers, protected by the army, have settled in a region where 1.3 million Palestinians live. This time, unlike 1982, when Israel completely dismantled the Jewish settlements on the Sinai Peninsula under a peace treaty with Egypt, houses and the infrastructure are to be left to the Palestinians - at least according to the "solution plan" Sharon announced on Friday.


    Experts in Israeli domestic politics, such as party researcher Diskin, believe that Sharon is still a long way from defeat: "The man is almost unique is his ability to assert himself and withstand pressure." As far as the Gaza referendum in the Likud block is concerned, the Prime Minister has already dispatched his son Omri to let the party's rank and file know that he will resign if he is not supported.

    Sharon also pressured Bush - by threatening to cancel his trip to Washington at the last minute. He delayed his departure by three hours, until he was certain that the wording of Bush's guarantee would correspond exactly to what he wanted.

    Some comments:
    Gaza: Will Israel truly withdraw from the Gaza Strip? Gaza still be like a concentration camp. There will be NO access to the sea, no boundary with Egypt and a fence. The air-space will still be controlled by the Israel airforce.
    Newspapers proclaim the redraw from Gaza by that's a real joke.

    Bush/Sharon: "until he was certain that the wording of Bush's guarantee would correspond exactly to what he wanted", that makes it clear that Bush has no proper principles, he's just Sharon's puppet on a string. It seems the real axis of power is Sharon/Perle.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2004 #2
    You say that Gaza will still 'be like a concentration camp'.

    Let's look at a map:

    Does anyone know exactly where the pullout will be at? The result could easily be the palestinians have egypt or the sea as a border.

    Oh, and egypt has voiced support for the planned pullout - perhaps sharon is really running egypt too?
  4. Apr 20, 2004 #3
    But Israel would retain control over Gaza's airspace, coastal waters and border with Egypt until it was confident the Palestinian Authority was in control of Gaza and was stamping out activities by militants sworn to Israel's destruction.

    Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected the plan as a sham that would turn the Gaza Strip into "a big prison," and said Israel should turn over control of Gaza's borders to the Palestinian Authority.

    "What is proposed is transforming Gaza Strip into a big prison and maintaining Israel's control [over it]," the Palestinian leadership said in a statement.
    link on gaza


    2. Sharon speaks only of "relocating military installations." He does not use the word "all" as he does in speaking of "Israeli villages and towns" (that is to say, settlements). The American letter speaks of withdrawing from "certain military installations" in Gaza. Critically, both the Israeli and the American letters make clear that military installations can stay in Gaza. As we saw with Oslo, this leaves open the very real possibility that Israel will hold onto a considerable portion of land in Gaza. We already know that Israel intends to maintain control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and sea access. An Israeli military presence is intended for Gazais border with the Sinai. Israel has demolished scores of homes there recently and clearly will maintain a presence there. Which other military installations does Israel intend to maintain in Gaza? How much of the land of Gaza would they actually retain?

    Last week was a sad moment for international diplomacy. The world's two most powerful leaders, Bush and Blair, caved in to the most unscrupulous politician in the Middle East, who was found to be "unfit for public office" by an Israeli inquiry committee after the massacres of Sabra and Shatila in 1982.

    Sharon is not hiding his game. In a recent interview with the leading Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, he said Israelis should see his plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip not as a reward but as a punishment of the Palestinians. He announced that the Palestinians could operate neither a port nor an airport in Gaza, and that Israel intended to keep control of territorial water and airspace. Nor would they have control of the borders. He added that this would delay the discussion of a Palestinian state for many years. He forgot to mention was that Gaza, with its 1.3 million inhabitants, is only about 1% of historic Palestine.

  5. Apr 20, 2004 #4

    Seems fair to me. Why allow planes to be used as weapons as well?
  6. Apr 20, 2004 #5
    Simplistic reasoning.
  7. Apr 20, 2004 #6

    Hardly. Why don't you explain to me why Israel should continue to make concession after concession when groups like Hamas don't just want land back, they want Israel destroyed. If the PLA can't/refuses to try to control them, then Israel has no motivation, and understandably so, to give anything that means a greater threat to them.
  8. Apr 21, 2004 #7
    Posted by pelastration;
    "He announced that the Palestinians could operate neither a port nor an airport in Gaza, and that Israel intended to keep control of territorial water and airspace.."

    So, how do they travel internationally?
    I know, teleportation!

    Israel thinks its fine for them to possess ICBMs, but it's not alright for Palestine to have ships or planes?
    Note that palestine has NO fighter aircraft (in fact no air force), NO Navy etc. etc.

    Phatmonkey, I guess they will construct some paper planes (they could train their suicide bombing children in Origami) and mount some "rock-throwers" on them. EEEkkkk. Israel must be crapping itself about that.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2004
  9. Apr 21, 2004 #8
    Traveling to Egypt would be traveling internationally.
  10. Apr 21, 2004 #9
    (1) But Israel would retain control over Gaza's airspace, coastal waters and border with Egypt until it was confident the Palestinian Authority was in control of Gaza and was stamping out activities by militants sworn to Israel's destruction.

    But: A staff [stick] is quickly [soon] found to beat a dog with. So there will never be Israel's confidence. Gaza will stay a concentration camp for years, and just one small example of what will happen: Israel will down farmers by holding trucks with fresh fruits for days on the borders till the fruits starts rotting. The hard work of months: in the trash (Israel's traditional trick vs the Palestine farmers to destroy export to Europe). After destroying the police forces, files and buildings of the PA, destroy it's administration, also destroy the economic structure. That's how you get people desperate. Than add killing some of your friends and relatives. That's a guaranteed way to create hate. And it works.

    And Sharon, the effective leader of USA and Israel made it clear: "He (Sharon) added that this would delay the discussion of a Palestinian state for many years." (see one of above posts)
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2004
  11. Apr 21, 2004 #10
    Well, since your whole post is based upon actions that you expect Israel to do, then no one can argue with you. There is no debatable topic here in that case.
  12. Apr 21, 2004 #11
    So easy your non answer. Ok, run away.

    First Phatmonky a very simple question: Can you read? You know reading, that thing by looking characters after characters which make words, and strings of words making sentences. Maybe it helps to better understand those difficult ideas when you pronouce verbally next words. Yes you can start now: "He (Sharon) added that this would delay the discussion of a Palestinian state for many years.". I will repeat it, yes you can start now: "He (Sharon) added that this would delay the discussion of a Palestinian state for many years.". And now the last point of the PLAN (yes you can start now): "The withdrawal is planned to be completed by the end of 2005.".

    Next question Phatmonky: Did you notice same discrepance Phatmonky? Got it ?... or do you want me to repeat in next post?

    So it are not only expectations from the blue but the real words PM Sharon himself reflecting his ... intentions on 'doing and finishing the job' and 'staying on course'.

    Next to that we just have to look to the actions Sharon did in the past to know what to 'expect' tomorrow, and i.e. compare old and new maps. For years the Palestine people and it's leaders had trust in the words and promises of US negotiators. Blown away now. Sharon need conflicts to occupy more land. What will be the square size of the Palestine state: Ten square meters?

    And what's that argument you used before:" ...why Israel should continue to make concession after concession ....". What conscession after concession are you talking about? Is there a single one?

    You don't have to be a rocket engineer to understand that next plan contains all loopholes to create more agression. Pure Machiavelli.

    Sharon disengagement plan: Key points

    Here are the main points of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, as published in Israeli newspapers on 16 April 2004.

    Gaza Strip

    • Israel will withdraw from the Gaza Strip, including all the existing Israeli settlements, and will redeploy in territory outside of the Strip.

    • The withdrawal will exclude a military presence in the area along the border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt called "The Philadelphia Corridor".

    • Israel retains the right to expand the area in which military operations are conducted.

    • Israel will exclusively control the airspace of the Gaza Strip, and will continue to carry out military operations in the sea.

    • The Gaza Strip will be demilitarised of weapons whose existence are not in accordance with existing agreements between the two sides.

    • Israel will consider maintaining the status quo of the Erez Industrial Zone, on condition of suitable security arrangements and a clear recognition by the international community that the continuing operation of the industrial zone will not be viewed as a continuation of Israeli control of the area.

    • Alternatively, the industrial zone will be handed over to the responsibility of agreed upon Palestinian or international authorities.

    • Israel will consider, together with Egypt, the possibility of establishing a joint industrial zone on the border of the Gaza Strip, Egypt and Israel

    West Bank

    • Israel will evacuate the settlements of Ganim, Kadim, Homesh and Sanur, and all permanent military installations in this area.

    • The process will allow for a continuous Palestinian territory in the area of the northern West Bank.

    • Israel will continue building the West Bank barrier.

    • Israeli military activity will continue in the areas of the West Bank where Israel retains a presence. If circumstances allow, Israel will consider reducing its activity in Palestinian cities.

    • Israel will work towards reducing the number of checkpoints in the West Bank as a whole.

    Israeli settlements
    • Israel will aim to maintain the assets of Israeli settlements.

    • Israel suggests the establishment of an international body, which will be agreed upon between Israel and the United States, that will take possession of the settlements.

    • Israel retains the right to ask for compensation to the value of all the economic assets that remain in areas from which it withdraws.

    • The infrastructures of water, electricity, waste management and communications serving the settlements and the Palestinians will remain in place.

    Other matters

    • General arrangements currently in place between Israel and the Palestinians will remain in effect, including the entrance of Palestinian workers into Israel and the flow of goods.

    • In the long term, Israel aims to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel.

    • Existing arrangements governing international crossings between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, and the West Bank and Jordan, will remain in place.

    • Israel insists there will be no foreign military presence in the Gaza Strip and/or the West Bank, without co-ordination and without Israeli agreement.

    • Israel retains the basic right to self-defence, including pre-emptive steps and response, with the use of force, against threats emanating from the Gaza Strip and evacuated areas of the West Bank.

    • The withdrawal is planned to be completed by the end of 2005.
  13. Apr 21, 2004 #12
    Goodbye. Hope you are a new person in the next thread.
  14. Apr 28, 2004 #13
    This analysis confirms what I wrote before: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/p09s01-coop.html


    Even after an Israeli withdrawal, terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will still be active in the Gaza Strip, and the absence of a broader settlement will not diminish their desire to attack Israel. Disengagement could even increase the ability of Palestinian terrorists to plan and execute attacks in the short run because Israeli Defense Forces would not be able to respond as quickly or effectively as before.

    Continued Palestinian attacks would give Israel an excuse to renege on its disengagement promise, triggering Israeli military responses against Gaza targets.

    In some cases, Israeli forces might be able to target Palestinian terrorists with attack helicopters, as happened when Israel killed both Yassin and Rantisi in Gaza. In other cases, the Israelis would need to deploy military units to kill or capture terrorists, forcing the soldiers to set up roadblocks, cordon off territory, and increase the likelihood of friction.

    Even after disengagement, Israel would continue to monitor Palestinian terrorists via sensors and cameras in the Gaza Strip, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles overhead, and the vast Shin Bet (internal security service) and military intelligence network that will remain in Gaza. The Israeli military would probably retain control of the strategic Philadelphia Corridor along the Gaza-Egyptian border, as well as control Gaza's land, sea, and air entry points.

    As with the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, disengagement would encourage the view that repeated attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians are a successful tactic to get the government to cede territory.

    For all these reasons, adoption by the Likud party of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan, which makes an end-run around bilateral negotiations and a comprehensive settlement, is more likely to throw gasoline than water on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    end of quote.

    The Gaza thing is just an optic illusion.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2004
  15. Jul 9, 2004 #14
    Remember Bush said: We should say: Thank you Ariel!!

    Now today several months later ... what do you think? Was it an illusion?
    And should we say: Thank you Sharon?
    And what about the fence? Independent ICC judges looked into the case.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?