babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Gaza Pullout...Then What?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Gaza Pullout...Then What?
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Haaretz: IDF official: Pullout to expose 46 Negev towns to rocket fire
quote:
The implementation of the disengagement plan - which involves an Israeli pullout from the entire Gaza Strip - will leave 46 western Negev communities exposed to Qassam rocket fire, a Home Front Command official told the Knesset Interior Committee on Tuesday.

I support a pullout from Gaza, inlcuding Jewish communities, for the sake of peace. But, this article brings up the question of who should be responsible for preventing rocket attacks from Gaza, once the Israeli military has left.

So, my question is: What should Israel's response be to mortar or rocket attacks, originating from a post-pullout Gaza, on Israeli towns?


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
one word - Cyprus!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
one word - Cyprus!
Huh? You want to send all of the Palestinians to Cyprus?

No, seriously. What do you mean. Let's make this a real conversation. Not just a "Fuck You" match.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A UN, or other 3rd party, force needs to keep a buffer zone between the two countries until they learn to trust each other.

Attacks, or violations of the agreement, from either side would have to be handled by the authority in charge of that side, and if they failed then the UN (or third party) should have the authority to treat that country as though they committed an act of war against a member country.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 January 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 07:50 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
A UN, or other 3rd party, force needs to keep a buffer zone between the two countries until they learn to trust each other.
Where would that "buffer zone" be? I'm sure that you understand that we are talking about a very small space. The Israeli towns are not very far from the towns in Gaza where rockets could be fired from. So, where would this international force be stationed?

I don't necessarily outrule some sort of international force (although, I have deep seeded mistrust for the UN). But, I don't think that Israel has any obligation, or good reason, to allow them to take over Israeli sovereign territory. I think they's have to be set up on the Gaza side of the border.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 11 January 2005 08:01 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
I think they's have to be set up on the Gaza side of the border.

Yeah, there isn't enough space in Gaza so let's cram in a UN buffer zone, too, you say.

Taking the Cyprus model as an analogy, it is a gesture of good faith for both sides of a conflict to cede some territory temporarily in order to facilitate a peacekeeping force.
But hey, why should Israel have to do their part?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 11 January 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll add as a general corrollary that the incredible myopia in Israel on this issue is flabergasting. "Forty-six towns" will be exposed to rocket fire they say. As though Palestinian towns haven't been "exposed" and subject to Israeli rocket fire for a long time. The idea that Israeli security trumps even basic human rights on the Palestinian side has become ingrained in the minds of Israelis and their blind supporters. An interesting analogy was the way in which the government and people of Serbia used to justify their position vis a vis Albanians. Funny that people can see that bit of collective narcissism for what it was, but somehow in the case of Israel we're all supposed to sit back, shut up, and pretend that Israeli security is more important than Palestinian freedom.


Heck, just check the body counts for details. Either the Israelis don't give a fuck about Palestinian lives, or they are terribly innaccurate with their ordinance compared to the Palestinians.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 January 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you guys threatening peace keepers again. Not a war crime, but a crime against war itself.

Next you will demand that Israel ground its airial death squads... is there no end to your perfidy!

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Yeah, there isn't enough space in Gaza so let's cram in a UN buffer zone, too, you say.
No, that's not what I say. Since when does a "buffer zone need to mean "no man's land"? But, if Israel has left Gaza, what reason would Gazans have to fire at Israeli towns? So, what would be wrong with the entirety of Gaza being a demilitarized zone, monitored (or policed) by an international force until Palestinians are able to monitor it on their own?

quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Taking the Cyprus model as an analogy, it is a gesture of good faith for both sides of a conflict to cede some territory temporarily in order to facilitate a peacekeeping force.
But hey, why should Israel have to do their part?

Uh, they would be ceding territory. They'd be leaving Gaza.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question is irrelevant.

Sorry, phonicidal, but it is. Until such time as the issue of a Palestinian state is resolved, there is no solution. A Gaza withdrawl, should it happen at all, is a strategic withdrawl of settlements only. Israel will continue to enter Gaza at will.

The strategic aspect is a land swap. Israel will give all of the worthless, overcrowded land of Gaza to the Palestinians in exchange for keeping the the massive Jewish settlements on the most fertile and water rich lands of the West Bank.

And Abbas is to be the errand boy to take this plan to his people in exchange for ending, in essence if not in fact, the occupation.

Will Abbas do this? Not if he values his life.

I predict in two years Abbas will be an "obstacle to peace" and "irrelevant" and George W.s road map will still be folded in the glove box.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 10:08 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Until such time as the issue of a Palestinian state is resolved, there is no solution.
So, let me ask it this way: What steps should Palestinians take to reciprocate Israel's withdrawl of settlements? Or, do you think that "the occupation" can end today, and there will be peace tomorrow? Peace will have to come in steps. You can't expect one side to give up everything and then wait for the other to do the same.

quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I predict in two years Abbas will be an "obstacle to peace" and "irrelevant" and George W.s road map will still be folded in the glove box.
Well, in the Middle East, pessimists have plenty of fuel. But, it would seem to me that pessimism should not get in the way of moving forward with peace. I'm not terribly optimistic about Abbas. But, I'm at least willing to give peace a chance. It would be sad if you were not.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Where would that "buffer zone" be? I'm sure that you understand that we are talking about a very small space. The Israeli towns are not very far from the towns in Gaza where rockets could be fired from. So, where would this international force be stationed?

So? that's why the side firing the rockets need to address the situation or have the 3rd party address the issue befitting an aggressive war mongering state.

I don't see Israel having a problem here ... after all, Israel would never rocket a Palestinian town would it? Or if an Israeli did manager to sneak in the odd rocket shot, then I'm sure a democracy would have no problem addressing the issue in a proper and just manner.

quote:

I don't necessarily outrule some sort of international force (although, I have deep seeded mistrust for the UN). But, I don't think that Israel has any obligation, or good reason, to allow them to take over Israeli sovereign territory. I think they's have to be set up on the Gaza side of the border.

No good reason? How about as a sign that Israel is really interested in peace? But fine, if Israel shows it is not interested in cooperating in the peace process, then I'm sure the rest of the world will not hold that against Israel. I'm sure no one will think that Israel is actually trying to keep the violence going as a smokescreen to genocide and ethnic cleansing! And even if they do, what possible harm could having the whole world against it do to Israel?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 10:39 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, let me ask it this way: What steps should Palestinians take to reciprocate Israel's withdrawl of settlements? Or, do you think that "the occupation" can end today, and there will be peace tomorrow? Peace will have to come in steps. You can't expect one side to give up everything and then wait for the other to do the same.

I don't think there are any steps for teh Palestinians to take. Israel's withdrawl from Gaza is unilateral and not as a result of negotiation. Therefore, the entire operation is under Israeli conditions and without Palestinian input.

Or, in other words, there has been no negotiation.

quote:
I'm not terribly optimistic about Abbas. But, I'm at least willing to give peace a chance. It would be sad if you were not.

I am optimistic about Abbas, really. I think he is smart and shrewd. But he needs an Israeli partner in peace and that part of the equation is missing.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 10:50 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
No good reason? How about as a sign that Israel is really interested in peace?
Think about it. What would an international force do if it were on the Israeli side of the border? What would they be there to stop? Israel has control of it's citizens on it's side of the border. Palestinians do not. That's the whole reason to have to have the international force in Gaza in the first place.

So, here's the kind of scenario I envision:

  • Israel pulls out of Gaza
  • Hamas fires a rocket from Gaza
  • The PA either does or does not take action
  • If the PA is unsuccessful, or unwilling to act, the international force will
But, what happens if the international force does not do it's job to stop such attacks (either before the attack, or afterwards)? How many rockets should Israel allow to fall on it before they go in to take care of Hamas themselves?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I don't think there are any steps for teh Palestinians to take.
The correct word for a response like that is "extremist."

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 11 January 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only if you don't read the next flippin' sentence, which presents the case as Sharon has: a unilateral Israeli action not dependent in the least on Palestinian cooperation or lack thereof.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you coyote.

First phoni says:

quote:
Let's make this a real conversation.

Then he takes a sentence out of context and engages in name calling. Clearly a lack of good faith.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Think about it. What would an international force do if it were on the Israeli side of the border? What would they be there to stop? Israel has control of it's citizens on it's side of the border. Palestinians do not. That's the whole reason to have to have the international force in Gaza in the first place.

First, it would stop the bulldozers and IOF nuts who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later ... then there are the removed settlers who might not be too happy about being forced out of their illegal settlements and feel that keeping the rockets flying between the two sides as a good way to get back the land they feel was given to them by God ... when the IOF is not longer doing their dirty work for them, some other citizens of Israel just might feel like taking things into their own hands ... the IDF has shown a number of times that while they may have the ability to control their own people, they sometimes don't have the will to do so, and allow settlers murder Palestinians who for no other reason than trying to get to their orchards to earn a little money.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 11:39 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
a unilateral Israeli action not dependent in the least on Palestinian cooperation or lack thereof.
So what if it is not dependent upon Palestinian co-operation? I'm talking about what Palestinians will do, because it's the right thing to do, not because it is required, after the Gaza pullout?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 11 January 2005 11:42 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
First, it would stop the bulldozers and IOF nuts who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later ... then there are the removed settlers who might not be too happy about being forced out of their illegal settlements and feel that keeping the rockets flying between the two sides as a good way to get back the land they feel was given to them by God ... when the IOF is not longer doing their dirty work for them, some other citizens of Israel just might feel like taking things into their own hands ... the IDF has shown a number of times that while they may have the ability to control their own people, they sometimes don't have the will to do so, and allow settlers murder Palestinians who for no other reason than trying to get to their orchards to earn a little money.
Funny, I don't see "stopping Hamas" on your list. Who should be doing that if not the Palestinians themselves, or an international force? Or, should Hamas be allowed to continue attacks from Gaza on Israel even after a Gaza pullout?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 January 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2005 11:49 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
Funny, I don't see "stopping Hamas" on your list.


That's because I was addressing your query about what the force would be doing in the Israeli side of the buffer zone, and what it would be doing in regards to Israel who you claim would not need any monitoring or watching.

quote:
Who should be doing that if not the Palestinians themselves, or an international force? Or, should Hamas be allowed to continue attacks from Gaza on Israel even after a Gaza pullout?


Obviously that would also be the responsibility of the international force if the Palestinians failed to address, or were unable to address the situation.

If you want a real discussion then why do you try and make it so difficult to do so? Why do you ask questions about specific issues and then try to derail the subject by whining that I am not answering a question you never asked?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 January 2005 11:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

If you want a real discussion then why do you try and make it so difficult to do so? Why do you ask questions about specific issues and then try to derail the subject by whining that I am not answering a question you never asked?


Well that is because he is not interested in the answers to the questions only interested in the potential rhetorical impact of those questions, as phoni can score points yet not say anything substantive. The point is to try and win the debate within the debate, outside of the context of the reality from which it is spawned. This is because Phoni's interest in Israel is academic and idealistic.

If the debate were to be contextualized in reality, then Phoni would no doubt have to give a huge territory of internal self-esteem and restructure his personality outside of the Zionist Zeitgeist.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca