© COPYRIGHT: Michael L. S. -- 2004, 2005, 2006
NO content of these pages may be used without my prior consent.
RECENT POSTS:
- Mah zeh, b'nei Yisrael??
- Beauties and Beasts
- OUTRAGE in haGalil!!
- Siman Tov uMazal Tov!
- BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM
- Shalom rav!!
- The Pangs of Love
- Bah, no inspiration to think of a title...just rea...
- AUSCHWITZ: In Memoriam
- A Veritable Medley
The Day After...
Posted on: Monday, September 12, 2005
So, the occupation is finished. ... - Well, the occupation of 5.79% of the disputed territories, anyway. Even if, however, we have withdrawn from only an exiguous proportion of the territories, the development is proportionately much more significant because it provides an insight into various facets of the Palestinian psyche like no other event has thus far. Primarily, now that they have a simulacrum of a state, what will have they done with it? And, just as importantly, now that they've HAD a simulacrum of a state for a few hours, what HAVE they done with it?
Fist of all, let us disabuse ourselves of a notion, ferociously propounded by Jew-haters who just have to find something to fault Israel for. (Paraphrasing:) The Palestinians do not really have a state in Aza because Israel continues to control the sea-waters, airspace and land crossings of the strip. While it is true that Israel's continued control of these territorial aspects is unfortunate, it is wishful thinking at best to insist that it has the potential to somehow negatively impact the Palestinians' ability to organize their state (economically, socially, societally, etc.). The vast majority of the Palestinians do not live in the air or the sea, nor do they depend on being able to conduct international travel with ease (certainly not to Egypt, which is far more hostile to the Palestinians than Israel). Fact of the matter is that the PA now has absolute control over Aza and its resources, plus international donors are lining up to endow it with countless €millions: there is no excuse not to make a success of it if there's a will to. Can the Palestinians extricate themselves from more than four decades of the war mentality--and the infinite marchings, rallying, chanting and sermonizing that go along with it--and turn their attention to building the economy and society of Aza?
Well, what have been the first three reported Palestinian acts immediately before and then following the exit of Tzahal from Aza?
(1) A qasam rocket is fired at S'derot;
(2) For who knows which time, Abu Mazen and his apparatchiks reiterate that a part of Aza (scilicet, the area around Erez and the moshav Nativ haAsara) is still occupied;
(3) Crowds of Palestinians incinerate countless synagogs in former settlements.
Ad 2, quoting verbatim from haAretz:
"The territorial claim is not just a public relations exercise. It has consequences: The Palestinians are refusing to discuss upgrading the Erez crossing on the grounds that it is located in occupied territory. Tomorrow, someone will shell Moshav Nativ Ha'asarah, which lies within the disputed area, and claim the action is part of a just war of liberation - "the Nativ Ha'asarah Intifada."
These are the facts as determined by Shaul Arieli, who helped draw up the maps for the Geneva Accord: The 1949 cease-fire line, according to the Rhodes agreement between Egypt and Israel, was different from the current border of the Gaza Strip. However, a territorial exchange agreement was signed a year after Rhodes. Israel received the area in the northern Gaza Strip, where Erez and Nativ Ha'asarah are located today, in exchange for a larger parcel in the eastern Strip (which on maps looks like a hump). This altered border remained in effect until 1967, and United Nations soldiers were deployed along it. It appeared in the maps that were part of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, without any complaints from the Palestinians. It also appeared on the official Palestinian maps used in the Geneva Accord talks.
Now Abbas wants to return to the original 1949 boundary. He has ignored the fact that all of the peace agreements and UN decisions were based on the status that existed on the ground before the 1967 War and not on the Rhodes agreement. For him, the point is that he can show that the Israeli occupation in Gaza is not ending with the completion of the disengagement."
Very disappointing.
Posted on: Monday, September 12, 2005
ב''ה
So, the occupation is finished. ... - Well, the occupation of 5.79% of the disputed territories, anyway. Even if, however, we have withdrawn from only an exiguous proportion of the territories, the development is proportionately much more significant because it provides an insight into various facets of the Palestinian psyche like no other event has thus far. Primarily, now that they have a simulacrum of a state, what will have they done with it? And, just as importantly, now that they've HAD a simulacrum of a state for a few hours, what HAVE they done with it?
Fist of all, let us disabuse ourselves of a notion, ferociously propounded by Jew-haters who just have to find something to fault Israel for. (Paraphrasing:) The Palestinians do not really have a state in Aza because Israel continues to control the sea-waters, airspace and land crossings of the strip. While it is true that Israel's continued control of these territorial aspects is unfortunate, it is wishful thinking at best to insist that it has the potential to somehow negatively impact the Palestinians' ability to organize their state (economically, socially, societally, etc.). The vast majority of the Palestinians do not live in the air or the sea, nor do they depend on being able to conduct international travel with ease (certainly not to Egypt, which is far more hostile to the Palestinians than Israel). Fact of the matter is that the PA now has absolute control over Aza and its resources, plus international donors are lining up to endow it with countless €millions: there is no excuse not to make a success of it if there's a will to. Can the Palestinians extricate themselves from more than four decades of the war mentality--and the infinite marchings, rallying, chanting and sermonizing that go along with it--and turn their attention to building the economy and society of Aza?
Well, what have been the first three reported Palestinian acts immediately before and then following the exit of Tzahal from Aza?
(1) A qasam rocket is fired at S'derot;
(2) For who knows which time, Abu Mazen and his apparatchiks reiterate that a part of Aza (scilicet, the area around Erez and the moshav Nativ haAsara) is still occupied;
(3) Crowds of Palestinians incinerate countless synagogs in former settlements.
Ad 2, quoting verbatim from haAretz:
"The territorial claim is not just a public relations exercise. It has consequences: The Palestinians are refusing to discuss upgrading the Erez crossing on the grounds that it is located in occupied territory. Tomorrow, someone will shell Moshav Nativ Ha'asarah, which lies within the disputed area, and claim the action is part of a just war of liberation - "the Nativ Ha'asarah Intifada."
These are the facts as determined by Shaul Arieli, who helped draw up the maps for the Geneva Accord: The 1949 cease-fire line, according to the Rhodes agreement between Egypt and Israel, was different from the current border of the Gaza Strip. However, a territorial exchange agreement was signed a year after Rhodes. Israel received the area in the northern Gaza Strip, where Erez and Nativ Ha'asarah are located today, in exchange for a larger parcel in the eastern Strip (which on maps looks like a hump). This altered border remained in effect until 1967, and United Nations soldiers were deployed along it. It appeared in the maps that were part of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, without any complaints from the Palestinians. It also appeared on the official Palestinian maps used in the Geneva Accord talks.
Now Abbas wants to return to the original 1949 boundary. He has ignored the fact that all of the peace agreements and UN decisions were based on the status that existed on the ground before the 1967 War and not on the Rhodes agreement. For him, the point is that he can show that the Israeli occupation in Gaza is not ending with the completion of the disengagement."
Very disappointing.
ARCHIVED ENTRIES:
LINKS: