Tomer Persico, Ariel Sharon sta sorridendo dall'inferno: la verità sull'evacuazione di Gaza

 Sintesi  personale


 Perché "ricordare" l'evacuazion di Gaza ? Perché i ricordi sono sempre selettivi. Ci dicono ora che il "disimpegno" è stata un'idea di sinistra, sostenuta dalla  sinistra e attuato da esponenti della sinistra. 

Quindi cerchiamo di  dire la verità in mezzo a tante menzogne .

 

Disimpegno

Non era un "disimpegno"  : un bel nome per un atto orribile. E 'stato un ritiro militare da un territorio occupato, l'evacuazione di oltre 8.000 persone dalle loro case e la distruzione di ventuno insediamenti. . L'apparato statale intero  è stato mobilitato per effettuare una operazione discutibile facendo tacere ogni voce critica . I coloni e il sionismo religioso  divennero nemici pubblici, "minacce alla democrazia", ​i  media, il sistema legale, i politici li  hanno trattati come tali.

Perché  è stato  fatto?

Ariel Sharon  era un prepotente e un bugiardo. I coloni lo sapevano,ma fin quando è stato dalla loro parte lo hanno chiamato «Arik, il re d'Israele". Sharon ha effettuato l'evacuazione di Gaza al fine di salvare se stesso da un'indagine e salvare gli insediamenti in Cisgiordania da un accordo con i palestinesi , evitando così la road map,proposta da Bush.  Sharon sapeva di dover avviare un processo politico e di non voler trattare con i Palestinesi  ,per questo ha scelto di agire unilateralmente. Dov Weisglass ha detto chiaramente : "Sono d'accordo con gli americani che alcuni degli insediamenti  in Cisgiordania  sarebbero esclusi dalle trattative , mentre altri avrebbero potuto essere discussi quando i palestinesi diventeranno finlandesi. "  Sharon aveva  capito che che doveva  dare qualcosa in cambio per evitare trattative . Ha sacrificato la zona più problematica  dato che evidenziava il  peggior rapporto esistente tra  arabi  ed Ebrei , al fine di salvare una zona  importante per lui. Lo ha fatto in modo unilaterale, piuttosto che impostare  negoziati.  Molti uomini di sinistra pensavano che ciò fosse una cattiva idea,ma  la maggior parte della gente di sinistra riteneva questa fosse  una soluzione piuttosto che continuare l'occupazioneosse 

La responsabilità è della  Likud. al governo, l'unico partito  che ha  demolito insediamenti ebraici. Netanyahu ha  appoggiato il disimpegno solo alla fine, quando  era chiaro che non poteva esserci alcuna opposizione. Voleva essere il primo ministro e  così  decise di lasciare che Sharon se ne assumesse la responsabilità per bruciargli la carriera

Abbiamo fatto un errore, dobbiamo tornare a Gaza?In questi giorni ogni progetto politico della destra,ogni  annessione in Cisgiordania, totale o parziale, ogni idea autonoma palestinese, ogni rifiuto di far avanzare i negoziati   fa riferimento a quanto è accaduto a Gaza. Diciamo che i Palestinesi  hanno già un mini-stato,  possiamo usare Gaza come una scusa per non parlare con l'Autorità palestinese (perché non controlla Gaza, ecc ecc). L'evacuazione di Gaza è servita alla Likud di Sharon e ora  a quella di Netanyahu  che non sogna certo  di conquistare di nuovo Gaza. La situazione attuale si allinea perfettamente la politica della destra di "gestione dei conflitti"esattamente come gli  accordi di Osl  oche Israele non annullerà perché la PA gli fa comodo

Va bene, ma la situazione della sicurezza è peggiorata da quando è iniziato il disimpegno ...

Non vero. La sicurezza è migliorata. Razzi e tunnel c'erano anche prima  dell'evacuazione e colpivano  gli israeliani. . Per proteggere Gush Katif erano  necessari enormi risorse umane e  finanziarie senza garantire alcuna sicurezza .  Roy Sharon ha scoperto un anno fa che tra il 2000 e il 2005, 141 soldati e civili israeliani sono stati uccisi nella Striscia di Gaza. Nel decennio successivo l'evacuazione tra il 2005 e il 2015 soo stati uccisi 125 soldati e civili  L'evacuazione  ha e salvato vite israeliane

In breve, questa è  stata una mossa cinica di un bugiardo e  di un bullo sostenuto dal suo partito  per preservare gli insediamenti in Giudea e Samaria. Questo è davvero quello che è successo. Sharon ha  trasformato Gaza nella più grande prigione del mondo, ha  trasformato l'evacuazione di 8.000 persone in un trauma nazionale che renderà ogni futuro evacuazione più difficile. Vi garantisco che Sharon sorride  dall'inferno in questo momento.

Tomer Persico ha pubblicato il testo originale su  Facebook.

Traduzione: Maya Haber

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tomer Persico, Ariel Sharon is Smiling in Hell

It’s the month of Av again, and we again "remember" the Gaza evacuation and the destruction of Gush Katif. Why "remember"? Because memories are always selective. They tell us now that the “disengag...

progressiveisrael.org

It’s the month of Av again, and we again “remember” the Gaza evacuation and the destruction of Gush Katif. Why “remember”? Because memories are always selective. They tell us now that the “disengagement” was a leftist idea, supported by leftists, and implemented by other leftists. They tell us that though Leftists claim to oppose the violation of human rights violations, the left did not prevent it.

So let’s put speak truth to the lies.

Disengagement?

It was not a “disengagement,” which is a nice name for a horrible deed. It was a military withdrawal from an occupied territory, the evacuation of over 8,000 people from their homes and the destruction of twenty-one settlements. The process included directing the state’s resources—the military, police, judiciary and media—to suppress and silence any opposition. The entire state apparatus was mobilized to carry out a controversial operation while violently silencing—yes, violently—opposing voices. The settlers, and occasionally the entire religious Zionist, became public enemies, “threats to democracy,” and the media, the legal system, and the politicians treated them as such.

Why did they do it?

Ariel Sharon led the evacuation and anyone who followed his career knew he was a bully and a liar. The settlers knew that too. But as long as he lied and tyrannized on their behalf, they called him “Arik, King of Israel.” Sharon carried out the Gaza evacuation in order to save himself from an investigation and save the West Bank settlements from an agreement with the Palestinians. Pressured to accept George Bush’s “road map,” Sharon realized he had to initiate a political process. Because he never intended to talk with the other side he chose to act unilaterally. Dov Weisglass said it clearly: “I agreed with the Americans that some of the [West Bank] settlements would remain entirely off the table, while others could be discussed when the Palestinians become Finns. That’s what we did.” Weisglass’ words are quite clear. Sharon understood that if he wanted peace for the West Bank, he had to give something in return. He sacrificed the most problematic area, the one with the worst Arab to Jew ratio, in order to save an area that was important to him throughout his life. He did it unilaterally rather than through negotiations. And many Leftists thought it was a bad idea. Though most Leftists thought his plan was better than staying there.

Who did that?

A Likud-led government. The truth is that the Likud is the only party in Israel’s history that evacuated vast areas and demolished Jewish settlements. The only one. And yes, Netanyahu too wanted the evacuation. As finance minister in Sharon’s government and despite repeated settler leaders’ pleas to wave the revolt banner and come out against the disengagement, Netanyahu repeatedly refused to do so. He voted four times for the plan and as finance minister allocated special funds to pay for it. Just a week before the fulfillment of the plan (!), when it was clear that nothing could stop it, he voted against it. In her excellent, Lo b’Kol Mechir (Not at Any Price) Anat Roth quotes Zeev (Zambish) Hever (a settler leader) about failing to persuade Netanyahu to vote against the plan: “He didn’t behave like somebody who truly wants to stop [the disengagement]. Every time I left a meeting with him, I would ask my friends and myself: what does he want? With a heavy heart I realized that Netanyahu wanted to be the next prime minister. […] So he decided to let Sharon take the chestnuts out of the fire. Let him break his head on Gaza.”

We made a mistake, shall we return to Gaza?

These days every Right political plan – and I mean every – is based on Hamas’ rule in Gaza. Every West Bank annexation, full or partial, every Palestinian autonomous idea, and every refusal to advance negotiations, depend on the idea that we don’t have to deal with Gaza. So there are less Palestinians to naturalize. We can say that they already have a mini-state. And we can use Gaza as an excuse for not speaking with the Palestinian Authority (because it doesn’t control Gaza, etc. etc.). The Gaza evacuation served Sharon’s Likud and continues serving the Right as well. Therefore, Netanyahu doesn’t dream of conquering Gaza again, and though Avigdor Lieberman talks about it as an option, he never will. The current situation aligns perfectly the Right’s policy of “conflict management.” [By the way, just like the Oslo Accords, which Israel doesn’t cancel because the PA is an asset for the Right. [Like the tampon ad,] it allows them to go with (the territories) and feel without (the occupation).]

Okay, but for principle-moral-and-Jewish reasons we should return to Gaza!

Even without Sharon, Netanyahu, and the brutal evacuation of Gush Katif, the Jewish settlement in Gaza had no future. Anyone who thinks that there is a moral or pragmatic logic to 8,000 people living on a quarter of the Gaza Strip, when the other three quarters populate 1.8 million people. Or where the minority lives in villas surrounded by lawns while the majority is crowded in refugee camps and in crowded cities. Or that a tiny minority has more access to water, electricity, land, and infrastructure than a majority two hundred times greater. Or that the minority enjoys freedom of speech, assembly, voting, and national determination which are denied to the majority. Or that the minority rules over the majority by military force. Anyone who thinks all of this is moral or pragmatic has never studied history and suffers from a severe case of moral blindness. Gush Katif was an ugly moral stain and its residents demonstrated both domination over and moral insensitivity towards their neighbors.

Fine, but the security situation deteriorated since the disengagement…

Not true. The security has improved. Rockets and digging tunnels happened before the evacuation, and it was much easier to hit Israelis. Gush Katif settlements required enormous manpower and resources to protect and they brought no security benefit. As Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis wrote in a paper analyzing The Strategic Balance of Israel’s Withdrawal from Gaza (2005-2016) the civilian presence in the Gaza Strip made it difficult for the military to operate freely. And Roy Sharon discovered a year ago in a series of reports that in the five years between 2000 and 2005, 141 Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed in the Gaza Strip. In the decade since the evacuation between 2005 and 2015, including all military operations, 125 Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed in the Gaza Strip and the Gaza envelop. The evacuation saved Israeli lives (Thought, the number of Palestinians killed greatly increased).

In short, this is a cynical and difficult move of a liar and a bully Likud leader supported by his party, including Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and designed to preserve the settlements in Judea and Samaria. This is indeed what happened. Along the way, Sharon turned Gaza into the largest prison in the world, brought Israel more security and turned the evacuation of 8,000 people into a national trauma that will make any future evacuation difficult. I promise you that Sharon is smiling in Hell right now.

Tomer Persico posted the original text his Facebook page.

Translation: Maya Haber

For more: Sharon’s ‘Disengagement’ from Gaza – 10 years ago