U.S. officials: Removal of Gaza settlements will boost Hamas: U.S. AGAINST SHARON PLAN?

U.S. officials said Tuesday that they are worried that unilateral Israeli moves to relocate settlers from the Gaza Strip will boost the standing of Palestinian extremists amid concerns about a growing "anarchy" on Palestinian streets.

The radical Hamas group could be expected to claim credit for the Israeli withdrawal and may become the "dominant" force in Gaza by undercutting an already weakened Palestinian Authority, the officials said.

"That would be a real big negative for President (George W.) Bush's vision of two states living in peace and security because the Hamas vision is one state with no Jews in it," one senior U.S. official told Reuters on Tuesday.

Other U.S. officials said the initiative could be beneficial if it is carefully thought out and well executed but this is not always Israel's approach to Palestinian issues.

"If they took the settlers out of Gaza that would be a real big deal. That's a huge flash point," one U.S. official said.

But, he added: "Does Hamas get credit and basically become the really dominant authority in Gaza or is the Palestinian Authority able to deliver services in such a way, and is the international community able to support the delivery of services in such a way, that Hamas doesn't become the big guy on the block?"

"Somebody is going to have to help the Palestinian Authority. They don't have the resources" to compete with Hamas," another official said.

The director of Military Intelligence, Major General Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash), on Tuesday warned lawmakers that the Palestinians will interpret Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to "relocate" 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip as a victory for terrorism, and encourage them to step up terrorist attacks.

The IDF Spokesperson's Office subsequently issued a statement late Tuesday afternoon saying "the remarks made by the Military Intelligence director related strictly to the possible Palestinian responses to the disengagement plan presented by the prime minister. The Military Intelligence director said that there are among the Palestinians some who relate to the plan with suspicion and others, including extremists, who are liable to see the plan as strengthening their camp. Ze'evi said the evacuation of Israeli settlements is also liable to hurt the terrorists' motivation."

There were some suggestions the IDF statement was issued because Ze'evi's remarks had angered Sharon.

Speaking at a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Ze'evi added that Syrian President Bashar Assad was serious in his offer to hold peace talks with Israel.

Sharon's plan to evacuate the settlements has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, although it was welcomed by Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia.

On the right, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom repeated his opposition to any unilateral withdrawal from the territories.

Further right, Likud MK Yehiel Hazan, who heads the Knesset lobby on behalf of the Yesha Council of Settlements, said: "Sharon preparing evacuation plans from Gaza are very dangerous for Israel. His disengagement plan will end up disengaging Jews from the Land of Israel. We should not sacrifice Israeli security and its citizenry on the altar of American demands."

The former Meretz chairman, MK Yossi Sarid, expressed skepticism that Sharon would carry out his plan.

"The prime minister is simply not credible. We know how Sharon gives instructions and what their real value on the ground is. After every instruction for an evacuation, another outpost pops out of the ground."

His Meretz colleague, Ran Cohen MK, who is seeking the leadership of Yahad, the new Social Democratic Party, said: "The amazing correlation between the progress in the investigations of the Sharon scandals and his readiness to at least declare readiness to evacuate settlements is another reason to accelerate the investigations - as well as the need for clean government."

Well then why announce the withdrawal in advance? Why a 24 month time frame? Why not secretly plan for it, and receive approval from the USA in advance?

Seriously, Sharon would likely consult with the USA before announcing such a plan, and not spring this on the USA in a surprise move, if he thought it was a serious plan.

I think he sees something not widely reported, which is that while most nations and many people in the west have been verbally abusing Israel about the occupation and settlements, the truth is that without occupation nobody else will deal with the very real internal social, culturual, leadership problems the Palestinians have. And without Israel, this problem becomes the Egyptian, Jordanian, UN and USA's problem - and maybe the EU too.

In other words, he has the chance to turn the tables, to force these parties to act on their own self interest - which in turn will force them to be more serious - and that includes putting up a crapload of money and doing a lot more to stop terrorism. Calling on Israel to withdraw, without seriously considering the consequences, is foolhearty and Sharon is calling them on it.

Just my two cents, anyways. I could be wrong.

Well I think he is making the proposal knowing it will not be acceptable. Although Yonif says that the UN seems to be supportive of it.

If he thinks his plan will find resistence, he can then say that he tried, but that countries X,Y,& Z all nixed it. But he can't outright say "this is my plan, but I am not serious". He has to be serious about it.

Plus, by putting a 24 month timetable on it, he has plenty of time to see the reaction from the Palestinians and others. If he talks the language of concession and the Palestinians continue to balk and fight, the tide will soon shift against the Palestinian authority. Either someone else will have to step in, or Israel waits it out while the Palestinians take each other out -- driving many to flee into Egypt and Jordan to escape the violence, depravity, hunger and joblessness.

Again, just my 2cents.

One of the reasons the Hebrews were not led on the shortest route from Egypt to Israel was because of the Philistia people were on the coast and in Gaza, and they were known as a vicious and warring people. Gaza has always been a troublesome area.

The Hebrews were not led on the shortest route to their homeland because G-d wanted the entire generation of adults who had been slaves to perish in the wilderness and, along with them, the attitude of being a slave. He brought the Hebrews out of Egypt relatively quickly, but the process of bringing the Egypt out of the Hebrews was a longer one. And, as pointed out elsewhere, the Arabs who claim to be "Palestinians" are not, in fact, descended from the ancient Philistines. Heck, until 1948 it was the Jews who were called "Palestinians."

As to Gaza: yes, it has always been a very troublesome area.

It is crazy that any Israeli or U.S. official would actually still believe, after all that they have uncovered, that Arafat and the PA/PLO were not terrorists.

The only difference between the PA and Hamas is one of tactics. The PA is a bit more subtle, whereas Hamas is more open about its goals - but the goals are identical (except about who will be in charge when all of the Jews are dead).

This is a good idea. If implemented, it removes the 3500 or so Israelis from Gaza and removes a pretext for the terrorists. It also shows that the US "road map" is and has been B.S.

If not implemented, withdrawal from Gaza shows the US' "road map" is more important to the US than is the security of Israel. The US has already opposed the fence, which has the support of Sharon's predecessor and opponent, Barak. Both steps are methods by which Israel will be made more secure.

Right now, the Arab states are in an uproar about the fence. In particular, that terrorist state, Saudi Arabia opposes the fence as "racist". In the meanwhile, Syria sees the current crisis as its best time to pursue some sort of agreement with Israel.

Time is of the essence because Israel is dealing with its terrorism problems in an effective way (it would be more effective to move the Arabs out of the restored Israel and into Gaza, but wait and see on that one) and soon will not care about an agreement with Syria. More to the point, Israel obviously doesn't care what the US thinks in its approach.

Syria was humiliated three times in wars with Israel, not even counting their pullback in the face of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (which Syria still occupies). In 1973 -- the Yom Kippur War, or October War, which some regard as some sort of turning point in Israeli invincibility -- the Syrians launched a 1400+ tank assault under an envelope of SAMs and with virtually complete surprise. A further advantage was the simultaneous assault by Egypt. Israel still held off Syria with a skeletal force, and within three days had brought its reserves to bear, and destroyed 1100+ Syrian tanks. Israel's counterattack was also within visual distance of Damascus.

In the past, the Syrians refused to sit down and talk without the prior condition that Israel hand back the Golan Hts. That's obviously just stupidity, since the Golan is the only thing the Syrians need to talk about. So screw 'em. The last time they had the Golan Hts they used them to shell Israel. They can't be trusted now, any more than they could in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

Sharon's move may further splinter the PLO, but the PLO has always been a collection of street thugs. Getting rid of it should be a top priority in GWB's War on Terror. It ain't.

[A]s you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death. Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful.

Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the percentage equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. -- Dennis Miller

An online friend from Florida posted it on another forum I frequent.

Free Speech
by Dennis Miller
5/3/02
Why should even the most repugnant ideas receive the same freedom of expression as more accepted ones? Because the American system is less a "free marketplace" of ideas than it is a playground. And the best way to dispense with unpopular ideas is to let them roam free, so they can have their asses kicked up and down the jungle gym by the cool ideas... It's better to just let the Ku Klux Klan march through your town than it is to waste your time and money trying to stop them. Instead of challenging their right to free speech, use your energy to point out to your children the irony of the fat guys in the pointy hats and the pee-stained bed sheets, spouting forth all sorts of mono-syllabic eugenic claptrap, and all the while, claiming to be the master race.

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.