• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

'No Jews in Gaza': Sharon

Chris

Well-Known TRIBEr
'No Jews in Gaza': Sharon
Last Updated Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:14:52
JERUSALEM - All 17 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip will eventually be dismantled, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told a Likud Party meeting Monday.


Ariel Sharon (AP photo)

"He said it is possible there will be no more Jews in the Gaza Strip," said Yechiel Hazan, a Likud legislator, after emerging from the closed-door meeting.

About 7,500 Jews live in the 17 settlements on the Gaza Strip. The settlements account for nearly one-quarter of the territory.

The settlements are built on officially occupied territory and are considered illegal under international law.

Earlier on Monday, the Haaretz daily newspaper's website quoted Sharon as saying the Gaza settlements would be dismantled.

"It is my intention to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements," Sharon was quoted as saying on the Haaretz website.

The comments appear in excerpts from an article by columnist Yoel Marcus. The full article is to appear in the paper on Tuesday.

Sharon didn't indicate a timetable for dismantling the settlements, and said the settlers would have to be consulted.

The settlements were included among issues that would be dealt with in the final phase of the U.S.-backed road map to peace. Sharon has said in recent months Israel would take unilateral action if no progress had been made by summer.

Those unilateral steps include removing some settlements and imposing a boundary on Palestinian territory.

"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Sharon said.

Sharon said he would talk the plan over with U.S. President George W. Bush at a meeting he hopes to schedule later in February.

News of Sharon's plans was met with skepticism from opposition parties and the Palestinians alike.

The National Religious Party, a pro-settler party that holds six seats in the ruling coalition, threatened to pull out of the government. Losing the party's support wouldn't be enough to bring down the Likud-led coalition, which currently has 73 of the Knesset's 120 seats.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said the Israelis would only replace the 17 settlements with 170 more.



Written by CBC News Online staff
 

Hi i'm God

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ChrisD
Sharon said he would talk the plan over with U.S. President George W. Bush at a meeting he hopes to schedule later in February.
Why? what the hell to bush have to do with it...
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: 'No Jews in Gaza': Sharon

Originally posted by Hi i'm God
Why? what the hell to bush have to do with it...
The US gives Israel money and weapons. Why Israel needs them I don't know; they are surrounded by friends and well-wishers!
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
This 'No Jews in Gaza' scheme is a definate help to the 'No Jews Anywhere Else' plan being developed by Syria, Iran and the usual chuckleheads.
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
Sharon is just trying to distract people from his bribery and corruption allegations.
Perhaps.

Sharon is giving the Palestinians what they want, but Sharon will renege on this when there is another suicide bombing.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
That's an interesting theory.
I'll reword it. Sharon is giving the Palestinians some of what they want. I don't think Sharon will drive himself and his countrymen into the sea though.

As I said, when (not if) the Palestinians go out and blow up a bus again, Sharon will renege.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Littlest Hobo
I'll reword it. Sharon is giving the Palestinians some of what they want. I don't think Sharon will drive himself and his countrymen into the sea though.

As I said, when (not if) the Palestinians go out and blow up a bus again, Sharon will renege.

Right, but he isn't doing it for the Palestinians. That's anathema to his character, don't you think? He has other political reasons, of course.

This behaviour is nothing new. You obviously recognize it, I recognize it, and it's sickening. It's shitty that these Palestinians are so desperate that they feel that the problem is solved by bombing civilians, and it's disgusting that the so-called democratic government that is Israel feels it necessary to occupy and oppress the Palestinians, and commit equally vicious acts of terrorism against the civilians in the territories...*shrugs* it's all the same bullshit, none of them will fucking learn, because they're both too entrenched in fantasy.


I feel that the international community has a responsibility to step in. Too bad the United States doesn't give a fuck about humanistic ideals. :)
 

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
Humanistic ideals aren't accepted at the bank, hence their uselessness by the U.S. administration.

Bombs and guns, on the other hand, can be sold for lots of money. And coincidentally... Dubya's own dad runs a big arms contracting conglomerate. How much money do you think Bush sr. make from the misery and death of poor people on the other side of the planet?
 

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
It's shitty that these Palestinians are so desperate that they feel that the problem is solved by bombing civilians, and it's disgusting that the so-called democratic government that is Israel feels it necessary to occupy and oppress the Palestinians, and commit equally vicious acts of terrorism against the civilians in the territories...*shrugs* it's all the same bullshit, none of them will fucking learn, because they're both too entrenched in fantasy.
I agree completely. The problem is what compromises will the Palestinians accept? Israel was prepared to compromise back in 1993, and that went out the window. Now Israel is prepared to compromise again. Unfortunately history has shown factions within the Palestinian community will refuse to compromise at all with Israel. My fear is that no matter how much Israel concedes it will never be good enough and terrorist acts will continue.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Littlest Hobo
I agree completely. The problem is what compromises will the Palestinians accept? Israel was prepared to compromise back in 1993, and that went out the window. Now Israel is prepared to compromise again. Unfortunately history has shown factions within the Palestinian community will refuse to compromise at all with Israel. My fear is that no matter how much Israel concedes it will never be good enough and terrorist acts will continue.
Well, and this is always a point of contention (and I guess beside the point now), but Israel's compromises are inherently discriminatory and oppressive. The 1993 accords called for cantons through which the Palestinians would not have full autonomous control over their own land. But, this situation is being aggrevated on both sides. I see the biggest failure being the international community's sociopathic stasis on the issue.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
I see the biggest failure being the international community's sociopathic stasis on the issue.
The way I see it, you support Israel, you become a target for terrorism. You support the Palestinians, you get accused of anti-semitism (rightfully so in certain situations). Which countries would you want to go in?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Littlest Hobo
The way I see it, you support Israel, you become a target for terrorism. You support the Palestinians, you get accused of anti-semitism (rightfully so in certain situations). Which countries would you want to go in?
Right, and the United States has chosen the former, not the latter. And not based on the justice of the conflict, nor on international opinion, but for other reasons, which are probably all too obvious.

My suspicion is that (and this is a real conspiracy!!) Sharon is doing this quietly in agreement with the American government, in order to assist Bush' reelection chances. We'll see how this plays out...should be interesting.
 

expat

TRIBE Member
Palestinians have been offered a state 3 times: in 1937, 1948, and 2000. All three times they (or their Arab "friends") turned it down, in an effort to attain a maximalist solution.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by beatnik
Palestinians have been offered a state 3 times: in 1937, 1948, and 2000. All three times they (or their Arab "friends") turned it down, in an effort to attain a maximalist solution.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the whole conflict. That the Palestinians were handed the world on a silver platter and turned it down for whatever reason.

ugh...

but whatever... both sides are just as responsible as the other for this conflict going on as long as it has. and pointing fingers isn't going to get it solved any quicker.
 

expat

TRIBE Member
i should add that any perceived injustice regarding 1937, 1948, and 2000 was a matter to be resolved at the negotiating table; the answer was not full-scale invasion in 1948 or the commencement of the intifadah in 2000.
 

comma splice

TRIBE Member
the reason the negotiations failed in 1937 was because the Peel Commision split the land in two, giving more to the Palestinians, but in the south were the land was less arable. Also, both sides were looking more better deals as they thought they were entitled to get from prior negotiations with the British; the Palestinian side looked the Husayni-McMahon coresspondence as evidence, and the Zionists looked to the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The negotiations around this time were unstable mainly from the Arab revolts and clashes between the newly-landed Zionists and the British.

the 1947 UN partition boundaries were just as problematic in the demarcation of the two 'states'. since at the time Palestinian population was greater than Jewish by 2 to 1, the land now being split by relative percentages of Jews and Palestinians, Jewish 'zones' still had Palestinian majority. This was a problem for Zionists looking to establish a autnomous state. Also, there was naivety in this UN plan. The task of finally comming to agreement on the partition had little to do with concerns of the people on the land itself and their respective interest groups, but was more a overdrawn debate within the UN council itself.

the failure of comming to these two agreements goes way deeper than blamming one side or another.
 
Last edited:

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by comma splice
The task of finally comming to agreement on the partition had little to do with concerns of the people on the land itself and their respective interest groups, but was more a overdrawn debate within the UN council itself.

Yah, it sickens me to read the old domino.un.org records.

And beatnik, I know you like to think that Israel has been sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but can't you see the irony?
 

expat

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
can't you see the irony?
the irony I see is that, after all the deaths and bloodshed in the futile intifadah, the Palestinians are worse off than before.
Any deal that is struck in the next 5-10 years will be 99% similar to 2000 and/or the Geneva Accord.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top