What is so bad about 'cutting and running'? plus Sharon "The settlement blocs will remain" in West Bank

Betrayed in Gaza:

On television, the tumult in the Gaza Strip looks like nothing less than a pogrom -- soldiers dragging Jews out of their homes and synagogues for immediate, involuntary, permanent relocation. Does it matter that the soldiers are Jewish, too? Not to the Jews being hauled away. Does it matter that some of the most vociferous protesters don't even live in Gaza and are just there to make a point? Not if you remember all the Freedom Riders of the civil rights era who came from Massachusetts or Michigan, not Mississippi.

What's happening in Gaza is geopolitically and historically correct, and when seen from the proper altitude -- high enough that individuals blur into groups -- it's morally correct as well.
[.......]A friend once observed that for African Americans and Jews, the word "paranoid" has no meaning. That's because history proves that it's not our imagination: They are out to get us.

So can I recognize the necessity, the inevitability of the autopogrom in Gaza without cheering its execution? I guess I don't have a choice, since that's what I feel. I'm sorry for those people, long misguided and now betrayed. Some may be religious fanatics and others political extremists, but their sugar-plum-fairy visions of Greater Israel didn't just pop into their heads. Their political and religious leaders put them there. And now, as those leaders do what they must, they should feel the deepest sorrow and shame.

'Goodbye to all that:" IDF plans to complete evacuating Gaza by Tuesday. Not bad! Haaretz writers put disengagement in perspective. A Defining Moment. Who will rule Gaza now?

IDF digs trench to keep Palestinians out of Gush Katif
By Nir Hasson and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents
Israel Defense Forces on Friday began digging eight-meter-deep trenches around the evacuated Gush Katif settlements in the Gaza Strip in a bid to prevent Palestinians from reaching the settlement bloc prior to its complete evacuation.

Troops will renew operations on Sunday as activity was halted for the Sabbath. By Tuesday, the IDF intends to complete the evacuation of all settlements in the Gaza Strip. Troops will then focus their efforts on the northern West Bank settlements of Homesh and Sa-Nur. Hundreds of radical settler youths have moved into the latter settlement in recent weeks.

So we will get a bit of a Round Two from those damn Yesha teenagers.

Israel's Gaza Operation Sets Precedent (AP)
With its lightning operation in Gaza — nearly all Jewish settlers evacuated in just 55 hours — Israel has shown the world that it can dismantle such enclaves with relative ease, despite the settlers' tears, anguish and occasional violence.
Having set this precedent, Israel will likely come under increasingly intense pressure to do the same in the West Bank — though Israeli officials insist it could be years before settlements there even come up for discussion.
On the Palestinian side, leader Mahmoud Abbas' success in preventing deadly attacks by militants during the pullout has boosted his image as a peace partner and given new weight to his demand that Israel resume negotiations.

Sheehan stuff: It was a good episode for the antiwar movement, few can doubt. A spearhead of the peace movement? has it touched off some kind of national nerve? Yeah. A good roundup from Froomkin at the WaPo. Too bad she's gone. NewsFromBabylon is a sweet site, and they posted a big NY Times story about "The Other Army," namely all those private military firms, or "private security companies" as the softies wish you'd call them. "US Spy satellites under scrutiny:"

One of the systems under scrutiny by Negroponte is a classified program to build the next generation of stealth satellites, whose estimated costs have nearly doubled to $9.5 billion in recent years, according to sources.

The program has been severely criticized in closed session by members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who have objected to the rising costs and who argue that it is ineffective against modern adversaries such as terrorist networks. The Senate panel has tried to kill the program in the past, sources said, but it has been supported by House and Senate appropriations committees and the House intelligence panel.

Because of their small size, these satellites -- early generations had been code-named Misty -- would be almost invisible among existing space debris to enemy radars. But those same small dimensions would also limit some of their collection capabilities, according to John Pike, an expert in space vehicles with GlobalSecurity.org.

The other futuristic spy satellite program that Negroponte has focused on is the new generation of non-stealth space vehicles -- using optical, radar, listening and infrared-red capabilities -- known collectively as the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA). Development of these satellites, which has been going on since the late 1990s, has also had major cost increases, now estimated at more than $25 billion over the next decade. As a result, the House intelligence panel voted sharp reductions in its version of the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill.

The Sign That Knows You: Look at this graphic as it looks back at you.

GAZA: Haaretz: STATUS: Disengagement - Day Five Diary. Analysis: Resistance to the disengagement has been futile.

You have to read Sharon's speech:
Sharon did not use his speech to joyfully declare that he has no intention of withdrawing from even one millimeter of Judea and Samaria. In fact, he opened the door to a continuation of the process: "The world is awaiting the Palestinian response, a hand toward peace or the fire of terrorism. We will respond to the outstretched hand with an olive leaf, but we will respond to fire with stronger fire than ever before."

Herein lies a hint that the Gaza prototype, with requisite corrections, would be applied in areas to the east. In an interview appearing in last Friday's Yedioth Ahronoth, Sharon provided a few more details about his plans for the West Bank: "Not everything will remain; the settlement blocs will remain."

Toward of the end of the speech, Sharon offered another, surprising, diagnosis: "The disengagement will give us a chance to look inside ourselves. The agenda will change. Economic policy will find the time to address closing the social gaps and a real war on poverty."

You could hardly believe your ears. For this is the exact argument of the left: that the settlements were built at the expense of the development towns, investment in infrastructures, in roads, in education and vocational training, and are therefore the major cause of social and economic gaps and poverty.

Sharon slams 'grave' Jewish terror attack on Palestinians. Man who killed 4 Palestinians: I hope someone kills Sharon:

Asher Weissgan, a 38-year-old resident of the West Bank settlement Shvut Rahel, on Wednesday shot to death four Palestinians with whom he worked and wounded two others, one of them seriously. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned the attack as an "exceptionally grave Jewish act of terror," Israel Radio reported, and instructed the security establishment to deal harshly with all attempts to harm innocent people.

"I'm not sorry for what I did," said Weissgan before entering a remand hearing at the Petah Tikvah Magistrate's Court. "I hope someone also kills Sharon." 

Earlier Thursday, security forces prepared for possible riots in Palestinian areas in the territories in reaction to the shooting. Hamas has threatened to avenge the shooting, which was the second Jewish terror attack in two weeks. Sources in Hamas told Haaretz on Wednesday night that it was still committed to the current cease-fire, but that they would not be able to continue restraint in the face of repeated Jewish terror attacks.

"We are in favor of quiet and continue to be committed to it but will not permit it to be unilateral," said Sheikh Hassan Yusef, a senior Hamas official in the West Bank. But Sami Abu Zohari, a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, warned that retaliation would follow.

The victims have been identified as Mohammed Mansour, 48, and Bassam Tauase, 30, both from the Nablus region; Halil Salah, 42, from Qalqilyah; and Osama Moussa Tawafsha, 33, from the village of Sanjil, not far from the West Bank town of Ramallah.

Palestinians fire mortar shells towards Gaza settlement of Gadid. IDF says thwarted terror attack by Palestinians during pullout. Children caught in middle of settlers' struggle to make gains on TV (not to mention caught in the settlements themselves). They never had to cut off the power & water. Palestinian After Party by Amira Hass. Op: Territory for Israel. I thought this argument about how settler rabbis sanctify random objects to theologically justify their activities was fascinating. Analysis / Settler leaders: Riding the tiger: Who would have thought that people who even see the state of Israel as an enemy wouldn't obey their leaders?

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a leading settler rabbi, who was cursed as a heretic this week after trying to restrain a group of angry teenagers, has perhaps learned the lesson that his colleagues should have learned from countless incidents in Jewish history: He who nurtures a tiger will not always be able to control it. If you wish to retain control, your ranks must be confined to those willing to accept your authority.

It is almost ironic: Those who refused to accept the authority of the state's decisions have now discovered that they cannot impose their authority on their own forces. Except that this is no laughing matter.

AIPAC bits and PR for the West Bank settlements. I found today I have a good Google ranking for 'AIPAC intel.' So why not add a story from about a year ago, "Israel has long spied on U.S., say officials." in the LA Times via w3ar.com. Even Billmon is talking about the latest bits of the AIPAC scandal. This site also has exciting keywords like Intelligence:Espionage:Israeli Espionage. Meanwhile, we are getting some trial balloons for the coming PR offensive to help Israel retain West Bank settlements. Note the trickier rhetorical devices, which I will set in subtle HTML:

Mother Knows Best By ZEV CHAFETS
This diplomatic success was possible only because Mr. Bush won Ariel Sharon's trust. Previous administrations tried to bribe or pressure Israel into making territorial concessions. The president used different tools - common sense and credibility.

As a master politician, Mr. Bush realized that there were political limits on what Mr. Sharon could do. Neither Mr. Sharon nor any conceivable Israeli prime minister would ever evict the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who now live in East Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs of the West Bank. Asking for that would be an automatic deal-breaker. Same for the Palestinian demand that millions of Arab refugees and their descendants be "returned" to Israel. And Israel would never relinquish its option to respond militarily to armed aggression.

Mr. Bush acknowledged these Israeli truths in an official letter he sent to Mr. Sharon in April of 2004. In exchange for that recognition, however, the president asked for - and got - Mr. Sharon's agreement to do what he could do. Evacuating Gaza was one of those things.

The American vision for Middle East peace sees exit from Gaza as a first step. Next comes an Israeli withdrawal from those settlements in the West Bank that aren't already de facto parts of Israel, and then the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

You PONK ASS BITCH. LOOK AT THIS DAMN MAP AND TELL ME WHICH ONES. Ariel? Kiryat Arba? sorry folks that was crude. But I find this kind of shady language most antagonizing.

Cut and Run? That is a very good question which is hardly asked with the kind of objective rigor that it deserves. It's converse, "Staying the course," always has struck me as a weird and flimsy oxymoron, since the course has been wobbly and improvised quite badly. For example, what is the difference between "Cutting and Running" from the Kurds, and "Staying the Course" with the Kurds? "Kurdish Autonomy Moves Evoke Bloody Repression [in Iran]- Regional Crisis Growing." Fortunately a retired military theorist, William Odom, brings home the main points in a clear way:

What’s wrong with cutting and running?
If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.
[..........]
6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.
[........]
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.

So in other words there is little to be salvaged. The potential negatives aren't so bad, relatively, if they are happening already. All right, that's enough. I should go have fun and act like a reasonable person now.