Haaretz, which was extrememly pro-Disengagement tries to downplay the possibility, and paints a picture of Israel winning "diplomatic points" by refusing the retaliate for the bombing attack over Pesach. Haaretz claims the plan exists but has not recommended a go-ahead.
The Israel Defense Forces has a contingency plan for ground operations in the Gaza Strip but for now is not recommending a go-ahead to the government.
Senior General Staff sources told Haaretz that it was still too early for a head-on clash with the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government. They said Israel was "scoring points" in the international arena in view of its restraint following the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. ...
The general staff sees no need for a return to occupation. The officers' thinking is, since the IDF has complete freedom of movement, they can pick up fugitives any time they see fit.
However, the IDF holds a pessimistic view of the future of the confrontation. ...
In recent weeks, the IDF has completed training forces to enter the Gaza Strip.
The forces have been instructed to be prepared within a week from receiving the order for a big operation, or within three days for a smaller operation.
OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant said Friday that the IDF was preparing to reoccupy the Gaza Strip if the Hamas-led Palestinian government did not halt rocket fire from the area.
He said that the move could be a full occupation or a partial occupation one and claimed that his plans had been approved by senior officials, including Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. ...
The senior officer added that "intolerable" nonstop attacks, or the use of longer-range and more powerful weapons such as Katyusha rockets, could prompt a large-scale ground operation.
Everyone agrees the security situation is intolerable.
So why doesn't anyone have the guts to stand up and say, or even whisper, that maybe, perhaps, possibly, the Disengagement wasn't the best of ideas?
Doesn't anyone have a backbone?
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael
15 comments:
It is called PSYCHOTIC DENIAL.
If we don't do anything ,it will just go away.
But wait until a kassam hits Tel Aviv-
RE-occupying Gaza won't do us any good.
Instead what we should do is start Raiding the Strip, Short operations, that start and end on this side of the line. The area is small enough that we can go in one spot and come out another. And they can have no Idea when or where we will strike next.
This Kassam B/S is really getting out of hand... and the Bombing is obviouslly not doing the trick.
When they try to win points over (G-d Forbid!) my family's dead bodies I might not be so "mature" about my responses to the Israeli's government's "restraint".
I never understood why the Jews of Europe didn't rise up until it was too late, until I lived in the midst of Jews hell bent on reliving their grandparent's mistakes!
Yoel Ben-Avraham
Shilo, Benyamin
TM (Jewlicious): The paper's over shabbat went as far as saying that Israel may need to permanently need to reoccupy the northern Gaza strip to prevent Kassam rockets from hitting Ashkelon. Now if this is the IDF's recommendation -- why the hell did we need to leave Alei Sinai in the first place? What did we gain by leaving the NORTHERN Gaza Jewish communities, except for creating a huge security mess?
Oleh Yashan: And you are suprised that the Kassam "B/S" is getting out hand? Why is anyone surprised? It was obvious this wasn't going to happen, and not only doesn't the IDF has a solution, but a Tel Aviv court ruled TODAY that Gaza is now a "State" and we can't have any jurisdiction there (meaning, the IDF won't legally be able to do any of the incursions you describe...)
i'll assume that when you ask why doesn't anyone have the guts to admit that the disengagement wasn't the best idea out there, you aren't referring to us ordinary folk who opposed the idea from the beginning. (and by those ordinary folk, i mean those of us sitting comfortably in the US who really should have been over there increasing the numbers so that disengagement wouldn't have even been a consideration from the beginning.)
Jameel,
No I am not suprised at all. I never thought that they would stop when we pulled out, I hoped that we would actually try to stop them from doing this when they saw that the Artillary And Co. falling on Gaza was not helping.
-and making Gaza a state actually works in our Favor. Although Int. Law Claims it's not a state (it's a no mans land at best), and from what I read the Judge disregarded Int. Law.
But more to the point, this Should (not that I think olmert would) Make it easier to respond to, now it's a war and not (pick one of the meny names they have called this since Oct. 2000). So If we go into Gaza now, it's as if we are at war with them. FINE WITH ME!!
Jameel- whatever the papers say, most Israelis think we gained plenty from no longer having Jews living in Gaza. However, most people also don't realise that the Israeli Army still essentially controls Gaza's borders, airspace, citizens movement outside etc, so it can come as no surprise really that the Kassams continue and even escalate.
And while we all know that there are still plenty of Gazan Palestinians who would willingly and eternally lob Kassams at Jews within any geographic location, until Israel completely disengages from externally controlling the Gaza strip, there is no point in your questions as to whether the withdrawal was successful.
TAFKAPP: The reason most Israelis think we gained plenty from the disengagement is because the public was promised by Sharon that the Disengagement meant sealing off the Gaza strip from Israel (and we would gain from a security perspective).
Instead, the Israeli taxpayer doesn't know that they are still paying the electric, water, and phone bill for the Gaza Strip -- and that the borders between Gaza and Israel still allow passage of people/goods/supplies.
Israel doesn't even control the border between Gaza and Egypt anymore (despite Sharon's and Mofaz's promises), and Gaza has become Hamastan.
Basically - the Disengagement was a lot of promises, of which one after the other has been broken or ignored, and its only a matter of time before the situation blows up so badly that the ground force re-occupation will have to take place.
Everyone is saying it now...it's only a matter of time before the security situation becomes unbearable for the Ivory-Knesset politicians.
OY: Since you hoped the rockets would stop (after we shelled them), and they haven't...doesn't that mean that the Disengagement was based on a lot more "hoping" than real strategic understanding of what was going to happen?
Lastly, as you stated, since Olmert is loathe to go to war and start a ground offensive into Gaza, again, isn't that another reason the disengagement was done (maybe?) incorrectly?
Jameel, Daniel Ben Simon said it better than I can: The Israeli people by and large don't feel any promises were either made, or have been broken. They remain indifferent with regards to the Gazan disengagement and may well support another one. That may well be tragic, but that is the sistuation.
And check out some of the Gazan blogs for a more detailed response to the claim that "the borders between Gaza and Israel still allow passage of people/goods/supplies."
TAFKAPP: Maybe "sporadically open" is a better term, but there is definite traffic going in both directions.
I try to avoid Gazan blogs...I have enough problems with the Five Towns ;-)
Jameel, you should have read my blog where I touch on the subject:
http://joesettler.blogspot.com/2006/04/ground-troops-in-gaza.html
and
http://joesettler.blogspot.com/2006/03/title-match-zeevi-vs-rotenberg.html
and
http://joesettler.blogspot.com/2006/03/disengagement-was-great-success.html
You'll find some of your answers there.
Jameel,
The borders between Gaza-pre67 Israel are only "sporadically open" because certain Gazan locals decide to "sporadically attempt" terrorist attacks at the crossing. If they didn't make the attempts it would be open constantly.
Second, the other (currently safer) Gaza crossing can be also be used. The problem is that certain Gazan politicians aren't established to extort money over there so they are demanding it stays closed.
Third, the Gaza-Egypt border is obviously open more than enough and often enough for them to freely import Katyusha missiles, which aren't exactly something you can hide in your overcoat.
Perhaps the problem is in their priorities.
Jameel,
I will start by making a little correction to the statment about Gaza beeing a state. The only reason I know this is becuase I was in my Int. Law Class, and the Subject came up, and sure enough the Teacher Handed out the PSak Din, on the Subject (from Yesterday).
In short, The Psak was given in Jer. Not T.A. And reffered to the PA as a whole and not just to gaza (all of Area "A" included). It was in regards to a group from Elon More suing the P.A. and in response the Court claimed that the P.A. has immunity as a State.
But back to what you answered me:
I have no problem Stating that some of the ways the Dissengagment was carried out were not the best (to say the least), Including the way the Gush Katif people are treated by the country today.
As far as I was concerned we should have closed off Gaza all the way (including Water and Electricity) and closed any passage into Israel.
I never said that I hoped Bombing Gaza would work, I hoped that based on Remarks made, that we would actually do EVERYTHING we could to prevent these attacks. This is Far from what we are doing today.
Oleh Yashan: Part of the problem of the disengagement, is that it was blatantly obvious that we would NOT do EVERYTHING we could do to prevent these attacks.
It's the Olso syndrome all over again....
Remember all the Olso promises that were never kept (or meant to be kept in the first place?) They were all for public consumption...but not for implementation.
Post a Comment