The Disengagement Plan - More Land Compromise

[Hix]

Hooray!! Im the first to post here

:sorry:

Anyway...
What does everyone think of Prime Minister Sharons Disengagement plan, consisting of the unilateral withdrawel of all Jews from Gaza? It seems recently he has been making more and more promises that other Yesha areas in Judea/Samaria will not with withdrew from, such as Ariel (were I have had the honor of staying in a nice hotel there, several times). However to me these assurances mean very little as Sharon had already promised that Gush Katif in Jewish Gaza would ALWAYS remain under Jewish control.

I just dont really see the benefits of disengagement, already we know that the enemy is taking it as a retreat and a sign that the intifada is winning. Is that really what we want? Gush Katif for example is one of the most peacefull places on earth, in 2 years its been hit by a staggering 2000 ( :eek: ) kassam rockets launched from PA controlled areas and they do absolutely nothing to retaliate. There are people there with good lives, going to school and shul, or with jobs etc and they are Israeli citizens, Im nearly sure it breaks some kind of law to take them away from their land.

If not the law of the land it breaks, it most certainly breaks the law of G-d. Sharon the self declared devout modern orthodox Jew is going against G-ds will that ALL the land in the area belong to Israel, not a single bit should be turned over becuase it was given to the B'nei Yisrael (children of Israel) for an eternal possesion. What good will giving them this land in responce to terror be? It will only make them believe if they keep at it they can achive their goal of getting all the land and killing every single Zionist in the name of their god.

Honestly, I used to have great respect for Sharon, who defended the Jewish people in Judea/Sameria, but this descision is a major mistake IMHO. I say BiBi for next prime minister! :D

So what are your thoughts on the disengagement plan? Do you think it is a wise descision, and keeping with the title of this new forum, how do you think it fits into Biblical prophecy?

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

[Pray4Isrel]

OK, why is Sharon giving away land for peace when everyone and their mother knows it won't work?
Why is Bush endorsing this?

I mean, I adore our President, but this is one issue that I feel he really needs to get a grip on:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117085,00.html

Why oh Why is the land being compromised?
It does not belong to the Palestinians.

[ShirChadash]

Isn't this very strange?! It seemed to me that it came almot out of nowhere on Sharon's part -- like, I was asking myself if he had someone become rather senile and no one noticed or something. Seriously -- this is just so weird to me. I almost sense that there is truly a 'higher" power at work here because all of a sudden, things that certian key people are doing just don't make sense at ALL.

[Hix]

Did you guys miss my thread on the disengagement plan? :( I asked what everyones opinions on it were and how it ties into prophecy

http://christianforums.com/t126825

[Hix]

*bump*

Seems even Shinui the ultra secular party is against this move, and for good reason, its giving the enemy more land for nothing but empty promises and rewarding terror.

[ShirChadash]

HEY -- QUICK


if you (anyone) have real player, go to this link

http://www.israelradio.org/english.html

choose the 7 AM news on the link that says: Click for 7 AM news via US Server.

About 2 minutes in, they begin discussing the disengagement plan: some 5 mos ago, US officials pressured Sharon by meeting with the authors of that unofficial Geneva Accord and basically pushed Sharon into making this move... they had basically said to Sharon in this action, that he had better come up with something that will "work" or the Americans would look to "others" for ideas. There was apparently a secret meeting in Italy in which Nat'l Security agent Elliot Abrahms (sp?) pressured Sharon and since the "road map" wasn't going anywhere, Sharon decided on the pull-out.

Listen while you can, if you want to, because they do change the message at 7 AM Israeli so it won't stay up... not sure if they have an archive you can listen to...

[ShirChadash]

Did you guys miss my thread on the disengagement plan? :( I asked what everyones opinions on it were and how it ties into prophecy

http://christianforums.com/t126825
Sorry Hix... I'm slow today LOL. I'll check it out too!

[ShirChadash]

some people seem to genuinely believe this is going to lead to more "peace". *shaking head* I don't understand it... but I'll tell you I still believe that this is the year for the "peace accord" and I think Bush is going to use it to his advantage to help him in his next-term presidential campaign. I wonder if he didn't get some agreement from someone in the "palestinian" camp that if Israel does this they will shape up somewhat so at least on the outside, it looks good for the future of a "peace accord." I was very surprised to hear Sharon was advancing this pull out -- i thought it was a sick April fools joke when I heard it -- but I heard it on the same internet news link I gave on the other thread here just now. But honestly -- I think this is all a part of the real escalation of events toward the real end.

[ShirChadash]

oooooooh while you are on that Israel Radio site, take a listen to the 10 PM news now. Bush and Sharon met today. Bush: There would be changes to the 1949 armistice line in determining final borders.

[Toney]

It is a delicate balance, is it not -- weighing geopolitical considerations against the Word of G-d?

There must be a Palestinian State for Israel to survive, otherwise assimilation of the non-Jewish population eventually overwhelms the Jewish majority demographically in a relatively short period of time. At least, that is what I read.

The U.S. will, of course, support the unilateral disengagement from Gaza. The West Bank Wall will be completed -- good fences make good neighbors, it is said.

The question then becomes, "Will G-d allow Israel to concede any portion of the Promised Land?"

It is only one man's opinion, but I believe we are on the threshold of major Divine Intervention to prevent it.

Great post, Hix!

[iitb]

Both threads on this subject have been combined! :)

[ShirChadash]

I mean, I adore our President, but this is one issue that I feel he really needs to get a grip on:


I'm all for Bush -- I don't harbor any misconceptions that he is perfect and like you said he needs to get a grip on this issue... but I will say that I think his actions in this are really in a push to get the "peace accord" at least lined up good before the next round of elections. If he can do that, and turn the tide of what's happening in Iraq to a relatively more stable, positive situation... it might bode better for him in the election.

[Toney]

Well, the news just broke. Here is a snipet from the Washington Post:

Bush argued that "the United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations," but explained why certain requirements must be imposed. "The realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly over the last several decades, and any final settlement must take into account those realities and be agreeable to the parties," he said.

This is huge. It essentially means that the final status of Jerusalem is no longer on the table, or likely it will be interpreted by the Palestinians to mean that. The phrase "facts on the ground" is a buzz word. IMO this is not likely to go down well in Ramalah.

Good.

:clap:

[ShirChadash]

^And lest anyone misunderstand my tone in the above post... I hate that Bush (or any President anywhere/anytime) might do anything that will only result in more conflict not less, or squelch Israel in any way. But sadly, I am not surpirsed if that is the case, and G-d is bigger. I think He will use situations and cause people to think and act in ways that will ultimately work out His plans perfectly.

[ShirChadash]

Well, the news just broke. Here is a snipet from the Washington Post:

Bush argued that "the United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations," but explained why certain requirements must be imposed. "The realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly over the last several decades, and any final settlement must take into account those realities and be agreeable to the parties," he said.

This is huge. It essentially means that the final status of Jerusalem is no longer on the table, or likely it will be interpreted by the Palestinians to mean that. The phrase "facts on the ground" is a buzz word. IMO this is not likely to go down well in Ramalah.

Good.

:clap:DITTO Toney! GOOD!

And no -- they aren't happy about it, are they? The link Erin gave up there on this thread, this is the "pal" reaction

Palestinian Reaction: 'We Cannot Accept That'

Palestinian Labor Minister Ghassan Khatib (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.foxnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Ghassan%20Khatib)) told Fox News that the plan to pull out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank was intended to provide cover for Israel's plan to bolster other settlements in the West Bank, where the overwhelming majority of Israeli settlers live. He said that reinforcing and expanding these settlements would engender "more terrorism."

"What we just heard is not only disappointing and not only destructive ... but it is also dangerous," Khatib said after Bush and Sharon spoke.

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-foxnews_300x250&random=1081977969296&adsafe=high&lmt=1081977969&format=300x250_pas_abgnc&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F0%2C2933%2C117085%2C00.html&color_link=FFFFFF&color_border=999999&event=noiframe http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-foxnews_300x250&event=noscript

Minutes after the press conference, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.foxnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Ahmed%20Qureia)) harshly criticized Bush's stand.

"He is the first president who has legitimized the settlements in the Palestinian territories when he said that there will be no return to the borders of 1967," Qureia said. "We as Palestinians reject that. We cannot accept that. We reject it, and we refuse it."

Qureia said the Palestinians cannot be left out of the process.

"These issues can be determined only through negotiations and cannot be determined through promises from the leader of this or that country," he said. "This can be decided only by the Palestinian leadership."

Earlier, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.foxnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Yasser%20Arafat)) said the peace process would be dead if the United States assured Israel it can keep some key West Bank settlements and would not have to absorb Palestinian refugees. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117085,00.html

[Toney]

I must have missed this in the local paper:

Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah movement denied on Tuesday Israeli reports on its intention to carry out biological attacks against Israeli targets...

This reaction came after Israeli newspapaers reported on an attempt by Palestinians to carry out a suicide attack using a bomb laced with HIV-infected blood. According to these reports, Israel's Shin Beth security service foiled this attempt.

(From Al Bawaba News Service (http://www.albawaba.com/headlines/TheNews.php3?action=story&sid=274744&lang=e&dir=))

[Hix]

That is good news, I watched the Presidents speach and some of what he said was spot on. Such as that the "palestinian" refugees would have to leave Israel entirely should a "palestinian" state be set up. I can see that enraging them becuase it kills their plans to eventually due to increasing numbers be a majority in Israel some day and crush the Jews from within.

Oh and Toney, I heard about the HIV bomb, they are sick and twisted people. Infact though this was the first case of an HIV bomb, the terrorists have been known to get themselves infected with HIV before they blow themselves up, just so any survivors could die of AIDS later anyway. :(

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

[ShirChadash]

Not only that, Hix, but I have heard that, really, many "Palestinians" prefer to live on Israeli soil because 1) over-all, living is much better than under Arab rule 2) the safety is unduplicated under Arab rule 3) those who actually wish for peace realize who the truly peaceful ones are... Israel. I just found that SO ironic to say the least.



But yes, it is undeniable they are trying to cause the population-power shift.

[Toney]

Duplicate post.

[Toney]

With the referendum vote this weekend, I thought I would post a link from Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=416024&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y) to an overview of Sharon's disengagement plan.

[Henaynei]

a raging mad elephant is beating itself against my stockade - the reverberations are causing injuries in the compound - *I KNOW* I'll remove that part of the stockade and the elephant will have the "sense to take this opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue."

Gee, why didn't we think of that before Normandy???

[Henaynei]

I totally understand the "separate population" issue - and I understand the "logic" behind it......

Now, if logic just had a snowball's chance in Key West in this situation........ there is *absolutely* never been any indication that it does or ever will.......

[Flavius]

I truly believe that Israel should give up all of Palistine and move out of Gaza and the West Bank because they are occuppying my land.It belongs to me not Arafat.

I am the son of Joseph,the second born son{Ephraim}.

That land belongs to me not the Palistinians.Sharon needs to get out and vacate as well as the Palistinians.

I claim that land in the words of Isaiah-Any stranger that would take on the customs of Israel will in no way be counted out of the inheritance of Israel.

I will negotiate because i'm not a cruel man.I will give them Palistinians 1 year to find a new home.

[Toney]

All three Israeli television stations report that Sharon's Disengagement Plan was resoundingly defeated. Channel One estimates that 62% of Likud voters opposed the plan. Here is the story from Haaretz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/422430.html).

[JewishHeart]

I am a rightist in the way I vote and by ideal, but am a leftist emotionally. What do I meant by this? Any messianic Jew or Christian Zionist knows the ins-and-outs politically and biblically of biblical Zionism. You know that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people and that Jordan was meant to be the state for the Arabs who once dwelt in Palestine (modern day Jordan and Israel). We know that compromise in the Bible concerning the land is sin. We also know that the Jewish people have waited 2000 plus years for their own land and have finally returned according to the scriptures. We also know that the land God promised Abraham includes most of Lebanon, some of Syria, some of Egypt, Jordan, and much of Iraq. Ironically, the stage is being set for Israel in Iraq as we speak (for those who have eyes to see).

On the other hand, living in Israel you see things very emotionally. You see a people under pressure. You see a people who are beginning to break in sorrow. You see the basketball victory as a short breeze of fresh air. You see the economy on the edge of financial collapse. You see people struggle making about 1000 dollars a month and having to live on 2500. You see the fifty percent taxes on the income. You see friends and family afraid to get on the bus to visit you. You hear of a family of five getting shot and only the father being left in the Gush Katif settlement. You begin to weep and cry out to God! Maybe if we get out of Gaza there will be temporary peace. At least temporary peace means a break in this long-term war. We hopelessly know that withdrawing from Gaza will not solve the problem, and may even make it worse. But what can be better than a short-term period where no precious lives are lost? A breath of fresh air? Time to heal before the war intensifies. Time to recuperate our morale. Besides, there is nobody to talk to on their side, maybe we should leave them alone and build a fence and that’s it. (As a messianic Zionist I think sometimes like this emotionally): Maybe we can achieve some temporary peace (peace meaning less lives lost and not some flakey leftist ideal with flowers) and build this Jewish nation. God promised us more than Gaza, so why should be transport them to Jordan which is consecrated to Israel as well biblically one day. Why don’t we give up Gaza for a stop in violence temporarily until the Messiah comes and returns us all the land that belongs to us? We wont get Iraq until Messiah comes, so why should we see the lives of soldiers and civilians over land that means just as much to Israel as Iraq does (both biblically promises to us). Give it up for now, key word being for now. The intensified war biblically will never end until Messiah comes anyways, so why dont’t we create a short break in the prophesied violence so Israel can breathe and not weep over its dead.

Again, politically I believe that the results of the 1967 war give Israel 100 percent right over the West Bank and Gaza. Biblically, I believe we have a right over it. Morally, we have a right over the land. The Palestinian concept and PLO is a terrorist plot and the innocents are misinformed at best. But, not for their sake, but for our sake. Maybe there can be a short break in which we don’t weep over our lost brothers while we know biblically the intensified war will go on until Messiah comes.

[Toney]

Sharon said earlier Monday he would consult with coalition members and the Likud's Knesset faction to formulate an alternative to the plan in the wake of its defeat.



Later, Mofaz said that the outcome of Sunday's poll must be respected, adding that the security aspects of the disengagement plan would obviously be incorporated into any new initiative, "which will take into consideration the wishes of Likud members and the public."


Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that despite the landslide defeat of the prime minister's disengagement plan, the initiative was "unstoppable."

Complete story: Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/423064.html).