Monday, August 22, 2005
The Guardian's view of the withdrawl
Why is it that what ever Israel does, they don't get any credit for it? Israel decides to unilaterally withdrawl from the Gaza region and for many people, not including the Palestinians themselves, are immediately saying how this step really means very little. The Guardian says 'Mr Sharon and his supporters will no doubt argue that Gaza has been a "painful concession" for which the Palestinians must now reciprocate, but they should not be allowed to get away with that. Compliance with international law over the Gaza settlements, after many years of illegality, is no concession.'
The territory was taken from Egypt in 1967, in the peace negotiations between Egypt and Israel that resulted in the returning of the Sinai, Egypt renounced the rights to the Gaza. This left the dispute on the territory between Israel and the Palestinian residents, this would not still be covered by International Law as it was renounced by the country that previously was the 'owner' of the territory. The same situation would be the case with Samaria and Yahudah. Jordan renounced the rights to the territory. Now let's look at that fact. It is true that both Egypt and Jordan renounced these territories with the intent of a negotiated settlement for those territories to be given to the Palestinians, but those settlements must be negotiated.
The Guardian further states 'Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, is not obliged to concede anything in exchange, but he must respond - otherwise the disengagement will amount to little more than a tactical readjustment serving Israel's convenience. In Gaza, Mr Abbas has two main tasks: to ensure that Palestinian militants give Israeli forces no excuse to return; and to start rebuilding the shattered economy.' Why is Mahmoud Abbas 'not obliged' to concede anything in exchange? Several reasons actually. The first is that there was no negotiation that led to the withdrawl, and therefore no Palestinian concession is required. There is another reason though as well. Publications like Guardian, and other individuals and organizations, seem to have the opinion/belief Israel can do not right and that as long as it exists it is in the wrong.
'Mr Sharon has a history of setting goals for the Palestinians that are impracticably high.' This is the type of statement that really upsets me as well. Why is expecting the Palestinians to actually do something they have agreed to, like disarming the terrorist groups, or cracking down on violence aimed at Israeli's. Or how about actually holding people in prison that are guilty of attacking Israelis, how about not praising those who blow themselves up in the commission of murder, or something really simple like changing the Palestinian Liberation Organization Charter, which has become the PA charter, to remove the various planks that refer to the destruction of Israel, it has been 11+ years since they agreed to the last item and it still hasn't been change. Yet, asking them to actually do things like this is considered setting the bar for the Palestinians impracticably high.
Guardian Article
The territory was taken from Egypt in 1967, in the peace negotiations between Egypt and Israel that resulted in the returning of the Sinai, Egypt renounced the rights to the Gaza. This left the dispute on the territory between Israel and the Palestinian residents, this would not still be covered by International Law as it was renounced by the country that previously was the 'owner' of the territory. The same situation would be the case with Samaria and Yahudah. Jordan renounced the rights to the territory. Now let's look at that fact. It is true that both Egypt and Jordan renounced these territories with the intent of a negotiated settlement for those territories to be given to the Palestinians, but those settlements must be negotiated.
The Guardian further states 'Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, is not obliged to concede anything in exchange, but he must respond - otherwise the disengagement will amount to little more than a tactical readjustment serving Israel's convenience. In Gaza, Mr Abbas has two main tasks: to ensure that Palestinian militants give Israeli forces no excuse to return; and to start rebuilding the shattered economy.' Why is Mahmoud Abbas 'not obliged' to concede anything in exchange? Several reasons actually. The first is that there was no negotiation that led to the withdrawl, and therefore no Palestinian concession is required. There is another reason though as well. Publications like Guardian, and other individuals and organizations, seem to have the opinion/belief Israel can do not right and that as long as it exists it is in the wrong.
'Mr Sharon has a history of setting goals for the Palestinians that are impracticably high.' This is the type of statement that really upsets me as well. Why is expecting the Palestinians to actually do something they have agreed to, like disarming the terrorist groups, or cracking down on violence aimed at Israeli's. Or how about actually holding people in prison that are guilty of attacking Israelis, how about not praising those who blow themselves up in the commission of murder, or something really simple like changing the Palestinian Liberation Organization Charter, which has become the PA charter, to remove the various planks that refer to the destruction of Israel, it has been 11+ years since they agreed to the last item and it still hasn't been change. Yet, asking them to actually do things like this is considered setting the bar for the Palestinians impracticably high.
Guardian Article
// posted by Little Wolf @ Monday, August 22, 2005 
