After 38 years, Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip has finally ended. Sort of. Israel still controlls the territory’s coasts and airspace, and its borders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_strip (Except, perhaps, for its border with Egypt? This article doesn’t say.)
What does this mean for the Strip’s residents? How will their economy develop? How will they govern themselves?
Do the lessons of this pullout make it more or less likely that the Israelis will seriously consider pulling out of the West Bank in whole or in part?
What next? Well, based on recent events I’d say that Israel will be re-invading the Gaza Strip on Tuesday (IIRC) because of the rockets being tossed at them from there. After that…who knows? Bloodshed? Suicide bombs? More years of death and destruction? All of the above?
Basically it means that if they can’t control their terrorist element then what it means is periodic invasion by Israel, with the odd assassination of terrorist leaders and renewed cycle of violence. I don’t see how they can develop economically in such an environment…or that they are governing themselves if they can’t keep the more militant folks on a leash. I don’t see them developing economically until some kind of peace occurs between them and Israel…a peace that works both ways, with both sides sticking to it in good faith. In addition, I don’t see Palestine EVERY being economically viable until and unless Israel is part of their economic formula…something I don’t see happening anytime soon.
BWAHAHAHAH! You are kidding, right? Even if the Palestinians weren’t tossing rockets at them from Gaza the West Bank is crucial to the defense of Israel…they won’t ever give that up IMHO, nor should they.
How will their economy develop? Badly, that’s how. They really are not interested in gaining back their “homes”, they just wanna kill them some Jews. Notice anything about the greenhouses left behind?
Have I misread, or didn’t the UN give Israel 80% more land than they have now, but it was taken overby disgruntled Arabs?
Also, when will America end its occupation of Native lands eh?
The onlything that will bring “peace” is if all of Israel is dismantled and given to people who actually hadn’t lived there very long beofre the state came into being in 1948. Not too much to ask, really.
When England is given back to the Welsh, and Ireland to the Firbolgs.
If you’re speaking of the Palestinians, they had been living there – on the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, and in what is now Israel proper – from time out of mind to the establishment of Israel in 1948. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians It was the Jews (most of them) who “actually hadn’t lived there very long.”
Have to admit, I thought that was strange. I can understand a forced-out Jew torching his own property to leave nothing of value behind, but for a Palestinian mob to trash a recently-vacated property… well, that’s just dumb.
Will somebody kindly explain to me how this is not an utterly racist characterization of the Palestinians? Thanks.
And as to the OP, there will be no great hope for Gaza or the West Bank so long as Israel keeps them as Bantustans, without sovereignty, without real rights.
We’ve discussed that in earlier threads – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330457. Apparently the Palestinians have no use for Jewish single-family homes because they traditionally live in extended families. They would rather build larger houses of their own. As for torching greenhouses – I guess that’s just venting. (The way the Iraqis looted government offices after Hussein fell – even though they might reasonably expect to be taxed, by whatever government came next, to buy replacement furniture.)
I’m just thinking that now the PA has a responsiblity to take care of its own darn mess… if the Israelis keep getting shelled, it’s an act of war, isn’t it?
It’s an act of war by the PA only if you can hold the PA directly responsible for the shelling . . . which would be unreasonable in Gaza, where Hamas is effectively more powerful than the PA. It would be like the U.S. holding the Mexican government responsible for Pancho Villa’s incursions across the border.
And thus you’ve answered your own question in less words than my own first post.
BTW, the US DID hold the Mexican government responsible for Poncho Villa’s incursions…don’t you remember the US army marching though Mexico looking for him under ‘Black Jack’ Pershing (IIRC)?
Because Palestinian groups (which may or many not speak for the people) have repeatedly acted in many ways that suggest that they are not guided by rational self-interest, but by anti-semitism. Trashing greenhouses that could provide jobs for Palestinians simply because they were built by Israelis would be exhibit #34,906.
Pointing out self-destructive behavior, even when combined with a prediction that such behavior will continue, is not racism.
And, in fact, that’s the point of the matter, in re Pancho Villa. Either the PA gets Hamas under control… or they’re not a government. Which means Black Jack Sharon has to march through and take control again.
So… the PA’s pretty screwed. Only way they can survive is to take down Hamas.
Why not? The Mexican government either was not capable or not interested in stopping Villa. We took him down. “Either they deal with the problem, or we will.” They didn’t, and we did.
Anyway, the West Bank is a strategic position with certain advantages for the defender. That’s why Israel will keep it.
Not to start a hijack, but we actually didn’t, though we tried:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa:
“U.S. President Woodrow Wilson responded by sending 12,000 troops, under Gen. John J. Pershing, into Mexico on March 15 to pursue Villa. In the U.S., this was known as the Pancho Villa Expedition. During the search, the United States launched its first air combat mission when eight aeroplanes lifted off on March 19. The expedition to capture Villa was called off as a failure on January 28, 1917.”
Granted, an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip would not be a violation of a sovereign state’s borders (which Pershing’s expedition into Mexico was). The Strip may be no longer occupied, but it’s still stateless territory just as the Palestinians are still a stateless people. The PA has a long way to go before it will have any plausible claims to be a sovereign government.
I assume this is a rhetorical questions. One has but to look on a map to see the strategic significance of the West Bank to Israel…even if one ignores history its pretty clear how vital that region is to the security of Israel, especially when one factors in such things as, oh, the rockets currently being tossed into Israel from Gaza say.
Reasonable? I’m not sure. As a US citizen now I guess its ‘reasonable’. Being born in Mexico I’d say it was unreasonable from their perspective.
Understandable though. ‘Realistic response’ also comes to mind…especially in Gaza. Democracies actually have a natural tendency to do this kind of thing because you need to keep the folks back home happy…and they tend to get unhappy when rockets are tossed at them, or when bandits come across the border to steal and cause havoc. The folks tend to get tense when that happens…and the politicians get nervous when The Folks get tense.
But, even in a best-(for-them)-case-scenario, any independent Palestinian state would be a feeble military power compared to Israel. Not really a strategic threat, provided their government is effective enough to prevent terrorist and guerilla action by extremists.
If you’re not being ironic/whooshing, then you have misread. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 followed what we now call the “Green Line.” 