Back to Opinions Page

Just to mention the story of Yamit, the Zionist colony that was built in the Sinai Peninsula during occupation as a result of a war that was waged against Egypt, meant that Israel was planning to keep the peninsula under occupation for ever, and when they had to evacuate it as a result of an agreement the Zionist racist character, especially that of Sharon who is not an exception, insisted on demolition the colony.

Zionists occupied all Palestine and confiscated Arab property and land, and have been exploiting it since then, when the question of compensation arises those racist Zionists wants the world Bank and the United States, which control its policy, to pay the money. Palestinians lost hundreds of billions of dollars worth of land, property and their income for the last fifty six years, this is not to speak about the lives of hundreds of thousands, which can not be compensated with money. After all of that they are not decided on what to do with the houses and infrastructure built on

confiscated Palestinian land!!!

The big joke is that they want others to pay them for the land they stole.

This is the same as the kidnapers of a child who wants to be paid ransom or the child will be killed!!!

This is pure racism and chauvinism. (Adib S.Kaawar)

Not like Yamit
 Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz

 

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has taken upon himself to evacuate all the settlements in Gaza and a few in the northern West Bank according to the disengagement plan. The plan, meanwhile, leaves some questions open and undecided: No negotiations have begun over compensation for settlers who will leave their homes; no decisions have yet been made over how the IDF will redeploy around Gaza; and no decision has been made regarding to whom the settlements will be handed.

That is the most pointed of all the questions: What will happen to the private homes, public buildings, water and road infrastructure, shelters and everything else. Israel's behavior will have an important influence on the atmosphere for both Israelis and Palestinians.

In principle, there are a number of possible alternatives. First, evacuate everything and withdraw; leave the buildings empty, and whoever grabs them grabs them. Second, demolish everything that was built, the way Israel demolished the Yamit area when it withdrew from Sinai. Third, hand over the settlements that are evacuated to a third party with whom Israel will agree on what should be done.Each choice, meanwhile, has a different significance.

The evacuation/abandonment option has a clear meaning: it will be declared and perceived, rightfully so, as a Hamas victory. The Palestinians will not interpret it as a positive step that shows that Israel is changing its principled positions. The Hamas flags will fly over the settlers' homes, just as Hezbollah flags fly over former IDF positions abandoned in south Lebanon, and Hamas will divide up the booty among its associates. It will be an orgy of a Hamas victory, which would provide the group with dangerous momentum - something that must be prevented. A Hamas takeover in Gush Katif suddenly would make it much easier to smuggle arms into Gaza on a far broader scale.

The demolition option has a precedent. Destroying the Yamit area settlements was a terrible mistake, and it is incredible that then-prime minister Menachem Begin was tempted to accede to then-defense minister Ariel Sharon's proposal to demolish them. The enormous destruction was an expression of repressed fury, demonstratively poisoning the atmosphere following the signing of the peace agreement with Egypt. At the time, the explanation given was that Sharon wanted to demonstrate to the people how difficult settlement evacuation would be to prevent further evacuations. It is ironic that Sharon is making a strategic decision to conduct another withdrawal. In any case, everything must be done to ensure that there is no replay of what took place at Yamit. There is no need to add any further shocks to the trauma of the evacuation.

That leaves the third option - transferring the settlements' buildings an infrastructure to a third party with which Israel reaches an understanding.

If that alternative, which is far more preferable than the other two options, is chosen, Israel must change the disengagement formula, which Sharon, until now, has perceived as being unilateral. The change away from unilateralism will, in any case, take place in the future in other areas. So far, Sharon is playing with the idea of conducting talks with the World Bank about the fate of the buildings and infrastructure. That is also a fundamental mistake. The World Bank has the money, but not the necessary force required for such a matter. To reach a reasonable approach that reduces the risks, an international force must be engaged - not to impose a solution or form a barrier between Israel and Hamas, which intends to continue its terror campaign, but rather to help impose order on the Palestinian side.