Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
How is this not really a pullout?
|
1. The plan was that Israel was two-fold:
a. Israel was going to withdraw from Gaza - in reality, Israel is being dishonest about that; they plan to retain control over the ports, the airspace, the access roads, and several other areas/facilities; and
b. Israel was going to dismantle settlements in Gaza; 30,000 settlers in a sea of 1.3 million Arabs was militarily and psychologically untenable.
2. Sharon's plan, then, was to trade worthless Gaza, in order to retain six settlements on the West Bank, plus the option to retain others. Which satisfied the orthodox and right-wing parties, since the West Bank constitutes biblical "judaea and samaria". The religious parties were also happy to see that the position of Israel changed WRT: the West Bank: Israel abandoned the previous position that the WB would be returned to the Palestinians one day. The icing on the cake was when Sharon got the USA to bless that arrangement.
3. How did Sharon do that? By selling it to Dubya as "facing realities on the ground" - which basically means that the USA rewarded and legitimized Israeli efforts to "create facts"; i.e., rapidly building and expanding pushing settlements. Having been rewarded for illegal activities, the Israelis are quick to learn the lesson.
4. Now, after having failed to get the backing of Likud on this plan, and after cancelling a vote on it because he was sure to lose, what do we see? It appears that Sharon was forced to let the far-right religious parties re-draft the Gaza agreement, in order to get it passed in parliament. The changes?
* The Israeli settlements are NOT going to be dismantled after all.
* Nor are future settlements going to be halted.
* On the contrary, existing settlements are going to stay.
* And Israel is going to expand and build more settlements.
Exactly *how* does a country conduct a withdrawal while simultaneously expanding settlement activities?
And exactly *why* should the Arabs accept this arrangement, or trust Israel?
Quote:
Analysis: Aluf Benn on the changes made to Sharon's pullout plan
[...]
The actual implementation of the evacuation will require additional approval by the government, in accordance with the compromise that was reached and that enabled enlistment of the support of the senior Likud ministers for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan. In the framework of the compromise, six areas in Sharon's original plan were modified at the request of Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu, Limor Livnat and Silvan Shalom:
* The name of the plan was changed from the "four-stage disengagement plan" to the "revised disengagement plan."
* There was no approval of actual evacuations. The draft Sharon presented to the government last week contained a decision in principle to evacuate 25 settlements, which were divided into four groups, with a separate discussion being set for each group. This was rejected by the senior ministers on the grounds that it contradicted the May 2 Likud referendum that had rejected Sharon's original plan.
A compromise suggested by Likud Minister Tzipi Livni stated that the amended plan would not specifically approve evacuation of settlements, and that a second government discussion would be held in this regard, "taking into account the circumstances at the time." This phrasing was the key to the compromise that was reached. Officials in Sharon's bureau explained that the two proposals were essentially identical, since Sharon too had promised to hold a second discussion and vote prior to any evacuation.
[...]
* Watering down of the freeze on construction. Sharon's draft contained a complete and immediate freeze on all government plans for construction and development in areas slated for evacuation. The approved plan ensures "support for the needs of daily life" in settlements slated for evacuation. Bans on construction permits and leasing of lands were also removed from the prime minister's proposal.
|
These changes were all made because Sharon couldn't even pass the already-lopsided deal through the Knesset. The religious parties weren't going to vote for it. Having been rewarded for illegal settlement activities once already, the Israelis are quick to learn the lesson. Israel was allowed to keep settlements on the West Bank because of "facing realities on the ground". So then the new text "taking into account the circumstances at the time" gives them the same leeway with regards to keeping settlements in Gaza. And just to make sure that they have as big a toe-hold as possible, the revised Gaza arrangement removes the freeze on settlements and construction permits.
In essence, Israel claims to withdraw from Gaza, but actually gives up nothing - not control, not judicial authority, not military authority, and not even the settlements. In fact, the settlements in Gaza are going to continue and expand.
So when the Arabs turn this down, no one should be surprised. The Israelis are giving up nothing, and expecting to get a lot in return.
Israel wants the USA to pay for Gaza pullout - $2.2 BILLION
Linear Mode
