NEWS: Gaza is Not Iraq

POLITICS: Gaza is Not Iraq

Richard Cohen is wrong about Gaza.

If what’s happening in Gaza right now happens in Iraq tomorrow that will be good news, not bad.

Israel could not hold onto Gaza forever. Only the far-rightists in the settler movement even want Gaza. Similarly, the U.S. occupation of Iraq can’t go on forever. Not even American far-rightists want to hold onto Iraq forever. Unlike in Gaza, there are no American colonists in Iraq who need defending, nor will there ever be.

Israel’s evacuation from Gaza comes during a time of relative calm in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If only we were so lucky to see an Iraq as relatively calm as Israel-Palestine. If Iraq were so calm we could bring our troops home with our objectives accomplished.

Terrorists do not win just because wide-spread terrorism precedes a withdrawal. Terrorists win if wide-spread terrorism causes a withdrawal or occurs during a withdrawal. Israel is leaving Gaza right now in part because they are convinced the terrorist threat from Gaza is minimal.

There is no shortage of legitimate complaints about Ariel Sharon. The idea that he is knuckling under Islamist terror is most peculiar and unconvincing. Israel would have left Gaza at the height of the intifada, rather than today, if that were the case.

Underneath it all Israel is a racist theocracy. Am I supposed to feel bad for ethnic Jews because of the years and years of discrimination and the holocaust? You bet.

But there is a difference between ethnic Jews and the racist Zionists who have taken control of PALESTINE.

When will people stop feeling like we own the state of Israel something? How can we ignore their abuses of human rights?

Gaza was an illegal occupation, and the West Bank is an illegal occupation, as is the Golan Heights.

I am glad that Israel has decided to return the Gaza Strip.

I have to admit, I NEVER thought Ariel Sharon would turn out to preside over a move toward peace as the withdrawal from Gaza. He's been a peculiar (but welcome) surprise. I suppose only Nixon can go to China....

It always creeps me out when I find myself agreeing with you Michael, but dammit, sometimes you make good sense. Hopefully the withdrawal will continue and spread to the West Bank and Palestine will be given borders which will actually allow a viable state, unlike the peace brokered in the early 90s (too tired to remember, but wasn't it the Oslo Accords?).

Israel has one of the most tainted human rights records in the world and has ignored more UN resolutions and such than just about any other country I can think of, at least without anything being done about it by the security council.

Why? Would you feel better if I wished Israel would stay in Gaza indefinitely?

Acording to most historical accounts Israel was established in 1948. The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There ARE no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention.
Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians, weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death." I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN.

I think this is about a track record rather than the situation at hand.

Personally, I feel that U.S. coverage and particularily ABC's coverage of the evacuation has been just plain odd. They show the tragedy of having to move out the settlers rather than talk about the progress being made by this move. While there is no real compensation for having to uproot and leave your home, it is still important to notice that the people are being compensated by the government. It's not a fair deal, but it's still a damn good deal.

What the fuck man.

A group is a group when they say they are a group. It representative of a people.

And the whole idea of "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death" is just an ignorant perspective on human beings. You could say the same about the U.S. revolution from Britan.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Statments like that make my blood boil.

Edited for temperment.


[Edited on Aug 16, 2005 by One_Pure_Thought]

True, but so what? The people who live in Gaza aren't Egyptian today, nor are those who live in the West Bank Jordanian.

Lebanon wasn't a country until the 1940s. But that does not mean Lebanese people do not exist.

Croatia wasn't a country until the 1990s. But that does not mean Croats do not exist, despite the fact that they used to be Yugoslavs.

Palestine will become a state whether you like it or not. The only other option is for Israelis to grant Palestinians Israeli citizenship, which is never going to happen.

You mean by OUR government... 2.2 billion is what the US is giving in assistance, You're right. A damn good deal but for who? Roughly 223,000 per settler and it's still not enough? They burn down the homes their leaving and getting the payoff?

I notice a lot of retractions and revisions on this particular message board... Are you people scared of being called anti-semites or something?

So what? I strongly support U.S. funding for something like this than the countless billions we've spent on IRAQ. That money will go a long way, regardless if it doesn't go all the way, it will still help thousands of people. It's still a thousand times better than if this was an act of retreat due to war. It's a shitty deal for those having to move, but in reality this is a pretty damn good situation.

One person edited one post. I read it before he edited it. I didn't see anything even remotely anti-Semitic.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Just because people make arguments that aren't overly positive toward zionists doesn't make them anti-semitic.

Are you insane?

It was the weakest part of my argument so I removed it. If I were you I'd put more emphasis on rewriting too.

meh.

[Edited on Aug 17, 2005 by adjunct]

I think you should learn more about the rules of this site buddy.

Was the land Israel occupies now taken poorly and unjustly? Yes. Would doing the same thing to different people change that? No.

Further, those illegal occupations you mention were all "occupied" after invansions. Never in history has a nation who gained lands during a defensive war been forced, or even asked, to give those lands back.

Every state has and will continue to commit wrong acts against those they view as enemies. That leaves out the idea Israel, though a more advanced nation, still have the right to defend itself. I think most everyone would want the same if they had bombs going off in buses every other day. If you want to hold Israel to such high standards you shoud do so everywhere else as well.

[Edited on Aug 16, 2005 8:57PM]

Holy Guacamole I really fucked up there... I actually meant to say anti-semians, like as in the ape/human family.... I would never intentionally suggest someone was being anti-Jewish. I truly hope you forgive me.

Please put up a link to these "rules" where I should post in agreement to your Facist views? Last I checked I was a subscriber...

You can never change the fact that land and property were taken poorly or unjustly. And doing the same thing to different people won't change that. But it will start to formally acknowledge by the Israeli government that the land was taken poorly and/or unjustly.

Are you saying that nations taken to war and forced to defend themselves should have to give back land that they happened to gain as a result of defending themselves better than the aggressing country expected?

see: world war II

I'm not sure why occupied needs to be in quotes, every side involved has used the term in recent years.

As to history, perhaps Russia and WW2 would be a counter example. And there are lots of examples where the invader and the invaded become one people.

Stopping the expansion of borders via military power, defensive or otherwise, is something the great majority of the world community is strongly against. Given enough time these things become points of history, but occupation is like a infected wound. It would never go away.