Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An Israeli government minister has warned that Israel may move to re-occupy the Gaza Strip.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-10 11:33 PM
Original message
An Israeli government minister has warned that Israel may move to re-occupy the Gaza Strip.
<snip>

"Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz says Israel will not allow Hamas, which governs the territory, to arm itself with long-range missiles, the BBC reports.

Two Israeli soldiers and two Palestinian militants were killed on Friday in the most deadly clash on the Israel-Gaza frontier since Israel ended an offensive there 14 months ago.

Meanwhile, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has moved to ease tensions with the United States, describing the two countries' relations as those of allies and friends.

Mr Netanyahu also dismissed reports one of his confidants had called the US President Barack Obama a disaster for Israel."

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/03/29/1247f8f961c0


Steinitz Says Israel Will Have to End Hamas Regime

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=al6ducDOv9qs&pid=20601087
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Alternate (and more accurate) title:
"Israeli minister threatens to waste the lives of more Israeli soldiers and civilians for own political gain"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh yea, re-invading and re-occupying the Gaza will "ease tensions" with the U.S.
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 02:41 AM by Ozymanithrax
If Israel should cease to exist, it will be Bibi and his ilk that causes it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What has the US to do with any of this?
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 05:00 AM by henank
There are so many fallacies in that one short sentence of yours, where shall I begin?

"re-invading and re-occupying the Gaza will "ease tensions" with the U.S."
Why is the US involved in this? What is the connection? If Israel re-invades or reoccupies Gaza, it will not be done to ease tensions with the US or anyone else. It will be done to prevent terror attacks on Israel. Or does Israel not have the right to self defense in your humble opinion?

"If Israel should cease to exist, it will be Bibi and his ilk that causes it."
Why do you think Israel would cease to exist? What do you think Bibi will be doing that causes it? Is it self-defense? Not very logical is it?

And who or what are his ilk? Avigdor Lieberman? Ehud Barak, the leftist Labour defense minister?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Allow me to explain.
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 05:27 AM by Chulanowa
First, Israel's ability to maintain itself and still manage all these wars is largely dependent on US goodwill. We supply and fund their military, we have their backs in the UN, we have their backs in regional affairs - it's our money and our promises that keep Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia as muted as they are these days. Israel is, essentially, dependant on the US for its ability to do what it does. The Soviet union isn't there to save the day for the state these days, after all.

next, invasion with the stated goal of toppling an elected government you dislike is sort of the opposite of self-defense. Unless you're a Bush, I suppose.

And Israeli Labor is only "leftist" in the context of Israeli politics. Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Ehud Barak is no leftist.
He's a defence minister from a traditionally leftist party, but he's no leftist himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. It was partially a gesture of goodwill to have returned Gaza.
Immediately the rockets began firing into Israel and they have been fired ever since. Hamas blew it for the Palestinians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Nonsense. There was no goodwill involved at all..
It was a unilateral move by Sharon because it wasn't viable to continue spending so much on keeping the settlements in Gaza. At the time what the Palestinians wanted or needed wasn't of any concern to Israel...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. You are merely spouting personal opinion, but many in Israel
had been calling for withdrawal from the Gaza as the prelude to an eventual Palestinian homeland. And that certainly doesn't excuse the fact that rockets immediately began firing, proving that a will for peace in no way existed among the leadership of the Palestinians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. No, I'm telling you what was in the Israeli media at the time...
I can go back and dig up some links to articles in this forum that show that what I said is correct.

Also, rockets were being fired before the disengagement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. There is no single reason they withdrew, but to appeal to the sentiments
of world opinion and to some of Israel's own citizens was one reason. There were peace marches with groups from both sides demanding withdrawal from Gaza and self-determination. As far as rockets fired - the Israelies have always been shot at by their neighbors for who they are. 1946-47, 1967, & 1973 are reminders of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. For what they do, not just for who they are. N.T.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. what did "they" do during the Hebron riots and before the state was established?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Definitely for who they are. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-10 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Self-serving nonsense
Israelis desperately want to believe that the Nakba, settlements, OCL checkpoints etc are not the principle obstacles to peace and that the Palestinian hatred for Israel is irrational bigotry, but it's not a position any even remotely impartial observer can take seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. You might care to examine the reason those checkpoints exist.
Edited on Wed Mar-31-10 10:29 AM by humblebum
Israelies got tired of having having school buses and shopping malls attacked. They have every right to protect themselves. Until the Palestinians can stop broadcasting and teaching to their children degrading facts about Jews, equating them to monkeys and dogs, and things such as that, nothing will change and nothing should change. The Palestinians have continuously squandered every opportunity to have a peaceful coexistence and a homeland of their own. Their claim to anything effectively ended with WW1 and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. were not so desperate...
we just remember 1967......and 1948....and 1921.....you must know there was no occupation, no checkpoints...correct?

its rather foolish not to mention, not very productive, and well as simply demonization to take a position that states the concern of one of the participants in this conflict can't be taken seriously......


on that note, what can't be taken seriously is your position that israelis must be racists because israel a country with a free press "indoctrinates its citizens" where as the arab world, that has no free press and a poll of over 90%* having a negative opinion about jews is not.... ( to quote you: that is a position, not even remotely impartial observer can take seriously.)


----
just to remind you:
n the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews were overwhelmingly unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97 percent), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) held an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians

The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes survey (take from: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176)

helluva poll....i would say its a pretty good result of indoctrination....(and arabs israelis, only 35% of Israeli Arabs expressed a negative opinion of Jews, while 56% voiced a favorable opinion...and these are the arabs that actually work and live with jews....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. We are at the start of a new beginning & a historic opportunity for a better future for both people
Israeli media excerpt (Haaretz):

GOC Southern Command Major General Dan Harel praised the professionalism of the security forces that carried out the pullout.

"We are at the start of a new beginning and a historic opportunity for a better future for both peoples," Harel said.

From the same article:

"Today is a day of joy and happiness that our people were deprived of in the past century," said Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtDisengagement.jhtml?itemNo=623925&contrassID=23&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Along with Gaza, Israel uprooted settlements in the W.Bank and negotiated the Crossings agreement
...with the PA when Israel was convinced by the USA to give up manning the southern border between Gaza and Egypt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-10 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. A Gaza without settlers?
It has been nearly a quarter century since Israel physically uprooted a settlement built beyond its pre-1967 borders. But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a chief draftsman of Israel's drive to settle lands occupied during the 1967 Six Day War, says he is now prepared to up stakes throughout the Gaza Strip - part of his plan to unilaterally disengage from the Palestinians.

"This is the first time of evacuating settlements - not illegal ones, and not outposts, and not just one," says Menachem Klein, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv. "Perhaps one day we can look back and say here the reverse began."

Mr. Sharon's proposal to create peace without partners could implode from the pressure on it by nearly all sides. Although the 7,500 Israeli settlers in Gaza are a small contingent relative to the more than 200,000 in the West Bank, Sharon faces outrage from the pro-settlement right-wing parties; their withdrawal from government could trigger new elections. He faces skepticism from the Israeli left, which says Sharon is just trying to distract attention from his mounting legal woes.

And he faces resistance from the US, which can't decide what to do with a plan that ignores reciprocal formulas built into Washington's moribund road map plan for peace.

Despite the skepticism about the plan to remove the 17 settlements amid some 1.2 million Palestinians, some people here say Sharon is dead serious.

"He knows that if he is understood as the only Israeli politician who can withdraw from Gaza, then the encouragement to take a step against him will diminish: Anyone who does will be seen as standing in the path of the historical bulldozer who is ready to take the Israeli people out of the Gaza Strip," says Mr. Klein.

The last and only time Israel evacuated a settlement was in 1979, when Yammit was removed from the Sinai, which Israel returned to Egypt as part of the Camp David Accords. Since his election three years ago, Sharon has been promising settlers that he would never agree to evacuate them. He has also refused attempts to negotiate with Palestinian leaders while acts of terrorism against Israelis continue, which makes his decision to float his evacuation plan now - days after a ghastly suicide bombing - all the more remarkable.

Sharon's calculations, says Klein, are not tied to the latest events - but the broader outlook in Israel and the sense of failure to quash the Palestinian intifada, ignited in September 2000. "Senior members of the Israel establishment, including the security services and the military, have put pressure on Sharon to do something," says Klein.

The battle over population demographics also plays a key role in Sharon's decision, say observers. If Israel can't reach a negotiated peace with the Palestinians and does not withdraw from Palestinian population centers in the next 15 years, Arabs will outnumber Jews in the area of historical Palestine - from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. The Arab birthrate could eventually bring about Israel's downfall - or at least end its ability to cleave to democratic ideals within Jewish statehood.

But below the surface, many observers here see shorter-term motivations. Sharon, who is due to visit Washington next week, has been searching for a way to give what he hopes will be a well-appreciated boost to the Bush administration's foreign policy record by showing positive movement in the Middle East. Moreover, the very concept of Israel's staunchest hawk pulling out of occupied territory may boost Sharon's case as he gets closer to what looks likely to be a bruising international trial in The Hague later this month against Israel's construction of the separation barrier. The International Court of Justice is due to start hearing the case against the separation barrier at the end of February.

Critics also argue that Sharon would rather focus on the big picture than his not-so-small problems at home: the prime minister will be questioned again by police Thursday in a widening corruption investigation.

"People on the right and left see that obviously, this is connected to Sharon's attempt to extricate himself from his legal problems," says Dror Etkes, who is with Peace Now's Settlement Watch team, which supports the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"There's an obvious relation between those two things," Mr. Etkes adds. "Why Gaza and why now? I think Sharon understands that the real fight is over the West Bank. That's where the water is, the history, the archaeology, where most of the settlers are."

The Israeli public looks likely to sign off on his approach. The settlements in Gaza are not deeply popular, are seen as a military liability, and are not seen as part of Israel's biblical birthright in the way those in the West Bank are. A poll by the Yediot Aharonot newspaper released Tuesday found that 59 percent of respondents supported Sharon's plan.

But Israeli settlers still believe they have the upper hand - and say they're launching a nationwide campaign to stop Sharon's plan.

"I believe that we need only to ask the members in Knesset who support us to leave the coalition immediately," says Pinchas Wallerstein, a leading figure in the group Yesha, which represents all 150 Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

A parliamentary vote is required to uproot any settlements.

"I have been working with Sharon at least 25 years, I don't think there was a settlement that I was involved in founding without the help of Ariel Sharon," says Mr. Wallerstein. But people also remember what he did in Yammit, and so we know he has the power to do things he said he wouldn't do."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0204/p01s01-wome.html/(page)/2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. there is no such thing as "good will" in intl politics.....
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 02:19 AM by pelsar
Gaza was returned not as some kind of gesture to the Palestinians but more of a gamble, a sacrifice for israel as a whole.
(Any and all "gestures" by any govt has an element of self interest).

with Gaza returned, there were a couple of scenarios....mostly dependant upon the Palestinians, but with consequences for the whole conflict.

the first was that whomever was controlling gaza, they could have made the political and military decisions that was best for the gazans,

1) working with israel and egypt, keeping irans at arms length and slowly building up a relationship with both,

2) attack israel with kassams, etc

3) have a hostile relationship with egypt

4) attempt to work with egypt
---

it they chose the first, the left theory of "land for peace" would have been proven and the israeli right would have found themselves put in to corner. Since they chose the second, it was the israeli left that discovered that the theory was wrong.....self govt for the Palestinians does not equal peace, and the israeli left, lost its political power and believers.

One can blame israel for "not doing it right" but most of us see that as further proof, that a self govt that will have peace with israel requires more than just a controlling party, but a govt that is stable, has an established record of civil rights/freedom of speech within its governing bodies, with a community that believes in them.

Sharon risked for what he believed in, and trusted the Palestinians of Gaza to prove him right.....and in doing so remove his political opposition from the left - he succeeded.

The gazans/hamas can still change the situation....even with hamas in power.....but a first step would be to stop with the kassams, (still flying but far less), and return shalit alive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. No one can make such a blanket statement. Pressure was
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 05:41 AM by humblebum
being exerted on Israel to do such a thing and the Gaza was no longer needed as a buffer against Egypt. In the eyes of the world, Israel had much to gain from the withdrawal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. It's not a blanket statement. It's pure common-sense...
Pelsar's right on that one. International politics is a thing where self-interest is the way things are done, and good will towards the Palestinians had nothing to do with the disengagement. That's why it was done unilaterally without the involvement of the Palestinians. How it affected them was of little concern to Israel...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC