|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Ariel Sharon's Gaza Disengagement Ten Years Ago Proving Land For Peace Didn'
t Work
It was the summer of 2005 when my family spent two wonderful weeks in Israel
. We left the holy land, three days before the disengagement from Gaza.
During our two-week trip we asked Israelis how the felt about the upcoming
give back of Gaza Strip.
There was one person whose answer still haunt me. This old man was sitting
in a wheel chair with an orange ribbons to it. (the people who fought
against disengagement wore orange). I asked him why he was against giving
back Gaza. He looked up at me and said, "Do you know what Sunday is?" I
answered Sunday was Tisha B'av (both Jerusalem Temples, along with a long
list of other tragedies happened to the Jews throughout the ages on that
same date, Tisha B'av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av).
The old man in the wheel chair said to me, " Yes Sunday is Tisha B'av,
disengagement begins on Monday. Giving away this land will be added to the
list of horrible events that happened to us on Tisha B'av."
That Old man turned to be right. Israel has had to withstand tens of
thousands or rocket attacks, many other terrorist attacks, and two wars with
Hamas in Gaza.
That's not how it was supposed to happen in December 2003 Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon announced:
The purpose of the "Disengagement Plan" is to reduce terror as much as
possible, and grant Israeli citizens the maximum level of security. The
process of disengagement will lead to an improvement in the quality of life,
and will help strengthen the Israeli economy. The unilateral steps which
Israel will take in the framework of the "Disengagement Plan" will be fully
coordinated with the United States. We must not harm our strategic
coordination with the United States. These steps will increase security for
the residents of Israel and relieve the pressure on the IDF and security
forces in fulfilling the difficult tasks they are faced with. The "
Disengagement Plan" is meant to grant maximum security and minimize friction
between Israelis and Palestinians.
While this may have been done with the most noble of intentions,
disengagement did not have the result that Sharon predicted. In fact, it
lowered the security of Israel and increased friction between Israeli's and
Palestinians. Just as Oslo gave Yassar Arafat a platform to significantly
increase terror activities, and Ehud Barak's lighting-like move from Lebanon
nourished the growth of Hezbollah, the Gaza disengagement nursed Hamas to
power.
The ascendancy of Hamas, the years of rockets bombarding the Negev and the
Gaza Wars can all be traced to the execution of the disengagement plan by
Ariel Sharon and his supporters. The only real result of disengagement was
further proof that land for peace doesn't work.
Former prime minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in 2004 this morning that
he was convinced that Sharon has reached the conclusion that there was no
other way to guarantee the future of the Zionist enterprise other than
disengaging unilaterally from the Palestinians. Barak called on the Labor
Party to support Sharon from within the government in what could be a "
historic move.
On the other hand, Binyamin Netanyahu accurately predicted what
disengagement would do:
I don't know when terrorism will erupt in full force — my hope is that
it won't ever. But I am convinced today that the disengagement will
eventually aggravate terrorism instead of reducing it. The security
establishment also expects an increase in terrorism. The withdrawal
endangers Israel's security, divides its people and set the standards of the
withdrawal to the '67 border.
Today Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah are still calling for the destruction of
Israel but nobody takes them seriously. Its time for the world to call their
bluff, there should be no negotiations with these terrorist groups until
they renounce their terrorist acts and agree to live in peace with the
Jewish State of Israel. Something that has never happened.
And it's something unlikely to happen. Mankind exists in a world were people
prefer to appease the terrorists, than to fight them. What's worse is
Israel faces the uncertainty of the most anti-Israel president in American
history, a world-wide Islamist terror movement that the President refuses to
acknowledge, the prospect of a nuclear Iran and a failed legacy of land for
peace efforts which the American president refuses to acknowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
