Tuesday, August 10, 2010

"Land For Peace: The Myth"

The continuing mantra from the Middle East is that the so-called Palestinians just need some more of Israel's land, and then we will see peace in the region. Unfortunately for those who suffer from this delusion, its a failed model. All one has to do is turn slightly towards the west (from Israel) and look at the Gaza strip for a dose of reality:

"LA Times Concludes: Withdrawal From Gaza Was not Smart"

Five years after, a major U.S. newspaper summarizes Israel’s Disengagement from Gaza: “It was a big mistake.”

Entitled “Lessons and Legacies of Israel's Gaza Withdrawal,” the August 8th Los Angeles Times piece by Edmund Sanders lists a series of conclusions that can be drawn from the abrupt, unilateral pullout from Gush Katif in Gaza orchestrated by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the summer of 2005. Just five months later, Sharon suffered massive hemorrhaging and entered the comatose state from which he has not awoken.

Among the key lessons and legacies listed by the LA Times are these:

Although disengagement enjoyed broad support at the time, almost no one calls it a success today… It helped put Hamas in power… Security for Israelis didn't improve – and even worsened… It contributed to increased isolation for Israel internationally… It raised doubts as to whether the Palestinians are actually ready for statehood... Though the actual expulsion went more easily than expected, it made Israelis more cynical about the chances for future land-for-peace deals.

But that just marks the beginning of the problems. As pointed out in this article:

In this last connection, the Times article does not note the ongoing difficulties in resettling the 9,000 expelled Jewish citizens. It states: “Gaza was a key test of whether an Israeli government would pay the political price needed to remove 9,000 settlers. Dire predictions that such moves would tear the nation apart turned out to be exaggerated.”

This, however, is an under-estimate of the terrific damage domestic damaged that was caused, both in terms of solidarity felt by a significant political sector with the government and the suffering caused to the uprooted settlers themselves.

In addition, Sanders does not note that a government commission assigned to investigate its handling of the expelled citizens found that the government had utterly failed in this regard.

And then we see the long-term consequences of this disastrous policy :

Supportive Wind for Terrorism

Sanders confirms that the anti-Disengagement camp’s warning that the withdrawal would provide a supportive back-wind for terrorism came true. “Hamas got to crow that its policy of armed resistance and attacks on Israeli civilians had led to the withdrawal,” he writes. “Immediately after the pullout, 84 percent of Palestinians viewed the disengagement as a ‘victory’ for armed resistance… Perceptions of a Hamas triumph over Israel and frustration over Fatah's alleged corruption propelled Hamas — which in 2004 was polling at just 20 percent — to victory in several local elections a few months after the withdrawal. In 2006, Hamas won parliamentary polls; a year later, it seized control of Gaza by force, creating the current Fatah-Hamas rift.”

Regarding Sharon’s false prediction that quitting Gaza was likely to save Israeli lives, Sanders writes that Israel actually “traded a low-intensity quagmire for what Prime Minister Netanyahu today calls an ‘Iranian port’ south of Tel Aviv, referring to Iranian support for Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza. Despite Israel's attempts to seal off borders, seaports and airspace, longer-range rockets were developed, and soon thousands were being launched at southern Israeli cities.”

“In the two years before disengagement,” Sanders writes, “seven Israelis were killed by rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza. Since the pullout, 28 have been killed, according to the Sderot Media Center.”

Yet despite the reality of the situation, we continue to hear calls for Israel to give up more and more land, and if they do, we will finally have peace. Really?

How can you have peace when one of the parties publicly declares that their primary goal is to destroy you?

How can one assume "land for peace" will actually grant peace, when prior attempts have only brought more bloodshed?

Aren't these questions obvious?

Yet the "international community" continues to ignore this basic fact: A fact that reveals their basic premise as horribly flawed and already proven ineffective for the stated goals.

We have to recognize that the world we are living in - this "world system" is not something we should understand or embrace. It's supposed to be upside-down, prior to Jesus' return. We were told of this aspect of life on earth - we are in this world but not of this world. Our real "world" will be quite different - we just haven't reached our destination yet - a destination which is where we really belong. This world belongs to Satan.

That information provides the context of this scripture, as provided by the apostle John:

"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world - the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does - comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever."

1 John 2:15-17

1 comment:

Scott said...

I'm having trouble right now with the comments section. For some reason, after screening them and clicking enter, they aren't being entered. I have no idea why - my sincere apologies to those who wrote some great comments on the last posts. I hope this won't happen again. Please post again - the comments are greatly appreciated and add a ton. Many thanks