By David Bedein
The coming plan for Israel to “disengage” from the Gaza Strip is based on ten questionable premises. They are:
• “[Israel’s] successful withdrawal from Southern Lebanon is a precedent for everything that will take place in Gaza and Northern Samaria after the withdrawal from these areas.”
Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said in an address he made to the Conference of Presidents to Major Jewish Organizations from North America last February that “No missiles have been fired from on the northern border against Israel since Israel’s retreat from Lebanon in May 2000.” He repeated this at a press conference one week later.
He refused even to glance at the official Israel Defense Force report shown to him that documented more than 100 missile attacks on the northern border since Israel’s withdrawal — attacks that resulted in deaths of at least 28 Israeli citizens.
• “There is less incitement from the Palestine Authority since Mahmoud Abbas’ entry into his position as president.”
The governmental committee that was supposed to report on Palestinian incitement against Israel is not operating at all. General (Res.) Yaakov Amidror, who was assigned to coordinate the incitement committee, says he is not receiving information from intelligence sources in the Defense Ministry, and therefore he cannot operate. There is not incitement because no one is reporting the incitement.
• “Abbas is a peace seeking leader.”
Despite his statements in the P.A. media, in which he states strongly that he does not intend to dismantle the terror organizations from their arms, not one Israeli governmental office or military source has pointed this out to the Israeli public or the international community.
Since entering his position as P.A. president, Abbas’ statements do not represent any willingness for peace or co-existence with the people of Israel; and he feels confident to go on making such pronouncements, so long as the Israeli government willingly turns a blind eye to such blatant behavior.
• “Aid given to the P.A. education establishment is a positive development.”
The Israeli government is assisting in this aid despite reports from the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (www.edume.org) showing the P.A.’s educational system is based on continuing the war against the “Zionist State.”
• “The United States promised to recognize settlement blocs.”
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claims repeatedly that this promise has been made to him as part of the agreements reached in his meeting with Bush on April 13, 2004.
However, the U.S. embassy informed me that the U.S. State Dept. completely denies any such promise of recognition of settlements.
• According to Sharon’s office, “As part of the United States’ gestures of good will to Israel for the Gaza and Northern Samaria withdrawal, the U.S. will aid in the buying of the property belonging to the residents of the settlements.”
The Ma’ariv newspaper even published a detailed article, telling of a budget of $56 million to be given by USAid, United States Agency for International Development. After checking with the directors of the U.S. Aid, I was informed that the fund was never even approached and would never consider funding such an endeavor.
• According to reports in the Israeli papers this past month, “Israel is expecting the United stated to automatically provide additional funding for the high cost of dismantling and pulling out of the settlements.”
There is no indication of such on Capitol Hill. What the government of Israel apparently does not know is that there are strict laws in connection to the Foreign Assistance Act of the U.S., which forbid use of U.S. equipment for anything that could be construed as suppressing human rights and civil liberties, which would include bulldozing entire communities and killing civilians.
Since almost all law enforcement equipment in the hands of the IDF and the Israeli police are supplied by the U.S., Congress will have a say in the matter.
• “Jerusalem is not up for negotiations.”
Sharon has denied former prime minister Ehud Barak’s claim that Jerusalem is on the political table and that Israel’s hold on East Jerusalem is negotiable.
However, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice clearly states that the U.S. opposes any settlement activity beyond the 1967 borders. When I asked the U.S. embassy spokesman whether reconstruction of the “Hurva” synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Old City of Jerusalem and destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948 was considered to be “illegal settlement activity,” the answer was yes.
• One of the most frequent claims given by Sharon for Israel’s retreat from Gaza and northern Samaria is that the pull out will improve the feeling of security amongst Israel’s residents.
Anyone visiting the Elei Sinai community in the most northern most part of Katif in Gaza will quickly see that the distance between the front porches of that community and the major power station in Ashkelon is within shooting range. Is it not evident that after Israel’s pullout from such an important strategic region that Ashkelon’s power station could be threatened by P.A. security forces and all the terror organizations who populate the Gaza Strip?
• Sharon repeatedly claims that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will lead to the blossoming of the Negev Desert region.
Most recently, guides from the Jewish Agency reported that they had received guidelines not to encourage organized groups to sleep over in the facilities of the western Negev because of security concerns from Gaza. Is this a sign of things to come?
David Bedein is bureau chief of the Israel Resource News Agency in Jerusalem.
Loading ...