By Endorsing Ariel Sharon's Plan George Bush Has Legitimised Terrorism

by Robert Fisk
The Independent
April 17, 2004


So President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay. Israeli settlements for Jews and Jews only on the West Bank. That's okay. Taking land from Palestinians who have owned that land for generations, that's okay. UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay.



Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qa'ida? What does this mean? That George Bush cares more about his re-election than he does about the Middle East? Or that George Bush is more frightened of the Israeli lobby than he is of his own electorate. Fear not, it is the latter.



His language, his narrative, his discourse on history, has been such a lie these past three weeks that I wonder why we bother to listen to his boring press conferences. Ariel Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1,700 Palestinian civilians dead) is a "man of peace" - even though the official 1993 Israeli report on the massacre said he was "personally responsible" for it. Now, Mr Bush is praising Mr Sharon's plan to steal yet more Palestinian land as a "historic and courageous act".



Heaven spare us all. Give up the puny illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and everything's okay: the theft of land by colonial settlers, the denial of any right of return to Israel by those Palestinians who lived there, that's okay. Mr Bush, who claimed he changed the Middle East by invading Iraq, says he is now changing the world by invading Iraq! Okay! Is there no one to cry "Stop! Enough!"?



Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about "freedom in Iraq". Not "democracy" in Iraq. No, "democracy" was no longer mentioned. "Democracy" was simply left out of the equation. Now it was just "freedom" - freedom from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections. And what is this "freedom" supposed to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will be the "historic handover" of Iraqi "sovereignty". Yes, I can well see why George Bush wants to witness a "handover" of sovereignty. "Our boys" must be out of the firing line - let the Iraqis be the sandbags.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5344

eom

When the UN accepted delegates from the PLO. When a terrorist organization has embassies in 94 nations, you gotta figure this is a legitimate method of redressing grievances.

Now stop confusing Israel, which has legitimate reasons to use force against the people who regularly explode on Israeli buses, and the US which has no legitimate reason to use force against the Iraqis. Or do YOU believe Saddam was involved in 9/11?

Oh, and "perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre"? Do you need to buy a dictionary? The perpetrators of Sabra and Shatila were severely pissed off Lebanese Christians. Now, you either have to improve your vocabulary or stop lying.

It's pretty racist to assume the Lebanese weren't capable of doing their own revenge killings, don't you think? Now, have you bothered to find out why the Lebanese were so very, very annoyed?

Sharon had word passed out to the Lebanese Christians that Moslems had assassinated their leader. (It wasn't true.) Then the Israelis opened the gates to the camps so the Lebanese could take their revenge.

That is why they were pissed. And that is how the massacre came to pass.

Did they need the help? Only because the Israelis controlled access to the camp. But the Israelis helped because they *wanted* to. And Sharon was the one who seems to have initiated it.

pray tell, controls the access to Israeli cities and buses? Isn't it Israel? Or do you think the PA has the right to demand no border defenses.

By letting the crazed bombers into Israel to slaughter hundreds of innocent people, someone has to take responsibility. I'm glad Sharon didn't leave it up to Arafat and Abbas. I'm glad he quickly went about building the barrier/wall/fence, despite the international outcry of "war crime". The world is so confused.

about that barrier/wall/fence. If it is to protect Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers, why do Israelis live on both sides of it?

That is why the secondary fences around Ariel and Ma'ele Adumim and other areas. The settlements near Jerusalem are actually going to be included in the fence/barrier. Of course, every single individual will not fall neatly into the planned fenced in areas. Some settlements are to be removed. Apparently you knew this, if I'm not mistaken.

Israel decided to not recognize the Palestinians as humans. Unfortunately this occurred from Day 1 and is still happening.

That is a very controversial comment and I am assuming that you wouldn't even consider saying something so hateful without havign solid evidence. As in, for example, a look at the voting rolls in ISrael in which I am certain you searched and found absolutely no Palistineans except for those members in the Knesset who oppose Israel's right to exist. Please explain your reasoning for saying that.

. The rest are people who must leave their homes and olive groves if an Israeli wants to move in. Do I need to source this?

Do you feel that Israel's actions aren't bad enough, so they have to be "enhanced' as my mother says? Regardless whether you think Israel is stealing land or not, we are not talking about them going to Palistineans, kicking them out of their homes and moving in. The settlements, like them or not, are in deserted areas.

Yet again, what proof do you have that Isralis consider 9/10ths of Palistineans to be sub-human?

is itself dehumanizing. You have direct experience, I presume?

Sharon is culpable in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. He gave Major Haddid and his phalangists permission to enter the camp when knew or had good reason to know exactly what would happen. At no time during the ensuing slaughter did he try to stop it, although there is good reason to believe he was aware of it. He posted Israeli troops outside the camp to prevent victims from escaping.

Sharon claims ignorance. The report of the Kahane Commission states flatly that his defense is incredulous.

To say that Sharon did not play the active role in Sabra and Shatila that Major Haddid and men played does not absolve Sharon of a degree of responsibility. At worst, he acted with full knowledge of the matter and with malice aforethought. At best, he is guilty of criminal negligence in the affair. Even that is enough to justify the label war criminal.

We should regret that this thug will never answer for his deeds.

Say, when Chaim Herzog was made Israel's UN ambassador.

He was intimately involved in transferring hundreds of thousands of inhabitants out of the West Bank after 1967 - in line with his conception that the land was "consecrated in the hands of our nation for thousands of years", and therefore there was "no partner" on the Palestinian side.

That is roughly comparable to the rejectionist front of the PLO (rejecting Jewish self-determination). Moreover, he implemented that stand, which the PLO did not have the power to do.

To name one other example, Herzog was the equivalent of what Bremer is now in Iraq, commanding a reign of humiliation of brutality in an attempt to repress all WB political participation ("if you don't co-operate, leave", to paraphrase another Israeli UN ambassador).

Of course, none of that is terrorism, because Israel was doing it.

To begin with, your comment refers to Chaim Herzog's actions after the Six Day War, three years after, I might point out, the PLO was formed. Strangely enough, the Palistineans had the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip then, but still they had to form an organization to liberate them. They also had a part of Jerusalem too, including the Western Wall, but of course they always recognized the right of Israel to exist. We can discuss later if HErzog's actions were right or not, but they were certainly not the first.

If you want to play chicken and the egg, Sharon personally carried out a terrorist action greater than anything ever attributed to the PLO whilst simultenously managinng to also praise his terrorist friends in public right at the time the Israeli gov was undertaking international terrorist atrocities.

About a decade before the PLO was a twinkle in Arafat's eye.

You may want to refine your notion of "first"

as non-violent actions. As a military governor of the West Bank, overseeing the non-violent era of co-operation, former President Chaim Herzog (also former UN ambassador) but retired from the IDF in 1962.

Non-violent governance is to be admired. Didn't you think the non-violent era was highly commendable? You can thank Herzog for that. He's was great man.

Or, more accurately, a rein of brutality and humilation from the very first moment.

...is relative, and I sincerely doubt that the brutality was more severe than the crimes committed.

by the pre-Israeli's who bombed their way to a Jewish nation?

I don't think this line of argument makes a lot of sense but the chronological facts are obvious if you want to say the UN legitimised terror by accepting the PLO - they accepted Israel as a nation before they accepted the PLO despite the fact that Jewish terror and US/UK imperial designs had created Israel in spite of the "facts on the ground" at the time - ie an Islamic majority and the majority of the population not wanting a "jewish nation" established on top of them

As for the defence of the piece of shit that is Sharon the war criminal - the Israeli Kahan commission (biased as is was towards exonerating Israeli complicity) ruled that Sharon was “indirectly responsible” for the mass killings at Sabra and Shatila. The commission also ruled that Sharon was "seriously morally defective" and therefore unfit to serve as defense minister, one would have to think this should preclude his being PM but....

Any truly unbiased commission might have noted the use of IDF helicopters flying overhead and lighting up the camps and shooting those who managed to escape as evidence that that Sharon as the head of the military had a wee bit more to do with it than simply not keeping an eye on the phalangists...people who "carry out orders" are not given a pass for their crimes, but GENERALLY those giving the orders are found to be more culpable.

In pre-state days was directed against the imperialist British power. The Arabs were their logical allies. Later, when the Israeli state was declared, and the Palestinians were offered their own state, they rejected the offer, and waged a war of terror against Israel.

In the pre-state days terrorism was aimed at the Arabs of Palestine. Are you saying that the incidents detailed by reputable historians are wrong?

Violet...

Have I said there was no conflict with the Arabs in pre-state Israel history? Of course not. However, the organized underground groups were fighting the British.

The UN ambassador, blowing up markets, bombing buses etc. :eyes:

LEHI sounds organised to me.

and hopefully everyone will forget the brutal oppression of the British whose "neutrality" always favored the Arabs of Palestine.

On June 29, 1946 3,000 Jewish administrative leaders were rounded up from their homes in brutal violence, and imprisoned. Everyone remembers the bombing of the King David in July of 1946, but forget the "Black Sabbath" that preceded it.

Today everyone talks about the "occupation", and usually forget to mention the Intifada which killed over 900, Israelis, 673 of the innocent civilians.

No, the leader of the Palestinians has nothing to do with this. Arafat's calls for Jihad were only symbolic, as he is symbolic. That's a bunch of BS.

What he was telling you was that attacks on the Arab civilians of Palestine during the days of the mandate was terrorism. Nothing justifies attacks on civilians...

Those who cling to the 'official' and now debunked version of events leading up to and including the creation of Israel always claim that the British favoured the Arabs, while the Arabs claim that the British favoured the Zionists. What seems much more in the realms of reality is that the only thing Britain was interested in was its own self-interests and it didn't give a toss about either side...

Uh, Gimel. The occupation's been going on since 1967. It predates both intifadas by a long period of time...

Sorry, but it shouldn't matter whether civilians being attacked are Jewish, Arab or anything else. If yr going to define terrorism as attacks on civilians, you have to be consistant and not make exeptions for folk based on their ethnicity...

Violet...

show that you misunderstood mine, and also history. No time to explain.

Of course if I'm supposedly misunderstanding it, it's no good just claiming I do and leaving it at that. You'd be better off explaining where the supposed misunderstanding is, which I'll look forward to, because there's no misunderstanding of history in what I said...

Violet...

"In the pre-state days terrorism was aimed at the Arabs of Palestine."

Is perhaps intentionally misleading, if not an error in understanding. If you prefer the former, that's your choice.

Are you denying there were attacks on Arab civilians, or are you acknowledging there were, but somehow there's some excuse as to why attacks on civilians then wasn't terrorism, while nowadays it is?

Violet...

Go right ahead, since I'm not going to (as you well know).

As for the British, I know exactly what the policy was, and it was mostly shameful. I have family involvement from that period, so it would be kind of difficult for me to "forget".

As for the Occupation, it shouldn't be in quotation marks, since that is denying reality. As for the Intifada, I never fail to mention the civilian deaths. As for Arafat, I've called him a thug and said he's involved in terror (mostly indirectly, as admitted in the Israeli press by serious analysts) dozens of times (as you also know).

By the way, I would prefer not to have to go through this charade every couple of days -so just to put you on notice- I'll be doing something more productive the next time you throw out some bait in response to one of my posts, rather than wasting time repeatedly typing the above.

A term which is inexact, and which is subject to individual interpretation in certain context can be set off by quotation marks. It is not denying reality in as much as it is saying that it is open to interpretation.

I notice that it is common practice here on DU to denounce the use of quotation marks. I use them because I feel there is a misuse of a term, or cases where individuals insist that everyone here use his or her interpretation of a term, when in fact, it is not at all the law here or anywhere that I agree with Miss so and so on a particular usage.

If you feel that quotation marks constitute a "bait", or perhaps something else, I wish you would be more specific. I can't account for every persons hang-ups.

I've noticed the reference to King David Hotel 3 or 4 times in the past month as an example of an extreme case of terrorism.

For example here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=57878#58015

It was not, however, a random act, perpetrated to promote terror, and as such was a reasonable act of war. I think the label is misused, but that is my opinion.

Never was the cause of that attack expained, so I thought I would bring that in here. It's not exactly covering the same ground.

Because King David could at least be argued as a military target. So take your wild accusations to somebody else.

To repeat: the actions I (accurately) mentioned are terror and were lauded as terror - murdering the UN mediator, blowing up Arab markets, buses etc.

Consult the LEHI history sometime. Begin never renounced his love of terror - he was still praising it in 1991.

I was debating the issues with Ms. Crumble before your intervention. I don't mind the intervention, but at least the subject matter shouldn't change drastically.

I'm glad the pioneer Jews had the strength to fight for their land from attacks by the British and the Arabs, both forces stronger in size and/or resources. No small matter. A point in history, and I'm sorry you take it so personally as an attack or a "wild accusation".

And you were 'debating' the issues with Mr. Tinnypriv before I popped in...

So Palestine was the land of the Jews, many of whom were recent immigrants over the previous few decades, but not the Arabs who'd been living there for generations?? And to claim that the Palestinian population while larger in size had more resources is seriously incorrect....

Violet...

During the Arab revolts (Intifada) of 1936- 1939, the British actually sanctioned the Hagana as a legitimate military unit. As such, it should not be considered terrorist in its nature. The redefinition of terrorism is another twister here. To avoid re-opening that discussion, I will simply put the word in italics to indicate that the word depends on the users definition.

It was not until the announcement of the partition that hostilities with the Arabs broke out again.

LEHI was disbanded on May 31, 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel. however, in Jerusalem remained an independent organization. The assassination of the UN mediator on Sept 17, 1948 is definitely not pre-state. Nor do the other activities of LEHI, which was actually outlawed by the GOI.

My statement, which seems to have brought out your comments on the LEHI, was not a blanket denial of Jewish terrorism. The UN mediator was neither British or Arab, so I do not see how that has any relevance to my comment either.

It operated from 1940 to 1948. Also, I don't recall Tinnypriv talking about the Haganah...

I find any attempt to paint attacks on civilians as not being terrorism or more importantly, morally unjustifiable, to be, well, morally unjustifiable. Though it is fascinating to find out that yr definition of the term terrorism excludes US actions against Nicaragua as being international terrorism, or that if any military forces engages in attacks on civilians, that's not terrorism either. Doesn't seem particularly logical, but then the term terrorism is one of those terms nowadays that really doesn't mean much, apart from appearing in nifty little phrases like 'The War On Terror'...

Violet...

You said the "organised underground groups" were fighting the British, which is not true. They were fighting the British, and the Arabs and anyone who got in their way.

Haganah was less extreme, though it did participate in atrocities - some indirectly (for example members of it stood around and watched Deir Yassin, though the main command condemned it), some directly ("retaliation" against women and children by the Palmach at Khissas for example).

As for the "disbanding of LEHI" in May 1948, you may have cut and pasted that from the Israeli Foreign Ministry history, but that doesn't make it true - actually it is half true.

LEHI did mostly fold in the new IDF, but Ben-Gurion only took serious action against the main component of LEHI (and the Irgun Tsvai Leumi, which you forget) after the assassination (6 days after, when he instituted a law against terror).

That's the reference you make to "outlawed". And you can find out how "outlawed" by consulting what happened to one of the maniacs jailed - he became Chief Rabbi. Another of the maniacs the law was directed against was Shamir, and you know how he turned out.

In fact, the Israeli press a few years back (the 50th anniversary of LEHI) joked about how the Ben-Gurion law would "forbid contact with the Head of State" (Begin).

I did indeed say that LEHI continued in Jerusalem after the state was founded. If you didn't see that in my post, you might read it again. That was how they came to assassinate the UN mediator, which you brought up to object to my original comment about pre-state Jewish terror.

You haven't proven the point in the least.

I'm not saying the battles were fought in some fairy tale. There was real conflict going on even as refugees arrived in leaky ships, escaping from the blockades to keep them in the slave camps of Europe. The British sent them to concentration camps (because they arrived without certificates) in Israel or Eritrea, or they drowned at sea like the 769 Jews who arrived on the Struma and were sent away.

Did they fight anyone who got in their way? You bet they did. Those who were able to. The land of Israel was very harsh. They had no other option. Jews were herded into concentration camps in Germany, Austria, Belgum, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Italy, Holland, France, Estonia, Finland, Chekloslavakia, Yugoslavia, Russia and Poland. In Israel they could fight for their homeland.

I don't deny that the Palestinians have a right to their homeland. But Israel has an ancient connection to this land. The necessity of history mandated that the Jews return to their homeland. The UN was only the instrument for that.

I did not cut and paste anything for my posts on this thread from anywhere on the Internet. I have other resources - history books to refer to.

Give the palestinians a state....OK....we will withdraw from Gaza....

no no dont do it Unilaterally you racist pigs.....


ummm we cant win....:mad:

'We' as in the govt of Israel? There's no way in hell I'd align myself with a govt like that. Yuck...

Have I missed something here? The UNILATERAL withdrawal from Gaza has zero to do with the creation of a future Palestinian state. And last time I checked, unilateral action isn't a wise move, whether it's the US or Israel that carries it out....

And as far as I know, the Palestinians don't need to be given a state, like they're being tossed crumbs from their Western masters in reward for being happy at their subjugation. They can declare a state without Israel's involvement at all. My guess is they've held out because they're silly enough to believe that a negotiated settlement might eventuate, and also because declaring statehood wouldn't change what Israel does to them one little bit...

Violet...

Except for terrorist murderers who are unable and unwilling to change there ways....
Thats when unilateral steps are not only necessary but mandatory...

And to answer your question...the WE I am referring to...is the Jewish world.....

cause you sure as shit don't speak for the "Jewish world" you can not - as it encompasses everyone from right wing bigoted freaks like the Moledet party who advocate the ethnic cleansing of ALL Palestinians, religious Jews who reject Zionism and the nation of Israel such as Neturei Karta, Jews who support a peaceful two state settlement and the abandonment of the Occupied Territories such as Peace Now and the Refuseniks and atheists (who are still considered Jewish ethnically by many) who think it's all a load of crap.

Don't even try to speak for all Jews it'll only make you look foolish.

I thought he/she was demonstrably ignorant but have seen far more offensive posters stay here??

Yuck?
Very eloquent.

made a whole lot of sense?

"And last time I checked, unilateral action isn't a wise move, whether it's the US or Israel that carries it out...."
You do realize we are referring to Israel unilaterally removing its army from the contested territories, right? So, are you saying you're in favor of Israel remaining in the territories? I don't understand.

I'm goingto unilaterally send this post- I hope I haven't aligned myself to much with yucky people for your refined tastes.

I think you should have said they're occupied territory. If you believe the territory's contested, can you explain why you believe Israel has a valid claim to sovereignty over Palestinian territory?

No, if you read my posts in this forum, you'd pick up pretty quickly that I'm totally opposed to Israel remaining in the Occupied Territories....

Apart from not understanding why I'm opposed to this unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, you also don't seem to understand the problem with regimes like the Bush one and now Sharon's taking unilateral action? US unilateralism (under Bush the US has turned its back on multilateral international agreements and taken unilateral action over Iraq) has caused some problems around the globe. We're talking about states here, and not you hitting the post button. Gosh, I've been known to make unilateral decisions when it comes to my kidlet, but seeing as how we're in the Foreign Affairs forum (and then we take a sharp right to get to the I/P forum), I doubt anyone's particularly interested in hearing about our own little unilateral actions, and I'm sure most understand the difference between what we do as individuals and what states do....

And now this opponent of states taking unilateral action against other states and oppressed people has just made the unilateral decision to go have a smoke and a cuppa ;)

Violet...

Well, right now, nobody knows what the heck is going on with the West Bank and Gaza Strip. On this site alone, there are people, like myself, calling for a two-state solution, those calling for a one-state, and others thinking that none of our current ideas have any merit, which might very well be true. Considering their unclear status, I think that calling them "contested" is quite fair.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your response. You say that you are "totally opposed to ISrael reminaing in the Occupied Territories." Israel offered to leave part of the territories. That is a good thing, no?

People in this forum could come up with 1001 different ideas on what sort of state/s should exist, but that's got nothing to do with the status of the Occupied Territories. For them to be contested or disputed territory, Israel would have to have some valid claim to that territory, which it doesn't. The UN Charter expresses the right of self-determination for people, and I don't think they had some invisible clause making an exeption for the Palestinians. There's also been UN Resolutions that make it clear that Israel claiming sovereignty over any of the Occupied Territories is illegal. Add to that the fact that Israel may well want the territory but definately doesn't want the people who live there to be Israeli citizens, and it's easy to see there's nothing contested about it at all. If Israel were to claim sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip while being so adament that it won't give citizenship to the Palestinians, then its claim would be a racist one that should be condemned by all progressives even more than what it's doing now...

No, Sharon planning to dismantle settlements in Gaza isn't a good thing just because he's oferring to leave part of the territories. Like I said, it's a unilateral action, and even that small step was too much for the Likudniks apparently. I think offering to leave part is kind of like someone breaking into my home and setting up their family in every room except the loo, and then acting like they're being ever so generous when they offer to leave me the spare bedroom while they keep the rest...

Violet...

if the UN did put in invisible clauses. Mildly disgusting, but amusing nonetheless.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe that the Israeli government claims sovereignty over West Bank or Gaza Strip. Other than some far-right conservatives, I don't know of too many Israelis, though I might be wrong, who actually even want those territories (note this subtle evasion of the contested/occupied issue. It's a minor point, and if you really want to battle it, I suppose we can, but I don't feel like doing it quite this moment. If you respond, though, I will be more than heppy to respond back if I remember). It would be racist if Israel claimed soveriengty and didn't give citizenship to the Palistineans, but as far as I know, they have not done that. In fact, they have given citizenship to Palistineans who live in Israel. They are allowed to vote, are not, as far as I know, legally discriminated against (yes, there is the issue of racial profiling, but I don't know if that is massively worse for Israeli-Arab citizens than it is for African-Americans who live in white suburban American areas. That isn't necessarily to excuse it, merely to point out that it isn't unheard of for discrimination to occur when supposed safety concerns exist.) They have seats in the Knesset. I do not think that I would describe that as a racist policy.

You present an interesting example of a house robber(? I'm notthinking of the right word, I apologize). I would agree that them leaving the spare bedroom would not conclude the conflict, but would you not prefer that they leave the bedroom than that they not leave it? This won't be the end of the war, but perhaps we should be pleased that we can make it even slightly better, especially for the too many Palistineans and Israelis whose lives have been ruined and tortured by this dreadful conflict.

The only territory taken by Israel in 1967 that's been annexed is East Jerusalem. In that case, Israel only granted them residency permits and made the conditions for citizenship such that very few bothered applying. They have to pay taxes, but they don't get welfare or any health benefits that Israelis get. They can't vote in Israeli elections either....

If you consider Likud a far-right conservative party (which I do, but others here have claimed it's not even a right-wing party), I'll agree on that, because in Likud's platform they insist the borders of Israel stretch to the Jordan River and encompasses the West Bank...

I wouldn't be unhappy if the person who invaded my home gave up a bedroom voluntarily, but I'd have an issue with it if they tied it in with constructing a huge toilet paper wall inside my loo and lobbed toilet brushes at me when I went anywhere near the wall, while claiming they need to build that huge toilet paper wall for security, even though I know they're doing it so their family members who've taken up residence on the cistern and the toilet roll holder can have an even more solid hold on their new places of abode...

Violet...

but I believe that quite a few Israeli Arabs do have residenct permits, are citizens, can and do vote, and have even elected some representatives to the Knesset. If you are born in Israel (the actual country) then you are a citizen with all of the benefits and problems coming with that. There were even articles in the NYT a while back about Israeli Arabs in East Jerusalem who did not want it to be given back to the Palistineans because they would lose their health coverage. some, I'msure, never bothered to become citizens, but I'm not so certain that is because of Israeli policy.

I didn't know that about Likud's platform, and though it is off-topic, I will comment that there are alot of crazy things in platforms, the point is that if Israel REALLY wanted to, it could have annexed the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and nobody would really have cared (how many people even know that it isn't part of Israel right now?). Yes, there would have been some diplomatic repercussions which I am certain they are considering, but there is something to be said that conservative lieaders like Ariel Sharon are not even considering that.

Continuing the house example, I am not arguing that you would be happy about the situation- merely commenting that considering there are alot of problems, this doesn't make it any worse, and does make it slightly better.

The Likud has never renounced its claims of sovereignty over Jordan, never mind the WB and Gaza.

The current Def. Minister of Israel (Mofaz) considers the claim to Jordan "unrealistic", but still a worthy "dream".¹

As for:

"Other than some far-right conservatives, I don't know of too many Israelis, though I might be wrong, who actually even want those territories"

That's wrong, unless you add a subtle point (usually implicit) - they don't want the territories if they have Arabs in them. At least a majority will take take them if not, and the "not" can be helped by center-right mainstream figures like Uzi Cohen of the governing Likud.²

As for "far-right", the Likud central committee (the core of Likud) is roughly split between thinking the territories are "liberated" or "disputed" (50%-43%). 5% (just above statistical error), think they are "occupied".³

So that's half of "conservatives", right there. The "far right" figures would probably come out at 99%-1%, though I haven't checked the latest rantings of Mikor Rishon.

As for the "left", the figures are probably reversed two-1 (65%-20%-15% disputed/liberated/occupied).

With regards to standard public opinion, that is roughly on the order of 20% would evacuate "Judea and Samaria" (don't want the territories), 20% would not evacuate at all (want all the territories), and 50% would only evacuate "isolated" areas (want some of the territories).⁴

So yes, many Israelis want the territories, as public opinion polls constantly reiterate. You can ignore them if you want.


-----

1. Kaspit, Ma'ariv, 30 April 2004. The relevant excerpt:

"Once there was talk of "Two sides of the Jordan (River), that too is ours." Does that have anything to do with reality? No, it's simply a dream. We need to be realistic in the given situation. I am an adherent of the Likud ideology and these ideas are borne out of values, education and dreams. We should however adapt them to our current situation on the ground."

2. 'Uzi Cohen', cf. 'For the first time: Discussion of transfer at the Likud conference', Ma'ariv, 4 Jan 2004 (Hebrew). Includes a map of Greater Israel and "Jordan is Palestine".
3. Ma'ariv, 18 Nov 2003 (Hebrew). The main questions in the survey are the evacuation of Netzarim and the prisoner exchange (411 respondents).
4. Ha'aretz, 4 December 2002. 592 respondents.

then pull out and get bush to tell the world everything is A-OK

sounds like a plan for more death and destruction to me... but whadda i know :shrug:

peace

Does pulling out of Gaza mean all Israeli troops will leave Gaza and the place will be 100% in the hands of the Palestinians?

Does sovereignty for Iraq mean that after June 30, if the new Iraqi government want the coalition troops to leave Iraq, will they go?

All this unilateralism by the US and Israel has caused a lot of headache for everybody, and now that it's such a mess in Iraq, Bush turns to the "irrelevant" UN. Who says Bush doesn't flip-flop.

Hamas is only a Muslim charity that helps little old ladies across the street and gives hope to disadvantaged youths by telling them that they too have the opportunity to earnt their 49 virgins if they will only blow up themselves along with a few more Israelis. Fuck Hamas

..

Not forty nine. Apparently too, they're not even virgins, or at least there's a theological debate on that. Apparently some clerics think it refers to 72 white raisins. Now I really do feel bad for Hamas (meaning Hate, by the way). They blew themselves up all for 72 white raisins. Luckily this is a liberal web-site in which we believe in religious moderation and toleration, and so that isn't an issue, and nobody here ever sides with religious fanatics.

They're wrong....

The Hamas (a word meaning courage and bravery) is a radical Islamic organization which became active in the early stages of the Intifada, operating primarily in the Gaza Strip but also in the West Bank.

Hamas is the Arabic acronym for "The Islamic Resistance Movement" (Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya).

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=13

They blew themselves up all for 72 white raisins.

Yep, people don't commit suicide bombings for such piddly reasons as having anything to do with the Palestinians being an oppressed people living under a long-term and brutal occupation. Silly me...


Violet...

Hamas has two meanings, none of them "hate". One is a literal arabic word, the other an acronym of several Arabic words.

Try looking it up.

"Now I really do feel bad for Hamas (meaning Hate, by the way).... Luckily this is a liberal web-site in which we believe in religious moderation and toleration, and so that isn't an issue, and nobody here ever sides with religious fanatics."

except yourself of course who just accepted that Hamas meant "hate" when some (persumably) ignorant bigot told you it did.

though I don't remember who it was, so I won't call him an idiot yet. I will, though, call myself an idiot and a moron, as I personally like the word "moron" better for whatever reason. I apologize for the lack of ability to check words up in dictionaries. I'm not certain where I heard it, but that doesn't much matter anyway. Either way, I apologize again for any misconceptions I may have caused.

the US should endorse only part of the plan.

Middle East? Duh? Why do you think that he has completely igonred this pressing issue for three and a half years? Because it is one he cannot easily solve and will not get him votes. He hasn't the courage nor the vision of Clinton or Carter. But that's a no-brainer.

In the months leading up to 9/11, Bush took his usual attitude of benign neglect towards Israel's depredations against Palestine, a major source of rage among ME terror groups. Now, in an election year, he smirkingly blesses The Butcher, Sharon, not only in the obscene killing of an elderly quadriplegic Hamas leader, but also on the permanent occupation and settlement of the West Bank. As if to emphasize the gross insult, Sharon goes home and orders the assasination of Rantisi, followed by more arrogant bloodthirsty gloating and threats. Could this insanity only be for Jewish votes? I think he hopes for a lot more sinister developments.

As Lebanon's Daily Star noted today, nothing is included that wasn't included in any realistic peace plans:

"A close reading of the American text of April 14 reveals that Bush merely stated in public and gave official US support to long-standing assumptions that are universally held among those who are involved in, or closely follow, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations: (a) that only a symbolic return of some Palestinian refugees to Israel proper would occur, while the majority would repatriate or settle elsewhere and receive compensatory economic and political rights that would be negotiated by them and acceptable to them, and would affirm relevant international law and UN resolutions; and (b) the large Israeli settlement towns along the former border between Israel and the West Bank, such as Maale Adumim, Ariel and Givat Zeev, would be permanently incorporated into Israel, in exchange for territory of equal value that Israel would cede to the new Palestinian state. These assumptions were first articulated in the parameters that President Clinton issued in late 2000, after the failure of the Camp David negotiations (parameters which Israeli and Palestinian leaders accepted, with some reservations). "

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/home.asp?edition_id=1

"Maale Adumim, Ariel and Givat Zeev, would be permanently incorporated into Israel, in exchange for territory of equal value that Israel would cede to the new Palestinian state"

But that isn't the problem - the Palestinians lost the right of return (even compensation), and huge areas of their supposed state "in exchange" for nothing. That's the point. Moreover, this article forgets that many "realistic" peace plans (like Geneva) do allocate removal of huge settlements: Efrat and Ariel for instance. This plan does not, and in fact strengthens those settlements. That's of course putting aside the fact that those with the guns get to define "realistic".

In any case, the author doesn't seem to have looked at a map (surprising given his prominence) - Ariel is not "along the border".

Regardless, in short, the Palestinians get the continued expansion of huge settlements for Jews and Jews only on their land, the loss of a very important (but admittedly symbolic) demand, continued repression, brutality, humiliation, occupation etc and that continues until some unspecified point - i.e. forever, or until Israel and the United States decide the Palestinians are a "partner" again, which is virtually the same thing ("partner" = until they've capitulated).

Two more things:

1. Barak did not accept (with reservations or not) the idea of the Palestinians receiving territory of "equal value" - he flat out rejected that. He wanted to cede territory in the Negev, cut out so stupidly the "offer" of it was meaningless.

2. Israel rejected the "road-map", so there is no point pretending of any this is consistent with something Israel rejects and has always rejected without exception (even in the letter to Bush, if you read between the lines).

The Palestinians didn't lose anything in exchange for nothing. In many other statements, Bush has endorsed a Palestinian State, which was also a first. In fact this disengagement plan also includes a pull-out from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

It would be nice if this could have been negotiated with the Palestinians, but they broke off Oslo to start a violent uprising, and their current PM refuses to meet with Sharon.

Regarding your contention that Israel rejected the road-map, they had reservations, which is what happens when you negotiate in good faith.

In contrast, the Pals "accepted" the road map, then indicated many times that they would not go forward with step 1 - fighting terrorist organizations. Whereas, the road-map says terror groups are to be combatted and dis-armed, the Pal leadership instead encourages hero-worship of suicide bombers and tries to bring these groups into their government.

The Palestinians didn't lose anything in exchange for nothing. In many other statements, Bush has endorsed a Palestinian State, which was also a first. In fact this disengagement plan also includes a pull-out from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

How fantastic. Bush rose to the level of South Africa advocating a Palestinian state - catching up to the international demand of two-states first proposed in 1976 (supported by the PLO).

Putting aside the timeline, that comparison is actually unfair - he didn't even rise to that level - not only did South Africa propose black states, it actually established and gave substantial economic support to them, whilst providing freedom of movement, control over resources etc (say, in Transkei) that the Pals could only dream of.

As for "this disengagement plan also includes a pull-out from Gaza and parts of the West Bank", that is half correct, insofar as:

1. The "pull-out" in terms of Israeli control will be mostly an illusion, as you can easily discover by checking the Israeli press. Say, Yediot Aharonot which editorialises that Israel will retain control of the strip in "1,001 ways" (that happens to be the truth, if you look at the document presented to Likud members published in Ma'ariv heb 16 April). The only significant result of all this is the relocation of approx 7,000 settlers to the Negev (which Israel refuses to pay for), and the end of a legal 'occupation' - everything else remains the same: control over import/export, tax, airspace, water, "pre-emptive" military action (a "balance of terror" likely to kill "many civilians", to quote the Hebrew press), etc.

2. The "parts of the West Bank" to be removed are not from the "West Bank" - Israel rejects that phrase - but from "Judea and Samaria". In any case, the four stipulated for removal (population: 170, 149, 198, 33) are only from Samaria, the northern zone, and their removal (while welcome) has the stupendous result of allowing the Palestinians the creation of a single canton, with one major city as an economic center - Jenin, already half destroyed.

3. That canton will end at by-pass road 56, where an Israeli settlement (Shavev Shomron) is located. This "part" will remain, along with the settlements of Elon Moreh and Kedumim (the latter includes a large military base), preventing any meaningful territorial contiguity between "Samaria" and anywhere else (they surround Nablus and break up connections to Tulkarem, the latter already virtually choked to death by siege and encirclement).

Since all the above was proposed by Sharon twenty years ago, and achieved in principle by Beilin 1 year ago, yes, the Palestinians did lose what I mentioned in exchange for nothing. They would have got these crumbs in any case - Sharon never had any interest in the strip nor these isolated areas of Samaria.

No surprise - nobody except the ultra-right in Israel does. Huge majorities called for an exit from Gaza and denounced the "hilltop lunatics" (again, Israeli press) years ago. None of this is any kind of concession, whatever you might read in the U.S. media.

It would be nice if this could have been negotiated with the Palestinians, but they broke off Oslo to start a violent uprising, and their current PM refuses to meet with Sharon

You don't appear to understand. Olso was a city where the accords were negotiated back in 1993.

There was no "breaking off" from there. You probably meant to say: "the Pals broke off Camp David and started their terrorism". That's the actual hasbara talking point. Of course, that wouldn't be correct either, since talks continued at Taba, which Israel "broke off" - as you can find out by asking the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

As for "refusing to meet Sharon", the truth is that the Palestinian PM refuses to meet Sharon until he meets minimal conditions for serious talks (say, an end to military incursions while those talks are taking place, or an end to restriction of movement for senior political figures). That is a clever move, since those meetings would be for show in any event.

Regarding your contention that Israel rejected the road-map, they had reservations, which is what happens when you negotiate in good faith

Actually, Israel laughed at the roadmap in the highest cabinet planning meetings, and did not just have "reservations", but "amendments" - altering the text. Hence rejection, admitted by Sec. of State Powell.

That is not a "contention", but simple fact. Israel rejected the roadmap. If you would like documentation on that (mostly Israeli, Hebrew), just ask.

In contrast, the Pals "accepted" the road map, then indicated many times that they would not go forward with step 1 - fighting terrorist organizations. Whereas, the road-map says terror groups are to be combatted and dis-armed, the Pal leadership instead encourages hero-worship of suicide bombers and tries to bring these groups into their government

The pals accepted the roadmap, without reservations. Israel rejected it, point-blank - a position it holds to this day (as I said, accurately).

Unless you have the honesty to recognise that reality, without the scare quotes (to use a term from an ultra-hawkish "pro-Israel" site), you should at least have the decency to refrain from commenting about the obligations contained within the document.

With that noted, you are correct that the Pal leadership refused to disarm the terrorist organisations. That was recognised to be a virtually impossible demand by Sharon, which is the reason why he decided to pretend to accept the roadmap, in order to shift responsibilities and media attention to the Palestinian side. Even with that in mind, the lack of serious action (there was some, admitted by Israel) against the terrorist organisations is a fact to be deplored, and perhaps should result in international sanction against the PA.

Of course, you make no mention of the fact that Israel would not even live up to the verbal obligations in the roadmap, never mind undertake actions on the ground (predictable in advance, obvious in retrospect). I've gone through all this in huge detail elsewhere, and will not repeat, though you can be directed to the documentation if you like.

Your repeated remarks about
1) Camp David continuing after Arafat called an Intifada
and
2) Israel not accepting the Road Map.

The talks at Taba were only a diplomatic wrap-up. The paper work of an agreement that never made it. The Intifada was not a very nice peace overture.
You have even noticed (finally) that Sharon did accept the Road Map. He did accept it after talking over his "reservations" with Bush in DC, but nothing was written into Bush's plan. No alterations were made.

You claim that he "pretended" to accept the Road Map. You can judge who pretended by the actions that followed. The Road Map stipulates that terrorist organizations be dismantled in the initial stages. That was never undertaken by the PA. They accepted the Road Map and refused to implement it.

Sharon's Disengagement Plan is implementing Israeli obligations under the Road Map. Israel is implementing the RM, the PA is not.

Leaving the rest aside.

Camp David continuing after Arafat called an Intifada

Arafat didn't call an Intifada, as the official US investigation into the matter found out. I have no intention of going through this with you again, since you fail to present evidence every single time you mention this lie.

have even noticed (finally) that Sharon did accept the Road Map. He did accept it after talking over his "reservations" with Bush in DC, but nothing was written into Bush's plan. No alterations were made.

Sharon did not accept the Roadmap. He rejected it. Israel only "accepted" the roadmap with Israel's amendements, which alter the text - that is rejection.

This is a consistant position on the part of Israel - for documentation, check the announcement Sharon made to the Knesset:

"Israel has accepted President Bush's historic initiative - his vision and political stance. We adopted the political plan called the "Roadmap" in an official Government Resolution, in conjunction with Israel's 14 reservations, which are an integral part of the plan"

This position has held from the first moment of the adoption (note: not "acceptance") of the Roadmap, up until today. See the letter to Bush:

"The State of Israel has accepted the Roadmap, as adopted by our government"

All this was massively documented at the time in the Hebrew press. If you want the history, see this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=64803#65050

Israel is implementing the RM, the PA is not

A RM Sharon laughed at in cabinet - right. A RM put in a "Deep Freeze" by the United States - sure.

You seem to have difficulty with semantics. In fact, one cannot adopt something that one does not first accept.

You state that a laugh (on or off the record) indicates that the document was ridiculed. I think not. You are implying that you can read minds and that visceral responses are more important than signed statements. I laughed at the Road Map also.

"Why are you talking about these dates (in the Roadmap)? These dates are not serious"

You don't think that is ridicule? Give me a break. :eyes:

Every word of what I said in this post and the post I linked to is simple fact, unless you're prepared to counter with some evidence (the evidence I've presented is from the US state department, the center-right Israeli Hebrew press, and the Israeli Knesset, so you may wish to check those sources).

about the I/P conflict? Which of the leaders has a lifetime of experience and understands the situation and every aspect? Is it Bush or Sharon? The dates were ridiculous, as everyone now realizes. Making such a comment does not throw out the who plan. That is why Sharon had reservations. If you think such a comment is unjustified, and that the plan should have been accepted as from Mt. Sinai, I think there is a problem in comprehension.

I don't deny that Sharon thought many of the words in the Road Map were unrealistic, and out of touch with reality. It was, after all, drawn up by foreign powers.

You can link to any news story you want to, but it will not change the reality as I see it.

Since Bush didn't write the Roadmap - his advisors did. The main ones were state department lawyers, with input from Elliot Abrams, Feith, other admin principals etc.

So, putting aside which leader "understands the situation" (utter nonsense), your basic contention is that Sharon's "reservations" and "comments" do not "throw out the whole plan".

Fair enough, how about these (both Sharon):

"I don’t like the roadmap, but we are in a situation where we have to choose between what’s bad and what’s worse"

Immediately followed by:

"If we accept the plan we may have future conflict with the Americans, but its not at all certain because the Palestinians may not be able to do their part according to the roadmap. Therefore its better to postpone conflict, in the hope that there will be no conflict"

To sum up in simple terms:

1. Sharon doesn't like the Roadmap.
2. He thinks the obligations in it are ridiculous (specifically referring to a "Palestinian state").
3. He "accepts" it with 14 amendments, desperately hoping that the Palestinians won't be able to "do their part", in order to "postpone conflict" with the boss in Washington.
4. The Israeli cabinet (even with the 14 amendments) is still split 50-50 when it votes to "adopt" the Roadmap.

Yet you still want to hold that Israel didn't reject the Roadmap, even after this overwhelming evidence?

Fair enough, how about this - one of the obligations in the Roadmap is a settlement freeze and a dismantling of outposts. Guess who Sharon had in charge of both of these obligations right from the adoption of the plan (May 2003) up until today?

- Housing Ministry Director-General Avi Maoz.
- Minister of Housing and Construction Effie Eitam.

Maoz is an activist in Elad (fanatical settler organisation), Eitam is a transferist, and both of them are so extreme even the Attorney General of Israel has had to rebuke them for elicitly transferring funds to settlement (and outpost) activities in Judea and Samaria.

Another point - the Roadmap has the obligation of Israel not taking military actions in the territories which would "undermine trust". Who is in charge of that?

- Shaul Mofaz.

He's a noted "Arab-Hater" (Kaspit, Ma'ariv), who has forced Palestinians to write numbers on their arms in memory of the Holocaust (on Holocaust Day no less), for "a joke" (Yediot Aharonot). He's also given official orders to the IDF to "kill, not just to occupy", and leave "corpses lying around" whenever the IDF clashes with "wanted persons" (Ha'aretz).

Another obligation - "official Israeli insitutions" have to "end incitement" against Palestinians. Here's a nice quote:

"It's better for Palestinian mothers to weep"

- Ze'evi Farkash, the head of IDF military intelligence, quoted right after the IDF testfired a "mystery weapon" (Ma'ariv) on the population of Gaza.

Another obligation - "an International Conference: convened by the Quartet ... based on the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace (including between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon)". Sounds nice - how serious does Israel take this? To quote Avigdor Lieberman, from Sharon's cabinet, Israel might have to:

"Burn Damascus and Beriut"

So, just to summarize, Israel's committment to the Roadmap is demonstrated by laughing at it, Israel's committment to settlement obligations is demonstrated by placing them under the command of pro-settlers, Israel's committment to trust and co-operation is demonstrated by having the occupying force run by an "Arab-Hater", and Israel's committment to "peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon" is demonstrated by having on the GOI cabinet payroll a guy who threatens to burn both places off the map, presumably with nuclear weapons.

Have you read Orwell recently?

I heard what Sharon had to say about the Road Map. It was aired repeatedly on Israel television. Of course the various options were discussed, and of course I know that Bush is too dumb to write even a stupid Road Map. So if his friends and the other EU members collaborated. That's far from the issue we were discussing.

Does Israel's Prime Minister have the right to read the document and make comments? Apparently not, as it was an all or nothing proposition that was presented. The considerations and objections were presented to Bush in DC, and were only commented on verbally, not officially included in the Road Map.

Sharon went on record as having accepted the Road Map, which was very vague on many issues, but firm on dates.

Now you say that he objected to a Palestinian State, which is unreal. I assume that's why you put that in parenthesis. Before you said that he ridiculed the dates. Now you sneak in a new claim in parenthesis. I can't deal with all the inconsistencies in your arguments. As I recall, you were promoting the Geneva Accords anyway.

Sharon's plan for a Gaza withdrawal furthers the aims of the Road Map, and Bush recognizes that. The withdrawal from Gaza is the only plan that has a chance of being implemented. Mubarak had his arm twisted, and now he's even on board for providing some security.

Without this, there is no movement in the Peace Process, so thank G-d for the Gaza First Plan, which Sharon has adopted. Begin couldn't get it implemented in '78, but at long last, there will be a change, and there may as a result be a more secure Israel.

Orwell prophecies perpetual war, which is what the Palestinians prefer.

Not at all.

The quote of Sharon's about the dates "not being serious" is noted in Ma'ariv as being in response to a question raised by Sharanksy, specifically about a Palestinian state. Sharansky was appalled at the dates, saying that "within a few months, there will be a Palestinian state here". Sharon then says what I quoted him as saying.

In reponse to that, Sharansky says, "but these are the dates and obligations that Israel will be held to". Sharon is then said to have continued to reassure Sharanksy, no specific quotes mentioned.

In other words, Sharon's "not being serious" statement is generally referring to the dates in the roadmap, but also specifically to the establishment of a Palestinian state, as I said.

If you actually consulted the source I gave (Kaspit, Ma'ariv, 25 May 2003, 'The Government has Adopted the Roadmap'). I wouldn't have to specify any of this.

As for Gaza First, the choice seems to be between "Vote Yes, Get Peres" ("Jewish Leadership") and "Vote No, Get Apartheid" (Dan Margalit, Ma'ariv).

Great options.

Of course, the Geneva Accord could have been seriously adopted, but there is a big problem: Sharon and his maniac buddies have no interest in that. To be fair, the same could be said for virtually the entire Israeli poltical spectrum (Eitam/NRP, Lapid/Shinui, Ben-Elizer/Labor etc - none would dismantle Ariel and Efrat, as specified in the plan).

That's why I was promoting the Geneva Accords, because they're the best the Palestinians can get in light of this. They can't succeed because they're faced with extreme rejectionism in the Israeli and U.S. mainstream, hence why Geneva tried to go around them, with public pressure.

I happen to support that - I'd prefer the fate of both people to not be in the hand of a bunch of utter loons - on the U.S. side, "more right-wing than Lieberman" (Kaspit, Ma'ariv), and on the Israel side "a fanatical political elite, determined to bring the conflict to an end by force and destruction, whatever the price to its society or its potential victims" (Ilan Pappe, LRB).

If you want to call that "the peace process", fair enough, but that is right out of Orwell as well.

Selecting comments at will to construct a case, comments taken from discussions in the Knesset at a preliminary level, are hardly facts on the ground. I suggest you look at the actual "Disengagement Plan", and if you still think Sharon is not trying to implement the vision of the Road Map, take it up with US Pres. Bush.

I'll post the link to the plan, in case you didn't see it when I posted it elsewhere:

Disengagement Plan

The comments I quoted were from the highest level cabinet planning meetings -one the night before the adoption of the Roadmap- not the Knesset.

Note that the article I took the comments from had a front page notice, was above the fold, and was written by the chief (very conservative) military/political correspondent of Ma'ariv.

If you want to say that sort of citation is "selecting comments at will to construct a case", I plead guilty. I happen to think that is better than just making arguments up on the fly, with no evidence.

As for the text of the "Disengagement" Plan (the quotes are used in Israeli editorials sometimes, with good reason), I appreciate the link, but I read it in Ma'ariv the day of publication, reserving comment until the english was available (Jpost, day after).

That comment and analysis (#24, #38) is available on DU - right above your comments in this very thread.

Incidentially, there will be no refutation of that comment, since it is accurate, and widely shared in the mainstream (say, the U.S. president of the Washington Foundation for Middle East Peace), but you could at least refrain from pretending not to see it, even if you don't want to accept it.

The cabinet meetings are regularly televised in Israel. It is composed of the Prime Minister and those who head the government of the current elected Knesset. The cabinet is part of the Knesset, though not the plenum itself.

I do dispute that discussing dates constitutes rejection of a Palestinian State. Drawing that conclusion is unjustified. Reading between the lines is a subjective process. If you draw conclusions about the ultimate outcome before you take step one, when no one knows what that outcome will be, you will be always in conflict. Sharon was reasoning with the cabinet. It is illogical to draw the conclusions that this is pre-judging the outcome. Sharonsky's concern was legitimate. Sharon was trying to get as many votes for accepting the Road Map. Wisely, he felt that the time lines would not be adhered to.

To conclude that this constitutes rejecting of the right of the Palestinians to a state is erroneous.

I hope that this addresses the issues of your post, although it is difficult to determine from your many referrences to a previous "comment". I will also make a copy of this in case it gets deleted, as I've spent some time to construct it so that it would be addressing your concerns.

thank you fisk..pilger.. chomsky and all the other people whom tell it as it is..

Israel is just reluctantly coming to the realization that it should never be rewarded, either.