One year ago today, Israel began its unilateral disengagement from Gaza, removing 8,500 settlers from 21 settlements in Gaza and 500 from four small settlements in the West Bank.
One year later, what is new? Literally, Nothing! Same shit, same occupation, same atrocities, same Israeli terrorist army, same killing of innocents, same... same... same...
Here are some FAQ quoted from Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), which sums up what you need to know after one year of what is called "disengagement":
1. Why did disengagement from Gaza lead to more, rather than less, conflict?
Gaza Palestinians greeted Israel's disengagement plan with a mixture of skepticism and cautious hope. Many believed that while Israel marketed disengagement as a step toward peace, the plan was designed to forestall peace negotiations and to consolidate Israel's control over Jerusalem and much of the West Bank. Nonetheless, they looked forward to freedom from the daily humiliations of life under Israeli military occupation.
Israeli leaders are aware that no truly representative Palestinian leadership could ever agree to Israeli designs for Jerusalem and the West Bank; to do so would eliminate the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. As Dov Weisglass, advisor to former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon said in October 2004: "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." (1) By appearing to make concessions to the Palestinians over the Gaza Strip, Israel hoped to gain sufficient international good will to unilaterally implement its plan to annex territories designated for a Palestinian state. Further conflict with Palestinians, therefore, was inevitable.
2. Were Palestinians grateful to Israel for withdrawing from Gaza?
Palestinians saw disengagement not as a generous concession by Israel, but as a decision forced on it by a logic of racial preferences for Jews. Israel could not annex the Gaza Strip without absorbing 1.4 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians, thus jeopardizing Israel's commitment to remain a "Jewish and democratic" state. With an estimated 8500 Jewish settlers in Gaza, comprising only 0.6% of the population, it was cheaper and more politically expedient to exclude Palestinians, and give up Gaza, a relatively small land area with minimal natural resources.
3. Has Israel's occupation of Gaza ended?
No. Israel continues to control the entry and exit of all people and goods into the Gaza Strip, to patrol its coast and airspace, to provide its water, fuel, electric utilities, and sewage, and to enter Gaza with military forces at will. Under international law, "effective control" is the measure of whether a territory is occupied. Thus it is most accurate to say that while Israel decolonized the Gaza Strip, its military occupation of the region has continued.
4. Did Israel's redeployment allow Palestinians to develop a viable state?
No. Israel has maintained tight restrictions on movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, smothering the Palestinian economy. As a World Bank report observed prior to disengagement: "Palestinian economic recovery depends on a radical easing of internal closures throughout the West Bank [and Gaza] the opening of Palestinian external borders to commodity trade, and sustaining a reasonable flow of Palestinian labor into Israel." (2)
In the Occupied West Bank, Israel maintains hundreds of checkpoints that fragment Palestinian communities. Palestinian goods are unloaded and reloaded onto different trucks several times before reaching their final destination. For example, goods originating from Hebron (in the Occupied West Bank) destined for Nablus (also in the Occupied West Bank) must be unloaded and reloaded an estimated seven times, increasing transportation costs and the time goods take to reach their destination.
The Gaza Strip has witnessed significant economic decline owing to Israel's frequent closures of Gaza's borders. Investors are unwilling to invest with such uncertainty. Indeed, despite a 2005 promise by G8 countries of a $3 billion USD investment in Gaza for its reconstruction, no money has actually been invested in the Gaza Strip's redevelopment.
5. Do Gaza residents now enjoy greater freedom?
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip no longer face daily confrontations with Israel soldiers, nor suffer the indignity of watching Israeli settlers traveling through their midst on Jewish-only roads – phenomena still faced by fellow Palestinians in the West Bank. They were also able to participate in parliamentary elections in January 2006 that were hailed globally as the most free and fair elections ever held in the Arab world.
But Gazans still grapple with severe restrictions on their freedom to travel.
The Rafah crossing point is the only access for Palestinians to Egypt. Pursuant to a November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access brokered by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Israel was to permit Palestinian-only travel through Rafah (other foreigners and Palestinians lacking Israeli identification documents were not permitted to use Rafah crossing). In June 2006, Israel dismissed European monitors, who had been dispatched to staff the crossing, and closed the facility. Since then, it has opened only briefly to permit some Palestinians stranded abroad to return home.
The Erez border station is the only place Palestinians can enter Israel for either work or to travel to the West Bank. Almost all Palestinians are barred from using Erez for "security reasons". Erez has been repeatedly closed since redeployment, again for unspecified "security reasons." Palestinian workers have been denied entry to Israel since March 2006, and only a handful have obtained permits to the West Bank.
In the November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, Israel committed to facilitate Palestinian travel between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but has failed to abide by the agreement.
As a result of all these restrictions, Gazans are trapped within the narrow confines of the Gaza Strip – unable to travel abroad or to visit relatives or conduct business in the West Bank.
Even Palestinian members of parliament are not permitted to travel. Parliamentary sessions are now conducted via video conference between Ramallah, in the West Bank, and Gaza City.
6. Why did Palestinians vote for Hamas and what are the implications?
Palestinians voted for Hamas because they were disillusioned by the failures of the Fateh leadership – corruption, incompetence, and most of all, inability to effectively defend Palestinian territory against further seizures by Israel. However, in a December 2005 poll, fewer than 3% of Palestinians supported Hamas's proclaimed goal of establishing an Islamic state. (3)
Since the elections, Israel has strived to undermine the Hamas-led Palestinian authority. Under the 1994 Paris Protocols, Israel collects taxes and customs duties on goods passing into the Occupied Palestinian Territories on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. Israel has refused to honor this legal obligation, retaining approximately $50 million monthly of Palestinian money.
The U.S., European Union, and other international donors have also withheld aid to the Palestinians until the Hamas government renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and agrees to honor prior agreements of the Palestinian Authority. The United States, which considers Hamas a "terrorist organization," has threatened to prosecute subsidiaries of any banks that facilitate transfers of funds to the Palestinian Authority.
As a result, the Palestinian Authority has been unable to pay nearly a million government salaries since January. Small private donations and aid from Arab countries have alleviated the resulting crisis only minimally.
John Dugard, South African law professor and Special UN rapporteur on conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has warned of an impending humanitarian crisis, and observed that "In effect, the Palestinian people have been subjected to economic sanctions - the first time that an occupied people have been so treated." (4)
7. Are Palestinians in Gaza healthier and safer than they were a year ago?
No. The Palestinians of the Gaza Strip have suffered serious deterioration in nutrition, health, and psychological well-being, particularly since the international blockade against the Palestinian Authority. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 70% of Gaza families are now dependent on aid to meet daily food needs. (5)
Since the electoral victory of Hamas in January 2006, tensions between Hamas supporters and members of the former ruling party, Fateh, have heightened, occasionally leading to armed clashes. Approximately 100 Palestinians have been killed over the last year in internal violence. Some members of the security services – which had been stacked by Fateh with its own supporters - have resorted to kidnappings in an attempt to coerce payment of their salaries.
Israel has continued its policy of "targeted killings" – assassinations of those it deems members of Palestinian armed groups. The killings typically are by air attack, employing missiles or bombs, and commonly kill innocent civilians.
Israel fired over 5,000 artillery shells into the Gaza Strip from the end of March 2006 to the end of May, ostensibly to halt the launching of "Qassam rockets" into Israel.
8. What are "Qassam rockets", and why did Palestinians fire them at Israel?
"Qassams" are homemade rockets of various types. All are unguided, carry small warheads, and most have a very short range. Although they have certainly contributed to a sense of insecurity in Israeli towns bordering Gaza, since the first Qassam was launched in 2002, only about ten fatalities ensued in Israel. No Israeli fatalities have been registered since the disengagement, although some Israelis have been wounded.
Israel's decolonization of the Gaza Strip by no means ended its control over the Gaza Strip, and the daily life of Palestinians there has, in many ways, declined as a result of this control. Israel continues to hold more than 9,000 Palestinians in prisons in Israel, including hundreds of women and children. Many have never been tried, and some are held under indefinite "administrative detention". Gaza Palestinians are glad that their lands are not being taken for Jewish-only settlements, but they are aware that Israel continues to expand its illegal colonies in the West Bank on land it seizes from Palestinians there. The number of new settlers in the West Bank exceeds the number that were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, and the process of Israel's colonization of Palestine, in net terms, has advanced. Israel continues to attack and kill Palestinians. Palestinians resent Israel's apparent effort to overthrow their democratically-elected government.
Unfortunately, some Palestinians have grown cynical about the willingness of the international community to enforce international law and U.N. resolutions in their case. They point, for example, to the 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel's West Bank separation wall is illegal and must be dismantled. The ICJ judgment has been flaunted by Israel with impunity – as have the many U.N. resolutions calling for an end to Israel's military occupation and condemning Israel's policies there, including its illegal colonization. Some Palestinian groups have concluded that only violent resistance can stop the seizures of their lands and win them their freedom. While reprehensible, that is why Qassam launches continue.
Hamas, the leading religiously-based Palestinian organization, suspended armed actions on Israelis for approximately 16 months until June 2006.
9. What precipitated the capture of the Israeli soldier on June 25, 2006?
The immediate trigger for the capture of the Israeli soldier was a June 9 bombing on a Gaza beach that killed seven members of the Ghalia family. Israel denied responsibility for the bombing, but Human Rights Watch determined that the wounds and shrapnel were consistent with Israeli ordnance. Then, on June 24, Israeli forces abducted Palestinian doctor Osama Muantar and his brother, Mustafa, claiming them to be Hamas members. The June 25 retaliatory raid was jointly mounted by the Izz ed-deen al-Qassam brigade (the military wing of Hamas), the Popular Resistance Committees (a coalition linking members of Fateh, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad), and the Army of Islam (a previously unknown group). The groups announced their willingness to release the captured soldier in exchange for the release of all Palestinian women and children held in Israeli prisons.
Beginning June 28, Israel has laid siege to the Gaza Strip, closing it almost entirely to travel and trade. Israeli jets bombed civilian infrastructure, including roads, bridges, government buildings, and Gaza's main electrical generating plant. Civilian homes, agricultural fields, orchards, workshops, and offices have also been attacked. To date, 184 Palestinians have been killed, including 42 children, while another 650 have been wounded. 3,400 Palestinians have sought shelter from Israeli attacks on their neighborhoods. (6)
On June 29, Israel abducted 64 Hamas officials, including Palestinian Authority cabinet ministers and up to 20 parliamentary representatives. The abductions were reportedly planned weeks in advance and had been approved by Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz. On August 6, Israel also abducted Palestinian parliamentary speaker Aziz Dweik. Many Palestinians view this as further evidence that Israel exploited the capture of its soldier to launch a broader attack against the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
10. Is the lesson from this that Israel should not withdraw from the West Bank?
No. The lesson is that Israel cannot expect unilateral redeployments of troops that only shift the character of its control over Palestinian lives to bring peace. Palestinian aspirations for independence, freedom, and prosperity cannot be realized when Israel controls the borders and airspace of Palestinian territories, and exploits this control to throttle a democratically elected Palestinian government. Palestinians are not likely to abandon resistance to Israeli policies that deny their freedom and take their land. Unfortunately, that resistance is likely to include violence as long as the international community is unwilling to enforce international law and U.N. resolutions that apply to Israel, and thus to ensure that justice for Palestinians can be achieved through peaceful means.
(1) Ari Shavit, Haaretz.
(2) See "Disengagement, The Palestinian Economy and the Settlements", the World Bank, June 15, 2004.
(3) http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2005/no55.pdf.
(4) John Dugard, Human Rights in Palestine, 21 June 2006.
(5) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, HUMANITARIAN FACTSHEET ON LEBANON, OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, 9 August 2006.
(6)Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, HUMANITARIAN FACTSHEET ON LEBANON, OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, 9 August 2006.
{ 9 comments }
There is no disengament!
The Israelis have stolen too much land to disengage!
Israel is doing everything they can to keep stolen land!
The Palestinians are just trying to survive!
If Israel gave back all the lands they have stolen, they would have to build higher apartment buildings and buy more food from Palestinians.
Just one message for Israel. “Give back the lands you stole from Palestein”!
To the muslims around the world.
Israel and its allies are planning a massive ethnic cleansing of muslim population. From U.K to India, they have created a database of all the muslim holding senior positions, politicians. They would like to disarm and neutralise any potent force to protect islamic world such as hezbollah and some other organizations.
Now they are profiling people, during their travel. All the islamic world, should enforce profiling of westerners and non-muslims.
No westerner or their allies shall be granted immunity after lebaneese and qana massacre. Nor their leaders or their queen or their predecessors who are present in iraq shall be immune.
Haitham,
I wrote a posting this morning which it appears that you have decided to censor out. This, I find quite a bit strange considered the seriousnes and relevance of the contents.
Yes, it clearly gives the impression that I am angry, but I am very angry at people like Samina (whose post provoked my angry reaction) and I am angry at all the people who silently agree with her!
You probably will respond with something about the rules of this blog, but I think that would be a bit bigotted as you do not censor the posts of Samina and her ilk.
It appears that on your blog everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others based on your own rules and your enforcement of those rules.
Samina’s post is clearly a personal attack on me (another commentor) though it is directed at all non-Muslims (among others myself). My post may be judged as a personal attack on Samina and Aiyn, but I think that qualifies as self-defense. My post is not an attack on Muslims, though my use of strong wording may be a bit provocative (which is intentional).
The posts of Samina and Aiyn are racistic as they generalize and attribute negative traits to ALL non-Muslims. You may claim that I generalize as well, but I address those Muslims who do not speak up against racism against non-Muslims – which unfortunately seems to be a majority! Regardless, the posts of Samina and Aiyn definitely qualify as hateful, while my post did not call for death and destruction on anybody!
Maybe scurrilous? Well, Samina and Aiyn deliver a scurrilous message without using scurrilous words while I deliver an argumented message with scurrilous words.
I find Samina an Aiyn’s racism and pure hatred quite negative, while I do not see how urging people to discuss something negative (like racism and hatred) is negative in itself. But, maybe you deem my post to create an unpleasant controversy? =:O
What I interpret from this – without having heard your argumentation – is that in the hierarchy of ‘offenses’ by commenters on your blog it is more offensive to use scurrilous words and request Muslims to do an unpleasant self-evaluation than it is to promote racism and hatred towards non-Muslims!
Sorry, Haitham, but you pile onto my dissapointment over Muslims’ refusal to stand up against racism regardless of who it is targeted at :(
We have spent a lot of time on your blog with discussing whether all Muslims are terrorists, but apparently it is not important to discuss whether all Westerners are imperialists. Am I your enemy as well?!?
You know that your comments are always welcomed, although we don’t agree most of the time. However, the comment you are talking about here was full of vulgar words which I don’t see fit here.
You are free to express your opinion and disagree with whoever you see wrong, however, I expect from all not to use vulgar words to call other commentators. Just to keep the discussion civilized.
I’m sure that you agree that if the people you called names (as***les, etc…) would reply in the same tone to you and then you can expect how civilized this will be.
Bottom line, I have no problem what you criticize or agree with, even when related to religion, etc… as far as the discussion is objective and clean.
Thanks for understanding!
Haitham,
So you are confirming that there is a hierarchy of ‘offenses’ by commenters and that it is uncivilized when a non-Muslim commenter use vulgar words to address an Islamic extremist who has made hateful threaths with clear racistic undertones against a non-Muslim commenter (as my post was censored), but it is a civilized, objective, and clean contribution to the discussion when an Islamic extremist makes a racistic and hatefull call for death and destruction to all non-Muslims (as those posts are not censored)?
Sorry, but I cannot understand that.
I think I have the draft notepad document somewhere, so I will change the vulgar wording and see if the re-post goes through, because Muslim racism is a serious topic that needs to be addressed if there is ever to be clear and respectful communication between Muslims and non-Muslims. Cross-cultural relations without mutual respect are not friendships, they are preludes to war and destruction for everybody.
Thomas,
It has nothing to do with Muslims or non-Muslims. Vulgar words are not acceptable, and when I spot them, I delete the comment, regardless of the history of the commentator.
As for racist remarks by some, let me remind you that non-Muslims also used hateful and threat language, however, this is subjective and is seen differently by different side of the story. I don’t think comparison is correct between the racism speech and use of vulgar words.
Modified response to Samina’s post ( http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/08/16/disengagement-one-year-later/#comment-228617 )
To the Muslims around the World,
I do not agree with the Middle East policies of the people who are supposed to represent me and I am definitely not alone. We are still in minority, but our numbers are growing towards the point where we will one day be able to make a real difference.
I am not able to change the world, but I can discuss the problems with people around me and try to make them understand that our policies are wrong. That is my contribution to promote liberty for everybody. I am not being paid to do it, but I take the time to do it because I see it as my resposibility as a human being to follow my conscience and promote equal liberty for all. That is what I can do.
When some ‘Western’ shirt sleeve makes extremist remarks about people in the Middle East and promotes violation of your rights through indiscriminate agression then I speak up in your defense. When some ‘Muslim’ shirt sleeve, like Samina and Aiyn, makes extremist remarks about people in the ‘West’ and promotes violation of my rights through indscriminate agression then you just sit on your big sofas with your mouths shut.
Tell me; why the flower should I care about the situation you are living in when you clearly do not give a bicycle about the situation I am in? Why the flower should I do what I can to prevent ‘Western’ extremism against you when you do nothing to prevent ‘Muslim’ extremism against me?
I am seriously beginning to wonder why I speak up against those in my part of the world who wants to build walls to keep Muslims out! Do you say “We come in peace” with one side of your face while the other side yells “Kill, kill, kill” – just like the Zionists do it? Am I digging my own grave in blissful ignorance by promoting that you should be received with open arms?
Should I take up knitting or porcelain painting instead of wasting my time discussing with you?
Thomas,
(From a fellow defender of Muslims and Arabs, albeit with perhaps a slightly different bent)
No, you should not quit doing what you are doing simply because you do so out of your conscience which is put there by “whatever or whoever” for a reason. Please do not be discouraged. You are simply seeing the reaction to the hatred of Western policies in the Middle East. You are an educated person who knows the facts of the different situations in which the “West” entangled itself in the regional concerns of the people there. Their reaction is a human one to what they have suffered as a result. When for years the people of these countries have been denied their true autonomy because of “Western” meddling you hear what you are hearing. Once a long time ago I took a class about communication. In that class I learned something important. The moderator showed us a picture of an iceberg. The tip of an iceberg is what you see above the water but underneath is a much larger mass. In the case of communication, the tip of the iceberg, what you hear, is anger, but what is below, the much larger mass, is pain of suffering. When you hear the voices speaking out in anger against us just know this, underneath the anger is the pain and suffering they have experienced for years. I think the “West” needs to hear this especially now as the West with their so-called “war on terrorism” is reeking so much destruction there. “Our” war”
is creating more of this rather than the opposite desired affect. We in the West (please do not include me as that I have no control over my government’s policy but only a small voice to speak out in dissent) cannot possibly hope to gain peace by this behavior. But as individuals we can continue to try to understand and speak our consciences in the matter.
Robin,
No offense, but you do not count ;)
I hear what you are saying, and I largely agree, but I think it is time for the Muslims to stop sticking their heads into the sand (do you notice that there is still no ‘Muslim’ response to my ‘provocation’) and come out into the open about how they feel. Yes, I did put hard against hard in a desperate attempt to finally get a reaction, because I know from experience that Muslims are conflict shy when it comes to speaking up against another Muslim, no matter how unreasonable, repulsive, and agressive he/she is.
I know cultural communication is a balance of give and take, but this really is something Muslims need to deal with if they want some respect – not just from me, but particularly from everybody else in the west. Culturally, it may be that a Muslim should not criticise another Muslim no matter how brain-dead he is, but this lack of -let’s call it- self-critique is the main reason why Muslims are perceived as arrogant, stubborn, backwards, and impossible to reason with. Not exactly the concept any of the sides should convey to the other.
In order to create a clear channel of communication, both sides need to bend a bit and let a few things ‘slide’ here and there, but Muslims’ lack of credibility due to their inability to admit that not everything that comes out of the mouth of every Muslim is gold is a serious barrier!
Everybody,
I know somebody (I think it was John) posted a link to a Zionist propaganda manual a while ago – the one with a mail sent to a ton of pro-Zionists describing how to evade critcism and redirect all blame onto everybody else but Israel. I think it was a link to the Jewish University (of Jeruslam?) in Israel or something, but I have not been able to identify the post to find the link. If somebody knows what I am talking about, please post the link.
{ 5 trackbacks }