The Israeli squatter loves the bulldozer, first they bulldoze palestinian houses, build jew houses on top and now when they have to leave they bulldoze yet again. God Forbid if they left something nice for the palestinians except the army outposts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/opinion/18isaacson.html
ISRAEL is scheduled, thanks to the bold disengagement plan of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to withdraw its troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip this summer and turn the area over to Palestinian control. The way things are now planned, this welcome step will be accompanied by an unwelcome sight: that of Israeli forces bulldozing and destroying the homes, greenhouses and other business and agricultural assets built by the settlers, rather than leaving them for the Palestinians.
The time-consuming process of dismantling these buildings and carting away the rubble will be expensive and perhaps dangerous for the Israelis. It will also carry a sad cost in terms of public relations. The images of Israelis razing habitable buildings will make them seem selfish and callous. A peaceful transfer of some of the structures, in contrast, would have just the opposite effect - it would be an inspiring public symbol of how both sides can work together, and it would help to create agricultural jobs that could be the seed of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation for the future.
So why is it not planned to happen this way? Because, publicly at least, neither Israeli nor Palestinian officials want to propose this gesture of cooperation. On the Israeli side, the Jewish settlers who are being uprooted from Gaza have, understandably, a strong aversion to Palestinians - even ones who were not engaged in violence - living and working in the buildings they are being forced to vacate. Even though they are being compensated by the Israeli government for moving out and would be allowed to keep any money from the sale of their equipment or businesses, most would rather have them destroyed. That is one reason Mr. Sharon made the decision to bulldoze rather than hand over the assets.
On the other side, most Palestinians feel, with equal emotion, that the buildings are illegal; their leaders are reluctant to give the assets legal legitimacy by negotiating to purchase or take possession of them. In addition, the settlers’ residences, mainly single-family dwellings, are not considered by the Palestinians to be particularly suitable for their housing needs. Hence the stalemate.
But on a recent trip to the region with the Aspen Institute’s Middle East Strategy Group, I heard officials on each side privately say that they would like to find a way out of this impasse, if the other side is willing. Many top Israelis, fearing the bad publicity and protracted danger of the job, quietly express hope that someone will come forward with a plan that could, at the very least, preserve and peacefully transfer some of the more valuable commercial structures, like greenhouses, even if the issue of private homes remains too emotional to resolve. And in big settlements like Gush Katif, where these commercial buildings are clustered together with private homes in a way that makes it hard for the bulldozers to be selective, they even yearn for a clever method to save all of the buildings.
On the Palestinian side, some of the new ministers privately say they would, if asked, create an entity, or authorize a third party, to take possession of the buildings from the Israelis. They even feel that some of the residential complexes, though unsuited for large Palestinian families, could be used as clinics or hotels. But like the Israelis, they are reluctant to publicly propose practical and sensible solutions to issues that some of their compatriots view as matters of both principle and emotion.
The settlement buildings, greenhouses and roads would, if transferred intact, leave a foundation of economic hope. The symbolic impact would be even greater - just as the bulldozer approach would be economically and symbolically destructive.
What is needed now is for the two sides to be as creative, and as dogged, in making peace as they have been in waging war.
They are putting the Sri back in Srinagar.