New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 8, 2005

Jacob Sullum reports from Israel on the colorful public debate over disengagement from Gaza.

Comments

|7.8.05 @ 10:18AM|#

Two questions:

Why is the Israeli Arab party vehemently against disengagement?

And why doesn't the government just announce to the settlers that they're free to stay in their homes and live as citizens(subjects? pigeons?) of the Palestinian Authority?

|7.8.05 @ 10:28AM|#

I'm equally confused as joe on the first concern he raises.

I suspect the second dodges the real question from the perspective of those opposed.

Never thought I'd say this, but Sharon's unilateralism may be the only effective way to take any positive steps whatsoever. I wish him well on the withdrawal.

|7.8.05 @ 10:30AM|#

The Arab party supports disengagement, and its color is orange, whcih has been appropriated by the anti-disengagement camp.

So I see no weirdness.

|7.8.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Uh, joe, re-read the article: orange is the color being used by the pro-settlement groups, i.e., those who are anti-disengagement. That's why an Israeli-Arab political party that already used the color orange would be unhappy.

|7.8.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Why is the Israeli Arab party vehemently against disengagement?

They're not. Orange is the color adopted by the anti-disengagement crowd.

And why doesn't the government just announce to the settlers that they're free to stay in their homes and live as citizens(subjects? pigeons?) of the Palestinian Authority?

They know that if they do that, most of the settlers will sensibly decide to leave, which in turn will result in the homes and infrastructure being seized by Hamas, and also used as propoganda weapons.

|7.8.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Curses! Five seconds too slow on the post button!

Shannon Love|7.8.05 @ 10:42AM|#

I'm thinking the severely color blind are getting into more than their fair share of fist fights due to accidental clothing color combinations.

|7.8.05 @ 10:44AM|#

I see. The "cause which it vehemently opposes" is opposition to disengagement, not disengagement itself. Oopsie.

|7.8.05 @ 11:04AM|#

As to why Sharon is removing the settlers rather than leaving them to fend for themselves under Palestinian rule:

It might be better for the overall situation if the settlers have their confrontation with Israelis rather than Palestinians. However ugly it might be for soldiers to remove settlers by force, and however much that might sour the public on further concessions/negotiations/agreements/insert-preferred-term-here, another armed confrontation between settlers and Palestinians would have even messier consequences.

Or at least that's probably what Sharon is thinking.

Of course, as a good libertarian I should give the usual disclaimers against coercively removing people from private property yadda yadda yadda, but I'm not here to defend anything. joe asked why Sharon is doing what he's doing, and I'm offering one plausible motive: Endure this mess to avoid an even bigger mess.

|7.8.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Jacob,
Do you know of Ellen Horowitz?
She's my guru RE disengagement issues. Here's her web site:
http://www.artfromzion.com/

She's a frequent columnist on Arutz Sheva.

ChrisO|7.8.05 @ 12:45PM|#

As a devout atheist, I couldn't give two shits about the "holy" land. My solution is simple: turn loose the New London, Connecticut city commission on the lot; Israelis, Arabs, whatever. Talk about some prime beachfront and sun-worshipper land! Why, they'd be rakin' in that tax revenue faster than they could count it!

|7.8.05 @ 3:55PM|#

I've been known to wear orange and blue at the same time, but then I root for the Mets, Islanders and Knicks!

Kevin

|7.8.05 @ 3:58PM|#

I thought the settlers didn't belong their in the first place.

|7.8.05 @ 4:04PM|#

Yeah, well, whaddygonnado?