Posted on 08/14/2005 1:25:44 PM PDT by adam_az
Edited on 08/14/2005 1:28:27 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Live thread for posting breaking news about the Gaza Explulsion which is set to begin within the hour...
I tend to agree, but the idea of Gaza becoming a "supernest" for terrorists is pretty frightening. Twenty years ago, I was totally in favor of cutting Gaza loose. I'm still sort of favoring it, but my heart (and mind) is divided.
Haaretz news flashes
01:20 IDF convoy enters Gaza Strip (Reuters)
01:13 IDF exchanges fire with Palestinians near Gaza settlement of Kfar Darom (Israel Radio)
01:04 Settlers head from Kfar Darom to Kissufim to protest sealing off of Gaza (Haaretz)
00:46 PA security investigate reports on abduction of French-Algerian journalist in Gaza (AP)
00:25 IDF seals off Gaza Strip in `historical` ceremony attended by foreign press (Haaretz)
00:02 Kissufim crossing shut, disengagement begins (Haaretz)
23:37 Two IDF soldiers caught looting evacuated house in Gaza Strip settlement (Haaretz)
23:29 IDF, settlers clash in northern W. Bank; officer evacuated with broken hand (Haaretz)
23:20 Explosions near Ganei Tal believed to be mortar shells (Haaretz)
"One Israeli has already torched his house."
Good idea. The pig-dog terrorists want the Gaza, let them have it. In ashes.
"{ I tend to agree, but the idea of Gaza becoming a "supernest" for terrorists is pretty frightening."
Becoming?
Richard Reid learned his trade there, for example.
Thanks for posting that - I had read of those balloons but hadn't seen one. Nice.
But you said withdrawl to halt terror attacks was "a good thing".
So if a withdrawl from gaza and the west bank is a "good thing", in that it will reduce some terror attacks, why not follow the logic further and withdraw all Jews from Israel?
Think of how we could reduce terrorism if we would just end the state of Israel?
And as for Iraq, Bush's statements on standing up to the terrorist in Iraq are diametrically opposed to his statements on Israel's reaction to repeated attacks. Following Sept. 11, and Afarat's wave of terrorism, Bush & Co. seemed to have taken a hands off approach.
Today, I think they've reassesed the usefulness of Isreal as a state. For many in the West, Isreal is a loadstone that the Western nations must carry around when dealing with the middle east, and some are coming to the opinion that the continued existance of a Jewish state in the middle east is more trouble than it is worth.
Israeli "peacemakers" are making the gradual dissolution of Israel more palatable.
And one should keep in mind that the term "occupied territoties" has differing meanings.
To the Israeli's and their western benefactors, the OT are Gaza and the West bank.
But for the Palestinians, the OT are Gaza, West Bank, and of course, Israel itself.
Thus, It is hard to "accomodate and negotiate to an agreed peace" with terrorist who deny your very right to exist.....
In case you haven't noticed, the "road map" also requires the terror apparatus to be "disengaged"
Do you see that happening?
Well, probably Israel will get a new prime minister out of all this -- Netanyahu.
Talk about misinterpretation. Not you, BG. But President Bush was not for Gaza withdrawal thinking it would stop or even reduce terror attacks.
So to say to TA, don't have such faith in what any one man might tell you, is not a bad standard, it just is not tied to this action in Gaza in the sense TA seems to have understood.
Yet it is in a sense Bush's support of Sharon's decision to withdraw, to give the Palestinian Authority a chance to govern that area, instead of Israel having to occupy and govern it. To see if physical seperation by Israel from the Palis can improve security; to see if the PA can do anything right, if given a chance.
If Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda run wild in Gaza, then it is an obvious failure of that effort.
So instead of Bush promising fewer attacks if Israel withdrew, it would be more accurate to say that Bush took a risk on behalf of trying to get the PA to step up and do something right for a change, unlike what it did all the years of Arafart.
Bush knows there is no guarantee of anything, fewer attacks by terrorists, or anything else for that matter. Knowing that, he would never promise fewer or no attacks in return for Israel leaving the Gaza.
Sharon has his own policy, of physical disengagement from the Palestinians. That was why the Wall was built, and that is why they are making the settlers leave the Gaza. Whether it will be for the good, as opposed to continuing the status quo which was so bad for so long, remains to be seen.
Incidentally, I am not watching the tv about the withdrawal. I only have time to post to this thread, after reading a little.
Yes it seems that way, I like BiBi and I would like to see him PM again.
On the other hand, as someone mentioned earlier on this thread, they'll all be in one place once they establish terrorist training camps in Gaza. They'll make an easy target.
"Sharon has his own policy, of physical disengagement from the Palestinians. That was why the Wall was built, and that is why they are making the settlers leave the Gaza."
The Gaza fence has existed for years... the Samaria and Judea fence are new.
You just hit the nail on the head! I, too, am WAITING for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, [enter favorite terrorist group here], and other PLO wannabe thugs to be Disarmed. Funny how the Road Map started out with clear guidelines for both Israel and Mazen and yet it ended up as a noose around Israel's neck. I've read webstites this week with Palis' posting on 'em. There isn't a Palie over there who doesn't see this as a HUGE victory and PROOF that terrorism works.
While obviously not the same percentage land/land as Gaza/Israel, it's a nice revolutionary proverb** but I think the US "gave land for peace" to the Indians and we haven't had much trouble out of them after a while....granted, American Indians had more of a societal structure developed in the 19th century than the Pali's do in the 21st...
But if you look at it in the reverse, the Indians gave up 99.99% of their land to the USA, and they haven't had too much trouble from US lately.
Maybe someday the Pali's will build some nice casinos? (Flame suit donned.)
Seriously, I see the only disconnect is that the Israelis have been fighting a war, and now they are giving up land. Usually, in the Limbaugh Doctrine, this indicates a "loss" but not always.
**(btw, it's attributed to Franklin and a host of others...who really said that?)
Me, too. I admire BiBi immensely.
"Maybe someday the Pali's will build some nice casinos? (Flame suit donned.)"
Already tried that.
They closed after Israelis got sick of being shot at on their way there.
Watching the tv about the withdrawal is heartbreaking. You feel so helpless in the face of tragedy. It really is like watching a slow trainwreck.
Your welcome. Sick isn't it. Qassam Balloons. Violence, death and murder 24/7 is all they can think of. GAG
"There isn't a Palie over there who doesn't see this as a HUGE victory and PROOF that terrorism works."
Makes you wonder if TAquinas's real first name isn't Achmed.
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.