To engage or disengage. . . .

[davetlv]

In just over two months disengagement from Gaza will take place. In simple terms this means that Israel will withdraw its army and settlers and leave the Gaza strip. Over the next few months there will no doubt by hundred of thousands of words written about the disengagement, many of them focusing on the effect it will have on the Palestinian population.

Both the IDF and the police will be called up to remove those settlers who refuse to evacuate their homes. Some right wing factions are calling on the settlers to stay put and not allow the police or army to remove them from their homes. Rabbis are giving different opinions from ?you must peacefully comply? to ?you must forcefully reject all moves to be evacuated.?

However, as a supporter of complete separation and a two state solution, what concerns me more now is the internal effect this disengagement will have on Israel.

With 8000 settlers living in the Gaza strip this leaves Israel with the mammoth task of re-housing and finding suitable employment as well as education for all those former inhabitants of the Gaza strip.

Although the disengagement has been on the cards for a while, it is only now that the stark realities have hit home and the settlers are realizing that this is a fait au complete.

Recently the settlers and their supporters have started a campaign of civil disobedience against the disengagement. Demonstrations against government policy take place almost daily. Usually peaceful, at times emotional, these demonstrations are growing the nearer we get to DDay. Recently settlers and their supporters have taken to disrupting the normal flow of traffic by shutting downs the roads. When this happens it?s the police who are being called into remove the settlers, charge them and let the courts do their stuff.

The next couple of months are crucial for the future of my country. As the right mobilise themselves against disengagement the left also needs to mobilise themselves. Whilst six months ago some 65% supported disengagement in a poll last week that figure seems to have been reduced to 50%, mainly due to the voice being given to the settlers.

Interesting times are ahead for us.

[eye-p]

Re: To engage or disengage. . . .

this is a necessary move. if nothing else, it will show more goodwill on Israel's part. Lets hope this is a good first step.

[face]

Re: To engage or disengage. . . .

it is a necessary move, but hopefully the intentions are honest. if it's only done as a swap for the settlements in the WB, then what's the point?

the issue also remains that gaza will still be surrounded by israeli forces via land, sea, and air--a ghettoization, if you will.

as dave mentioned, the internal strife in israel will be most riveting to follow. the overzealous right needs to stop being so myopic and realize what is in israel's best interest.

as for abbas, israel and the us are expecting him to crack down on the militants. i'm no expert on islamic jihad, but i don't think they are very influential or significant, even. hamas, however, is a group that is quite fascinating. they are a political party, a charitable organization, and a militant faction all rolled into one. their massive success in the local elections recently shows how popular they are. and abbas's move to delay the elections--possibly to coincide with the disengagement--might be in the hopes of undermining hamas's success.

a group of british diplomats discretely met with hamas officials just recently, which is a step forward. then again, jack straw called for a boycott of hamas until they give up their militant tendencies. the uk and us still consider hamas a terrorist group, however. if they want democracy to take root in palestine however, as a step towards curbing violence and achieving permanent peace with israel, hamas will have to be recognized.

it's a catch-22 situation, really. to have true democracy in palestine would mean to allow any party that wins to take office, even the dreaded islamists. if they do not allow this, however, hamas will surely renounce their political efforts and revert to the use of violence. the parallel with algeria is quite stark, actually. in the early 1990s the algerian military allowed for multiparty elections, in which the islamists were poised to win. the elections were scrapped, and a coup reaffirmed military dominance. so, democracy is only allowed when it's "risk-free." the islamists were out to "hijack democracy."

hamas is a very pragmatic group, as you can see. no matter what their stated position is, they are quite flexible. they can adapt to whatever given situation, as is demonstrated by their participation in the elections. the situation in post-disengagement gaza will largely be determined by hamas's reaction to the pullout.

[davetlv]

Re: To engage or disengage. . . .

can we try and focus our attention here to the future of Israel please - i posted this with that intention.

Although i support the disengagement, and would have wished for the West bank to be included at the same time, my concerns are about the battle between left and right here.

The 'orange' revolution as some are calling it (the settlers have adopted the color orange for their cause) has the ability to totally split apart this country.

Check out www.haaretz.com and www.jpost.com for recent news of the disengagement.

[Morgan]

With 8000 settlers living in the Gaza strip this leaves Israel with the mammoth task of re-housing and finding suitable employment as well as education for all those former inhabitants of the Gaza strip.

I'm sure Israel could use part of the $3 billion in FMA to sort out the problem.

This disengagement is nesesscary, it's vital to the future of Israel and Palestine. Israel will soon be a county without a future unless this problem is sorted. Culturally Israel is suffering, it's obvoius as i'm sure anyone who meets young groups Israelies abroad knows. These groups of young people are very inwardly focused, they seem (in my experience) to believe that every non-israeli is out to rip them off, advice they would except with out question from a fellow countryman is questioned and regarded with suspection, socially they prefer the company of isrealis, often changing the group dynamic within a room. It is noticable that any western europeans will happliy mix with everyone and anyone, even Brits and French!
I beleive my observations are due to many factors, the fact Israel is surrounded on all sides, conscription and in the main the culture of fear that exsists in Israel today. A good example is the wall that is being built, subconsciously it gives the impression that they are keeping the world out or maybe the populous in?

This attitude is perfectable understandable when your always looking over your shoulder thinking is that arab man just a bit fat or is he strapped up with a ton of nitro. It is not a climate that I think is heathly or productive and is IMO slowly changing the way Israelis think and act, a change that is not for the best for Israel or the rest of the world.

This is why the disengagment should proceed whatever the consequences. It takes two to tango, neither side is blameless, but progress must be made. This a good step forward on the long road to eventual peace imo.