May 24, 2004
Ariel Sharon's original disengagement plan included the evacuation of the "Philadelphi Axis", the narrow buffer zone on the southern edge of Gaza, which cuts Gaza off from Egypt. (the link is a map). It involved evacuating all the settlements in the Gaza Strip along with their 7,500 inhabitants.
This disengagement plan meant that Sharon did not consider that the occupation of this territory was necessary for the security of the Israeli nation state. What is the strategic value of preserving 21 tiny Gaza enclaves with 7500 settlers ringed by 1.3 million Palestinians and prone to attack.?Presumably, the reasoning is that the Gaza Strip is a military and demographic burden, and the quicker Israel gets out of it, the better. That means the end of occupation of the Gaza strip.
Instead we have the Gaza paradox: the Israeli army moves in so it can pull out. This appears to be Sharon's way of doing things.
The common interpretation of what is going on in Israel appears to be that "the right won the elections and the Likud referendum, but the left is winning in public opinion”; that Israel will eventually leave the territories and that a Palestinian state is already a foregone conclusion.
Three thoughts.
Why return to the Philadelphi Axis? Why widen this buffer zone? The official purpose for destroying parts of Rafah is to destroy the tunnels under the Philadelphi Axis. The rational is that house demolitions in Rafah are necessary to prevent increasingly sophisticated weapons from being smuggled in under the border from Egypt.
Yet the tunnels have been there for years and, no doubt, new ones will be rebuilt. The episode indicates that the regular Israeli army is faced with opposition from guerilla fighters supported by a desperate population. That implies the military option is not the only way of dealing with the situation or working to isolate Yasser Arafat and his organization to highlight the way they have acted with such callous disregard for the interests of the Palestinian people.
From the perspective of the Palestinians, the building of the security wall by Israel can be seen as a form of concentration and encirclement. It is an ironic policy, given the experience of Israel Jews in the European ghettos. Moreover, the ongoing investment in the settlements signifies an occupation regime based on a continual movement to the other side of the line of the State of Israel. The massive investments in the territories create a new demographic reality that strengthens the occupation regime.
If Sharon is serious about his proposal to undertake a wide withdrawal from Gaza, then the military wasteland way of doing it will help to ensure the final erosion of the PA's "authority" in Gaza. This would result in the emergence there of an Islamist-led administration If so, then would not Sharon be justified in being able to hit it hard as part of the war on terror?
Update
It is disappointing that Australia/Israeli & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) is not more critical of Sharon and the Likud Right. Within Australia the Council appears to be so obssessed with the leftish critics of Israel that it cannot acknowledge the realities of occupation regime, or the 37 years of full occupation. Only Palestinians should acknolwedge realities. Nor does the AIJAC question the way that Israel's national security state continually undermines Israel's democratic ethos.
The latest example of this is the arrest of the British journalist Peter Hounam, holding him in a "dungeon with excrement on the walls" , limited to "two hours of sleep", and questioned for more than four hours by Israeli security, without being charged. Hounam said he was detained on suspicion of espionage and threatened with deportation.
May 31
Mordecai Vanunu, who took the wraps off Israel's secret nuclear arsenal, has spoken out publicly about his abduction and 11 years in solitary confinement. What real damage to state security does he represent now? Yet restrictions are imposed on Vanunu in the form of a ban against "maintaining connections or exchanging information in any way with foreign citizens". Security overides democratic freedom.
|
Sorry, Gary, but you're wrong on this one, as well. Way back in February I had detailled discussions with an IDF major general on the proposed withdrawal plan.
And, even back then, the plan called for Israel retaining control of the Philadelphi Axis in order clamp down on weapons smuggling from Egypt.
And, say what you might, the current operation has had a substantial effect on the arms smuggling trade. The going price for a single round of 7.62mmX39 ammunition is 25-27 Shekels. That means it costs at least 750 shekels to fill a 30-round AK-47 magazine. Pretty damned expensive.
If Israel were to withdraw from the Egypt Gaza border, then they wouldn't be smuggling in small arms ammunition, they'd be shipping in sophisticated anti-air and anti-tank missiles, as well as long range Katyusha rockets that would be able to hit the southern suburbs of Tel Aviv.
It's easy for you to pontificate from the safety of your Adelaide living room, Gary. But, close up things are not nearly as clear cut as it seems from your great distance. Israel has valid security concerns about terrorism emenating from the Gaza strip.