.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings
Monday, August 15, 2005
Beating a dead horse
That's what I'm doing, anyway. David Bogner has a post today that is somewhat political but mainly a lament for an injured neighbor. I didn't want to comment there because it just didn't seem right to make a political point. But that's there, and this is here.

Bogner says, "Whether one is pro- or anti-disengagement, there is no denying that our 'partners for peace' would be blind not to see disengagement as a big pay-off for years of terrorism."

Here's where I ride in on my expired equus: How, then, can anybody be pro?

And, no, there won't be any massive retaliations. Are there ever?
Well, just to answer your question:

Yes, this is clearly rewarding terrorism. Nevertheless, one could be in support of it if there were benefits to Israel that outweighed this. For example, if one thought that Israel would be more defensible without Gaza, or if there were political gains to be made from the disengagement, or if simply the example of Gaza becoming a Hamas-run hell for its own citizens gave the world a salutary lesson about what to do with the "west bank".

I haven't picked a position on this. In general, I trust Sharon, but he hasn't done much to maintain that trust. Also, all the people whose opinions I value (i.e. conservatives) are coming out against this.

Anyway, the time for talking is over. Now we just have to hope for the best and hope no one gets hurt.
I don't think the time for talking is over, not if we really want to learn the lessons from this.

This could possibly be the biggest single reward for terrorism since modern middle eastern terrorism began. Okay, the 2nd biggest, after the entry of the PLO to Israeli controlled territory. The implications here go far beyond Israel and indeed to the entire world. Remember, the world has been learning from the Israeli situation all along - except only the terrorists learned the right lesson.

Israel would be more defensible, possibly, without Gaza - if "without Gaza" meant "Gaza doesn't exist." But now you have a buffer zone between Israel and the Egyptian border - and not the good kind of buffer zone. I have heard that Israel will still somehow control the coastline and the Egypt-Gaza border, but I'm not holding my breath.

And I know you don't think the world really gives a damn about Palestinian citizens - why should it start now? Remove all industry and create Hamasistan or Fatahrabia - bad all around for the Palestinian people. But the world won't care, even when it's plain as day what is going on. Of course, to be plain as day you need the ability to report the truth - and ain't no truth gonna come out of Gaza anytime soon.

Political gains - aside from the fact that creating danger for Israel and the world at large can't be offset by any political gain... I scoff at the idea of political gain. Israel was already being pressured to give up more and more before the first orange ribbon was tied to a car antenna.

At this point I'd like to point out that as difficult as this all is for Gaza's Israeli citizens, I am not against giving up Gaza in theory. I just think it should be a concession based on actions.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger