The captain has to go

It's not an easy thing to say that the prime
minister is at a crossroads, fast approaching his
last stop. It's no lightheaded matter to say that
the prime minister, wildly applauded at the
opening of the General Assembly of the United
Jewish Communities of North America now in session
in Jerusalem, has failed in his job of leading the
country.


But these nice people from the
GA will be going home in a
few days and the problem will
remain in our laps - a prime
minister with no vision, no
plan, no horizon; a prime
minister who has brought the
country to where it is now
and stands at a critical
juncture where he is doing

more harm than good, no longer capable or
worthy of manning the controls.

From this omelet, we'll never get an egg.

At the end of Sharon's third year in office,
Israel's standing - here and abroad - has taken
a turn for the worse. At various symposia, the
question of whether its establishment was a
mistake has become a popular topic. From the
first intifada, waged with stones and
slingshots, we have reached the point where
people are asking if Israel will still be a
Jewish state 30 years from now. Surveys in
Europe show that Israel is perceived as a
threat to world peace, the root of the problem.
It's only a matter of time before it is saddled
with all-out responsibility for global terror.

Haaretz

I could not agree more.

Sharon, Bush, Blair, Saddam, Osama, Arafat, take em all and put em in a boat going straight to hell together. They deserve each other.

One piece of bread between them all and only a cup of water.

The question now is how will Sharon treat Abu Ala. To shore him up, Sharon should be making gestures - not telling him what to do. He should be lifting blockades, easing restrictions on the population, freeing prisoners and, most importantly, moving to dismantle illegal outposts as a prelude to evacuating settlements. Washington is warning Israel that if Abu Ala loses his job because of us, all hell will break loose. On the other hand, Israel will be heavily pressured to carry out its part in the road map if Abu Ala does manage to curb terror.
But Sharon has no political plan. From the look of things, he's trying to insure that none of those "painful concessions" rear their head while he's on duty. With his escapist policies, Sharon is like a radar-evading plane. The man is a serial shirker when it comes to keeping his promises to bring peace and security.

Sharon has no plan other than make war on the Palestinian people. To make peace, he would have to take risks. These may fail and if they fail, what then? And will Arafat even give Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) the support and latitude he will need to manver for even the preconditions for a peace deal?

If Qurei shows good faith, will one rengade attack by terrorists be Sharon's pretext to go back the cycle of repression and violence? It is difficult to imagine Sharon doing what is necessary to end the cycle. He has been too much a part of it and has for too long given any peace effort too much scorn.

I must agree. Sharon must go. His coming was a dark day.

I would venture to say that if Arafat is corrupt this man is certainly not far behind.

He has taken advantage of the Palestinian for a long time and his heraldship can mean no good.

What Palestine is missing is men of vision without greed in places of power, not this weasel Qurei.

Or even such women. Hanan Ashwari is a name familiar and held in high esteem by many here.

I have not been able to find a good deal of information from a Palestinian source on Yasser Abed Rabbo, who recently negotiated the Geneva Accord with Yossi Beilin. Could you enlighten us about him? It seems important that people willing to negotiate peace need to be brought into power in both counties.

Other names with which I am somewhat familiar and of whom I would like to know more are Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, a professor, and Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, a physician (the latter not be be confused with Marwan Barghouti). Could you tell us something of these people, please.

we are seeing a sea change in three countries

Replace Sharon, with Blair or for that matter, Bush and yuo will
see what I mean

These policies have failed, PERIOD

Arafat, Syria, Iran and on and on...

He alone has led too many suicidal people to killing innocent Jews. He must be the first one out the door.

The editorial is from a leading Israeli mewspaper and is aimed at an Israeli audience. Although I agree with you that Arafat must also go, Israelis have more say in what to do with their leadership than somebody else's.

The editorial's focus is on General Sharon's failures without respect to Mr. Arafat's. Arafat's own failures, although considerable, are a red herring in this discussion.

Anything that helps influence the opinion of Israelis in this matter is not a red herring.

Do you have an opinion on his leadership?

When the terrorism is gone so will be Sharon. It's not too hard to understand from a defensive perspective.

Ha'aretz seems to think not and that it's time to try something else.

It's one thing to say that Sharon was made PM to deal with terrorists; it's another thing to ask, three years after he became PM, if he has been successful.

General Ya'alon, who isn't exactly a Gush Shalom activist, seems to think Sharon's approach is a failure.

Ya'alon nor Sharon will succeed until Arafat is removed from his terror perch.

to get himself removed from power?