You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Israel-Palestine
Sharon Plan Includes 2005 Gaza Pullback
2004-04-17
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans to withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from Gaza by the end of 2005, but retain control of the coastal strip's border crossings and airspace, according to details of his "disengagement" plan published for the first time Friday. Under Sharon's plan, evacuated settlements would not be destroyed - as they were when Israel evacuated the Sinai Peninsula in the 1980s - but Palestinian leaders and militants will not be allowed to live there.
If they don't flatten the settlements, how are they going to control who lives there?
Before Sharon can begin implementing his plan, he must persuade his Likud Party to support it in a May 2 referendum. Polls published Friday showed the plan garnering a slim majority among the 200,000 party members. Thousands of Palestinians demonstrated Friday against Bush, burning effigies of him and Sharon and pasting pictures of the president on the soles of their shoes, an insult in Muslim society.
Any huge puppets?
Any babes in bikinis with fake dynamite strapped around their comely young waists?
"President Bush's statement is a new declaration of war and represents total bias of the American administration against our people," said Nafez Azzam, an Islamic Jihad spokesman. "He is not qualified to deny Palestinian people their rights."
You boys are doing a great job of that all by yourselves!
Sharon returned home Friday to continue fighting for his plan. The Haaretz daily reported that Sharon's son, Omri, held a succession of meetings with Likud leaders at a Tel Aviv cafe and warned them that Sharon would resign if the referendum fails, forcing new elections. Under the plan, published in Israeli newspapers Friday, Israel would leave all of Gaza except for a patrol road along the Egyptian border. Israel also would retain full control of Gaza's airspace and border crossings, and Israel's navy would continue to patrol the Gaza coast. Israel may expand the border road before the withdrawal, the plan said. Israel has already razed more than 600 Palestinian homes that border the patrol road in the Rafah refugee camp.
"Mahmoud! Dig a longer tunnel!"
Israel will also leave intact "the real estate assets of the settlements" it evacuates, according to the plan. A senior Israeli official said Israel would not allow the houses to be given to Palestinian leaders or militants. Israel is in negotiations with the World Bank to receive compensation for the houses left behind in the 21 Gaza settlements - which currently house 7,500 people - the official said.
Ah, now I get it.
Security officials said Friday they plan to dismantle 28 unauthorized West Bank settlement outposts housing 240 families in the next few weeks.
Interesting if it really happens.
Posted by:Steve White

#11  Israel is a zionist rather than jewish entity there is a difference. What needs to happen is for Palestine to be one state with equal rights for all people who live there. The Zionazi entity needs to be peacefully dismantled.Before anyone says Im antisemitic palestinians are semites too and many jews do not agree with a Zionist State either.BTW did you know while many jews are semites many are not rather they are descendants of people who converted to judaism e.g The Khazars so their ancestors never came from Palestine.
Posted by: Antiwar   2004-04-17 12:24:14 PM  

#10  It's all about Jerusalem. My solution is to allow only one holy city per religion. Fair enough, IMO.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-04-17 4:48:26 PM  

#9  Comment #8 = docob
Posted by: docob   2004-04-17 2:41:29 PM  

#8  IMO, the settlements need to go -- ALL of them. Hopefully the Israelis realize this and they are only on the table as a bargaining chip.

The "right of return", however, is ridiculous and would be suicidal for Israel, and I'm glad that it is openly and flatly rejected.
Posted by: Anonymous4277   2004-04-17 2:40:30 PM  

#7  Anonymous4272> Settlements have been a tool used by other countries as well -- Turkey has sent many dozens of thousands of settlers to northern Cyprus. Several byzantine emperors had also used settlements as a tool to closer bind to them areas of their empire. I'm sure that examples must be bountiful throughout history.

It's the other side of ethnic cleansing, except a bit more civilized -- instead of driving the other people away to grab hold of a territory, you simply put your own people there to accomplish the same purpose.

In one word the answer would be "imperialism". I don't have much sympathy for the settlements policy at all.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-04-17 2:05:17 PM  

#6  Idiots on parade how wonderful.
Posted by: djohn66   2004-04-17 1:26:29 PM  

#5  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Antiwar TROLL   2004-04-17 12:24:14 PM  

#4  I think this is the really a sad situation. Americans need to understand that we will never have any peace and security in the world until the Palestinians are given a just and fair deal. I compare this latest stunt by Sharon like China taking over Texas, rounding all the Texans up and putting them in concentration camps for over 50 years and building housing for chinees imigrants in Texas all against international law and UN resolutions. Then offering a deal where the settlements are built that land will be anexed to china because now it is a fact on the ground. It is so ridiculous! I know we all love to hate the arabs but this is not right and breeds hate and hate breeds violence and violence robs our security. If you support a jewish state then give them a state in the US like New York, we Can even change the name to Jew York.
Posted by: Anonymous4273   2004-04-17 12:02:39 PM  

#3  Also militarily the settlements provide a secure starting point for operations in the West Bank or Gaza. If terrorists have a longer period of time to react to a move against them then less will be achieved.
Posted by: A   2004-04-17 9:31:46 AM  

#2  IIUC the settlements were two things:
1) a bargaining chip for the government in any negotiations
2) For the settlers, many of whom are more extreme Zionists, they constituted facts on the ground in a greater Israel, hoping eventually to claim much of the west bank

ineveitably, they are security drains on the state, many are isolated and surrounded except for access roads. Bad situation
Posted by: Frank G   2004-04-17 9:19:24 AM  

#1  I'm generally pro-Israel in every aspect but I confess to not understanding the settlements issue. I can see why some sections of the West Bank are strategically vital but why on earth would anyone want to live in such a neighborhood?!
Posted by: Anonymous4272   2004-04-17 7:07:19 AM  

00:00