Posted on 04/05/2006 12:35:43 PM PDT by anotherview
Rockets in Bloom
Posted by Aharon | Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 3:17pm
Now that Olmert is going to tie the knot with Labor, maybe he'll get started dealing with the major issues that have stacked up on the PM's desk since Sharon's exit stage left.
Like a little ole' place called Gaza. It's one big mess and according to some commentators it could threaten the very idea of unilateral withdrawal.
While supposed to have created more security for Israel, it is pretty clear that Israel's counterattacks from afar have done very little to slow down the Kassam fire (and the first Katyusha too! Yay, Katyushas.). In what seems to me a pretty desparate measure, though it must have been proven effective in some study or another, Israel dumped a bunch of leaflets over Gaza this weekend:
Another part [part of the pamphlet] continued, "Israel has withdrawn from Gaza Strip, and given you the chance to run your life, so how long will you continue to allow terrorists to control your life and future."
Good point, but the gangs with the Katyushas probably aren't in the mood to put up with anyone who wants to listen.
During the run up to the vote I managed to squeeze into a restaraunt where Peretz was pressing flesh. A woman, a British Olah, called out to him in Hebrew (he doesn't speak American, kal vachomer British) "What are you going to do about the Kassams?" He responded that he is from Sderot and that he knows the people of Sderot are proud to be on the front lines.
First, I admire the Zionist bravado. I'm proud of our border yishuvim that stand firm. But, for their sake and the country's, that's not a good enough answer, especially because we aren't talking Sderot but also Ashkelon. The Zionist ethos seems to run less strong in cities than in small towns and the Olmert Peretz team need to do more than just rely on the willingness of Israeli citizens to stand firm and keep the bomb shelters clean.
This is only to say that a government of Israel that is planning to enact more pullouts needs to show that it can keep the rockets off our heads, especially when those pullouts will open up launching sites near our major cities. And the proving ground for this ability has to be Gaza.
Some people have been discussing what acronym to use now that the "A" has fallen out of the YE(Yehuda)SH(Shomron)A(gAza). Don't worry. Whether we like it or not that "A" is going to be around for a while yet.
ping. The problem with the Gaza disengagement is that for it to have any chance of success Israel has to respond to Palestinian attacks in an effective way. Aharon has this right.
That was the whole fallacy of the pullout. Frankly if the Israelis had been tough enough they would not have had to pull out. There is not that much difference between telling the Arabs to leave Gush Katiff alone and telling them to leave Sderot alone. The pullout gave up Jewish rights, created Jewish refugees who still have not been settled and emboldened those Arabs who beleive terrorism works.
On the other hand for it to have worked would have required an iron fist in response to any Arab attacks against the inside of the green line. The problem is that once you start the process of giving in to terrorism it is hard to say after this retreat we will stop. It is too much like the alcoholic who claims this is his last drink.
I obviously strongly disagree with you. Keeping 8,000 Jews in the midst of 2 million Arabs in Gaza was impractical at best and a huge drain on IDF resources. It could not be sustained.
Having said that I do think the IDF is capable of tough action against the Palestinians as we saw in Jericho. I think Prime Minister Olmert is too worried about coalition talks and American reaction to a strong response. If he responded strongly Israelis would rally around him. Meretz isn't going to be in the coalition anyway and they are the ones who would protest most loudly.
Let me ask you a serious but uncontenitious question. Were the Gaza settlements difficult to defend prior to Oslo? Why were they put in place to begin with? I think the problem is that Oslo changed two things. It put tons of weaponry in the hands of the Palestinians and removed the fear they had of the Israelis. So the disengagement is really step two of a retreat policy. Oslo would have made sense if there truly had been a change of heart among the Arabs. However, the disengagement was based on the premise there had been no change of heart and that Israel had to retreat from the area.
> Were the Gaza settlements difficult to defend prior to Oslo?
Yes. The main difference was the Palestinians had fewer weapons so there were less attacks. The logistics were no different.
> Why were they put in place to begin with?
For political and ideological reasons, which I disagreed with from the start.
> However, the disengagement was based on the premise
> there had been no change of heart and that Israel
> had to retreat from the area.
Had to? I don't think so. It simply makes more sense from a security standpoint provided we teach the Palestinians the same lesson we taught the Syrians by marching to withing shelling range of Damascus: the price for attacking Israel is one so high that you won't want to pay it.
For disengagement to work at all there has to be a steadfast response to Palestinian attacks. That is lacking so far. Unless that happens my support for Prime Minister Olmert's policies will evaporate.
Will it happen? I do think so, but only after a really serious attack with major casualties occurs. Right now the Prime Minister is too concerned about any IDF action's impacts on the relations with the United States and with his coalition talks. That bothers me no end. How many Jewish lives are good relations with the United States worth?
Well we have our disagreements but you are honest and straight forward in your analysis. My history may be off some, but weren't some of the Gaza settlements put in during Labor regimes? In any case, I agree with you that for pullouts to work they have to be followed by iron fisted zero tolerance responses to any terrorism. I don't consider the Lebanon model a successful one either where Hezballah is armed to the teeth and present a strategic threat as well as occasional outrages they get away with.
I agree with you that Lebanon is a poor model. I have described Ehud Barak as a hopeless and clueless Prime Minister and the way Lebanon was handled is a very good example of why.
Some settlements in Gaza, particularly at the northern border (part of Gush Katif) were started by Golda Meir or Yitzhak Rabin in his first term. The bulk of really remote settlements and ones right on top of Palestinian population centers, both in Judea/Samaria and Gaza were Prime Minister Shamir's doing. Prime Minister Shamir also vetoed the peace deal with Jordan the then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres negotiated. I think in retrospect we should have taken that deal as we would never have had a Palestinian problem to deal with. They would almost all be in Jordan. King Hussein and King Abdullah did prove to be trustworthy partners for peace.
Prime Minister Shamir did some very good things. OTOH, he was the one true disciple of Jabotinsky, the one and only true believer in Greater Israel we have had as Prime Minister. Menachem Begin may have been in that camp once but by Camp David he had greatly moderated his views. I think we are paying the price for the Shamir era now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.