Declare Gaza an hostile political entity

By Ted Belman

A week ago I posted that Giora Eiland was proposing that Gaza be treated as a separate political entity from Judea and Samaria. It was announced that this “would threaten the future of the Palestinian state” which he considered as a positive.

Now Avigdor Leiberman also wants to Declare Gaza hostile political entity and an enemy state.

The plan’s main points include complete severance of ties with the Gaza Strip, isolating the Strip from the West Bank, bombing Gaza in retaliation of Qassam attacks, canceling Palestinian prisoners’ visitation rights until kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is released, and ending all contact with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Plan was presented to the US and EU this week and services are intended to be cut early in ’08. The idea is to treat Gaza as Hamas territory and Judea and Samaria as Fatah territory. Presumably this would enable a settlement to take place with respect to Judea and Samaria separately from Gaza.

Workers will not be permitted to leave Gaza to work in Israel. Taxes for the Gaza Strip will not be collected. The Ashdod port will not transfer any goods to the Strip. All crossings, including Karni crossing will be sealed.

Israel will not provide Gaza authorities with any type of infrastructure or resource. The Gazans will have to find their own solutions to problems of fuel, water, and electricity.

And here’s the kicker.

“The security situation will change only when NATO forces and the European Union take full responsibility for what goes on in the Gaza Strip. NATO will act to enforce public order and preserve security in the region. The European Union will take responsibility for the construction and opening of alternative infrastructure and provide employment for the residents of Gaza.

This Plan has promise if done right. No doubt NATO will insist that the IDF first do the dirty work of invading Gaza and defeating Hamas. Israel should insist on a complete severance of Gaza from both Israel and from the Westbank which would be treated as a separate political entity from Gaza. Once implemented, the Quartet would declare that Gaza was no longer “occupied”. The UN would then set up another Mandate in Gaza alone.

As I have described it, the Plan sounds too good to be true. Thus I don’t see anyone agreeing to it. If it was implemented then only autonomy should be offered to Judea and Samaria providing the Jews could remain and no Arab refugees could return.

May 31, 2007 | 8 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. Part of the plan is good. Israel should completely detach itself from Gaza and the Palestinians who live there. As for the West Bank, it must be annexed. For those willing to wait, U.N. concurrence for any positive action by Israel will come when world anti-semitism ceases to exist

  2. Israel must not relinquish Gaza, because control of Gaza reduces Israel’s border considerably, because retreat to the 1949 armistice lines in any way sets a dangerous precedent, because the creation of a Palestinian Arab sovereign (in addition to Jordan) would give the enemy the same legal status as Israel (a state, a sovereign, a high contracting power), because international forces cannot be trusted, and because the very act of giving away one’s land and security to a foreign force compromises one’s sovereignty very severely. Also, international forces have a proven record of collaboration with Arab aggressors or at least failing to do their job(witness Egypt and Lebanon).

    Additionally, the Gaza district never can be a sovereign state because it’s too crowded and resource-poor.

    It’s really a very simple proposition. Israel must kill off the terrorists, reimpose order, and preferably provide an incentive to Arabs to leave. And to those (non-Israpundit) folks who would say that there is no military solution — well, that’s silly. Gaza, when properly controlled by Israel, is a closed system: dead terrorists are not replaced.

  3. I fear Felix has misconstrued my position and perhaps Bill too. It may well be that I didn’t express myself well enough.

    Essentially it would be a terrific thing if Israel could totally divest its responsibilities in Gaza providing Nato and the EU are committed to managing it under a Mandate. But I don’t believe the EU would undertake the responsibilities I suggest they should take on. Furthermore, Britain was chased out of Palestine due to attacks in the forties. The same thing would happen to the new mandate for Gaza.

    Secondly I wrote that the Palestinians in the West Bank should only be offered autonomy which means our borders extend to the Jordan. “Autonomy” can be designed in such a way as to not have the Arabs as Israeli citizens. They would have no national rights. It also solves the problem of “transfer”. Once again I do not believe that the EU would take kindly to a solution that vindicated Israel.

    So I think we are in agreement. The “plan” is entirely academic and wouldn’t be allowed to proceed to Israel’s advantage.

  4. Ted and Randy,

    Like Felix, I too am rather surprised by your support of Avigdor Lieberman’s thinking, albeit for different reasons.

    First, while I agreed with Giora Eiland’s view that Gaza be treated as a separate political entity from Judea and Samaria which would have the effect of threatening the future of the Palestinian state, I had great difficlties with Eiland’s options A & B as the means to achieve the objective he set out. The link to Giora Eiland’s article noted in Ted’s posted article does not work.

    Eiland’s article and my views in that regard can be found at:

    As to Avigdor Lieberman’s plan, implicit is his view that there ultimately be a two state solution, which will have to await new Palestinian leadership.

    Lieberman’s blood and guts views on isolating Gaza from the West Bank, declaring it a hostile political entity, bombing the hell out of all Palestinian terrorist strongholds, stopping the flow of arms into Gaza and squeezing the economic life out of Gaza sounds like the kind of action that is needed to stop any Palestinian terrorist threat by using fear and mountains of misery to paralyze Hamas and all the other Palestinian terrorists.

    While essentially advocating that Israel treat Gaza as an independent hostile state and implictly with such designation, Israel would then be justified in a full scale attack in a defensive war, he still looks to Nato to come in and ensure security and stability within Gaza while the EU come in and aid Palestinians in rebuilding the infrastructure Palestinians will need presumably for a state and some day I gather link with the West Bank.

    While he says to treat Gaza and the West Bank as two separate entities, assuming Gaza could be secured and stabilized by the actions Lieberman proposes, he does not address the aftermath of such success. If Lieberman’s plan works and Gaza is secure, stable and has the infrastructure for statehood, then what?

    Lieberman says, with Hamas and Abbas gone and a new Palestinian leadership that is pragmatic and realistic coming to power, then he forsees negotiations for an independent Palestinian state vis a vis the West Bank. What can be assumed from Lieberman’s plan is that a stabilized and secure Gaza would again be one with the West Bank and an independent Palestinian state would then emerge through negotiations with this hoped for realistic and pragmatic new Palestinian leadership.

    For those who hold onto the two state solution paradigm, Lieberman’s plan has some promise, but only in theory.

    Any move by the Israelis to launch a full scale attack on Gaza and to cut the economic life blood from the Palestinians which would add to their already impoverished miserable conditions, would likely raise a hue and cry from America, the EU, the UN and the Muslim Middle East like has not been heard before.

    Surely Lieberman has anticipated such world reaction, but he makes no mention of what he plans to do to avoid that reaction or blunt it sufficiently that Israel can finish what it starts.

    There is some suggestion Israel would only take such action with the concurrence of Nato and the EU who presumably would be standing on the sidelines to move in to do their work as soon as Israel finished doing theirs. If Israel called on NATO and the EU to arrange a meeting to discuss this plan, I doubt it would get beyond NATO and the EU slamming the phone down on Israel.

    All things being equal, if the world and Israel continue to seek a solution to the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict by working within the paradigm of a two state solution, all that will be achieved are fanciful plans that will leave everyone twisting in the wind.

    As has been noted by an increasing number of experts, another infinite batch of second chances to be given to the Palestinians to get their act together and work towards an independent Palestinian state as the West conceives of it and not as the Palestinians continue to conceive of it, will be an exercise in futility as it has been thus far.

    There has been so much effort and creative thinking like Lieberman to come up with new original plans based on brain, brawn or a combination of both to make an independent Palestinian state a reality.

    Those same big brained people should re-examine the two state solution paradigm in the context of what has gone before and what one can reasonably expect to lie ahead and deal with the question as to whether the two state paradigm was, is and always will be an impossible dream. If that is the hard reality, then a new paradigm must be found. That new paradigm as indicated has already begun to receive attention and that paradigm forsees Israel annexing Gaza, Judea and Samaria and the Arab/Palestinians be induced to emigrate to other Arab nations including Jordan which by the majority of its citizens is already a Palestinian state.

  5. The situation is fundamentally simple… We need a Patton type of individual to implement a solution. (Same goes for the post below, on Arafat.)

  6. Felix, I may not have made myself clear, I made no mention NATO, what I was referring to as “excellent thinking” is the strategy of separating Gaza from the West Bank.I knew disengagement from Gaza was going to lead to this and was against it, however, this is where we are now and at this point I think the strategy of splitting the Palestinians into two separate entities for the time being is a good one.

    I am not “hot” on the idea of NATO or any other international entity being brought in as it may in the end work to Israel’s detriment and risk drawing the international community further into the conflict. I like the plan, the fundamentals are brilliant, but there are definitely some aspects I would disregard or reconsider before implementation.

  7. “This Plan has promise if done right. No doubt NATO will insist that the IDF first do the dirty work of invading Gaza and defeating Hamas. Israel should insist on a complete severance of Gaza from both Israel and from the Westbank which would be treated as a separate political entity from Gaza.”

    I just cannot believe what I am reading in this morning’s edition of Israpundit.

    The above by Ted is tied in with some sort of compromise with Abbas who is nothing more than an antisemite killer of Jews.

    Gaza is absolutely central in the defence of Israel.
    It must be part of the strategy of Israel that it owns Gaza, regardless of the betrayals of Israeli Jewish leaders over the years, not least that of the horrific Sharon, that the Jews own Gaza, it is part of the League of Nations Mandate for a Jewish Homeland, and nothing has changed in that regard.

    That is the basis that we must fight upon.

    Tactics are something else and it may be necesary to retreat as well as attack. But this position being taken here by Ted and by Randy is not clearly a tactical issue at all, but the most serious throwing in of the towel on the most fundamental issue of strategy.

    Neither Ted or Randy seem to understand this fundamental difference between strategy and tactics and they could do worse than consult the great Russian socialist revolutionary Leon Trotsky on this issue, even though the context was different it is still totally relevant.

    What you are both saying is that Sharon and his Stasi police were correct in uprooting the Jews from Gaza two years ago, although you may gloss it, that is in effect what you are saying, raising once again the huge struggles we had here on Israpundit on the issue.

    The strategy for Israel is to have a state which is secure and defensible. That means that

    1. The Churchill betrayal of the League of Nations in the creation of Transjordan should be revisited and at least for propagandist putrposes kept in mind.

    2. That the Jordan River becomes one border

    3. That the heights (or any part) of Judea and Gaza are Israel and will remain so forever

    4. And that the Meditteranean is a necessary defencible border, and that the Golan Heights are the other.

    This Lieberman is a threat to Israel. He is part of this horrific Olmert Coalition and he blithely on the one hand suggests surrendering Gaza, and copperfastening the Sharon crime, while at the same time putting on a front of militancy. All I can say…What a phoney.

    As regards the remarks made on the issue of the use of NATO, well after what NATO did in the destruction of Yugoslavia, well I am speechless here.

    Ted and Randy must urgently rethink!

  8. This is excellent thinking, a just, proper, and effective way to deal with Gaza. It may also serve as an example to Arabs in the West Bank that violence isn’t going to work or profit them. There is a possibility of dividing Palestinians the into two separate mindsets that think and act independently of each other. On the other hand, the opposite may occur and Palestinians in the West Bank may be driven by it to become more actively involved against Israel by engaging in acts of violence. Either way, it would still give Israel a handle on the situation and provide a way to respond to and defend against terrorist acts.

    Something to prepare for if it ever was decided upon to take this action is that at least half the battle would be fought at the UN.

Comments are closed.