1. sk said:

(This is off-topic. I was told that it's ok for me to introduce something this way.)

I think we should be accountable for what say or urge, even if our name is Ted or Omri. Both T & O suggested that after the Gaza expulsion, Egypt would be obligated (given the "world's" attention) to keeping the Judenrein Gaza from being a base for terrorism towards Israel. Catchprases like "the burden will be on them" were, as I recall, used.

Will either T or O maintain now that Egyptian elites have behaved as if they felt such burden or obligation?

I write not to embarass Tedomri, but to insist that we own our predictions whether or not they turn out to be correct.

2. Omri Ceren said:

SK: Thanks for the comment, and of course it's OK to start any interesting discussion anywhere on Isra Pundit. I don't think I'm speaking out of school to say that it's even welcome...

I don't recall claiming that Egypt would be inclined to clamp down on Gaza, and I am quite certain that I never said they would do so successfully - quite the opposite, I always claimed that in the short and medium term violence from Gaza would actually increase. I did imply that a small blessing would be the temporary diplomatic breathing room that Israel would gain for the use of unprecedented military force - which is what happened when Mofaz rolled up the cannons right to the fence of Gaza. My support for disengagement was always based on the fact that Israel could not indefinitely stay in the Gaza Strip, and that leaving now was better than leaving later. Neither I (nor dare I say Ted) can accurately be painted as starry-eyed peaceniks, nor do we have any significant faith in the willingness of Israel's enemies to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state (at least I don't have any, and I've never read anything by Ted that would indicate that he has such faith). My support for disengagement was tactical, based on the reasonable assessment that an inevitable negotiated settlement over Gaza would disadvantage Israel more than a unilateral withdrawal. I also don't recall Ted spinning any utopian images of rolling hills and gentle pastures.

3. BobW said:

In the States possession of a frag grenade coupled to criminal circumstances yields a long prison sentence. In Israel it yields a long living room in a Gaza seafront villa with a Med view.

This article is actually blending together - too closely - 2 different subjects. The 2 subjects are related of course but they must be separated for analysis.

I'm sure the PA, US, EU and the UN believe it's illegal for Nablus residents to possess 10 kgs of explosives and a grenade.

For the record; the barbarians are worse than just using civilian infrastructure to hide their terrorist plans. The barbarians have used ambulances and hospitals. I use the word "barbarian" within the usual import of its meaning.

The other subject is the policies GOI uses to respond to the barbarians in Nablus and environs. Let's again consider:
1. the international outcry
2. Arab riots
3. additional terrorist bombings

Can it be deduced that GOI policy failed BEFORE activating the IDF searches? Are there other methods to rectify failed policies (presuming accepting my position that the current policy is a failure). How do other societies and governments address similiar issues? Recall Northern Ireland, Paris riots 1968, West Germany's Bader-Meinhoff resolution, Tokyo sarin gas attack in a Tokyo subway in 1995, the Hanafi seizure of the B'nai B'rith building in Washington, D.C. in 1977, and Cyprus, Kashmir, Ivory Coast..............

Please tell me Israel's situation is unique.

Kol tuv,
BobW

4. BobW said:

Shalom SK,

Egypt is indeed obliged to police Gaza. The Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty was modified to allow Egyptian gunboats to return to Al Arish to monitor Gaza's sea approaches. The treaty modification involved the US. The Suez Canal is not only for the benefit of Egypt.

The Government of Egypt is comprised of its elites less those of equal stature in the Muslim Brotherhood, an illegal organization in Egypt. The real problem is that the Government of Egypt does not represent about 80-85% of the population that seek an Islamic government.

The Government of Egypt cannot handle the Sinai Peninsula or upper Egypt (Luxor area). That's why I was against Israel relinquishing Gaza, fully aware of the explosive sparks in Gaza's Arab population. We're dealing in trade-off operations because of Israel's legacy of avoiding strategic political issues needing to be addressed.

Kol tuv,
Bob

5. georg von mecklenburg said:

Coming from an old line military family and background, one learns really fast that you never negotiate a truce from a position of weakness. This has held true in every country and situation except Israel. In Israel it is quite the norm to accept weakness as the norm. Thus look at the mess we all find our selves in.

Asking a sworn enemy to help provide your own protection is like swimming within a pool of sharks, and having a bloody nose to boot. If all you are praying for is that the sharks have already eaten, then I guess you will be OK, but don't count on it.

Israel stands alone in the family of nations. It needs no one to tell her what and how to do things. It's about time, Israel told the entire world including Uncle Sam to just get off our backs and let us do it our way. Wishful thinking I know.

6. sk said:

Omri, it would be great if the search engine for this site were better, and/or if we could go back to days preceeding the current month.

I want to verify who was predicting that Egypt would now be compelled to rein in terror by the "world's" scrutiny.

However, Omri, thanks for reminding me of your argument that Israel would get "temporary diplomatic breathing room . . . for the use of unprecedented military force." That will do.

Omri, do you seriously claim that "Mofaz roll[ing] up the cannons right to the fence of Gaza" constitutes "unprecedented military force"?! C'mon, this "move" is posturing--it's not even the use of ANY force at all, still less "unprecedented" force. Now we have Rice urging "restraint" on the GOI.

Omri (and Ted), what would it take for you to say, "whoops! goofed in my "breathing room" argument, I'll do better next time"? Israelis have become so adept at the erasure of history that useful adaptation does not occur. This one reason why Israeli moderates like Landau can get nowhere. Do you disagree?

7. Omri Ceren said:

SK:
You can use Google to search IsraPundit specifically... something like this ought to give you what you're looking for:
site:www.israpundit.com egypt disengagement "world's scrutiny"
That search gets 163 hits - maybe the post you remember is in there.

As to Mofaz and the canons, it's objectively the case that that was an unprecedented use of military force - artillery had never been a credible threat before, and he made it a credible threat. See:
http://haganah.org.il/harchives/005061.html
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/6691.htm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050924/D8CQMQKO3.html
which are the first three hits for "mofaz unprecedented force artillery". Of course it was just posturing - that's how deterance works. You posture a credible threat and then the other side either backs down or doesn't - if the enemy doesn't back down, then you're obligated to demonstrate the credibility of that threat lest your deterence erode. In this case, Hamas backed down within a day.

As to Israeli moderates getting nowhere, I haven't seen numbers this week but the last polls I saw (and I'm doing this from memory), had Sharon ahead of Bibi nationally by double digits and within the Likud by single digits while Peres led Bibi nationally by 8.

Incidentally, you didn't address my main justification for disengagement in the short term: its inevitability in the long term, and the liklihood that an Israeli presence there would have eventually necessitated negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians which would have cost Israel more than a unilateral disengagement did.

The breathing room argument was and is just icing on the cake - which is why I've tried to be very clear that that breathing room was only a possibile, termporary, and at best secondary justification for disengagement. It can be false (or even opposite - i.e. disengagement got the ball rolling on pressure for Israel to make _more_ concessions), and it still wouldn't matter if long-term control of the Gaza Strip was impossible for Israel t maintain.