1. benjamin said:

The only "reckless incitement" I see are the settlers and their fellow travelers who deride the legitimacy of the Sharon government and refer to the Prime Minister as a Nazi and a murderer. Where, exactly, is their regard for Zionist/Jewish solidarity?

2. felix quigley said:

I will not rise to the bait of that comment by Benjamin but say that the issue is not about who calls Sharon names of Nazi etc. If that happens it is to be opposed but that is not the issue about the above post.
The issue is how a man who was a hero in the wars to defend Israel against anti-Semitic drives of the Arab governments to smash Israel has himself now changed into his opposite.

Everybody is trying to understand that in order to fight it. The danger is this: If history is a guide to action and I believe it is, then the new Palestinian state will be a dagger at the heart of Israel. They, the anti-Semitic leaders of the Palestinians have told us so, and we should listen.

The Jews have been here before many times. The line of Rice and Bush, and Sharon, is along the same path of the assimilationist movement of the 19th century, Be good Germans and you will be rewarded. Weizmann dealt with that in his famous answer to Lord Balfour. The Jews are now being instructed to accomodate themselves to a state, a terrorist state, next door, which is supported internationally.

The first Commissioner to Palestine under the Mandate, Herbert Samuel, did exactly the same thing when he brought Haj Amin El Husseini in from the cold and made him into the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. His line to El Husseini was: You be a good boy now, no more of this hatred of Jews which you have exhibited last year (the 1920 attacks by Arabs on Jews), and we will make you part of the establishment. The result of Samuel's stupidity led on to the gas ovens when Husseini was a leading part of the Nazis and the Final Solution. In anti-Semitism, continuity is everything. Now this proposed state is being led by a denier of that Holocaust.

So, Benjamin, address the central question. How do you rate this peroposed Palestine State and do you think it is seen by the Arabs as the final stage in their phased plan to destroy Israel. Because if it is many Jews will die because of it.

Remember, also, that this is being supported by the vicious enemies of Israel which we on the outside are fighting all the time, the neo-Left, the EU governments, and generally anti-Semitism in the world. Is that the side that you are on?

3. Marty said:

Might I ask your readers in this comment - most if not all of whom are clearly more conversant with Israeli politics that I will ever be - who would they prefer being the prime minister these days if they had a single choice to make?

4. BobW said:

Shalom Marty,

It wouldn't matter. Israel does not have a bona fide parliamentary government. The title "PM" is a sham. The other "ministers" are not in the Knesset, nor, even now, in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. PM Sharon has a small "mini-cabinet" with members actually serving as commissars, ie implementing policy and not developing it.

Now add the funding source of the government. Thus, the US directives. Note the new Director of the Bank of Israel. An American was imported.

The question is who really is chief of state of Israel.

Kol tuv,
BobW

5. Marty said:

The question is who really is chief of state of Israel.

What's the answer?

6. Alan Grosser said:

How can you believe or trust groups of Palestinians, who, a short time ago, were butchering Israelis. If concessions are continually made by Israel and the terror goes on, everyone knows what the Palestinian and world answer will be, "More concessions must be made". This kind of appeasement led to the deaths of sixty million people during WW 2.Giving up viable, working, productive settlements in the west bank would be a crime. So would giving up the Golan Heights be a tragedy. If Sharon, who used to be my hero, and Peres, agree to this, they should be tried for treason. I write this with fear for Israel and tears in my eyes when I consider the consequences,
Alan A. Grosser
Bronx, NY

7. benjamin said:

Sharon has not "turned into its opposite", nor is he an assimilationist. He is a Zionist who has realized that the settlement project is rendering Zionism impossible. He has also made several statements to the effect that the settlers are good and brave people who should not be demonized. I have not seen a single settler leader who has been as generous with the Prime Minister. All Sharon is doing is telling the settlers to move, he is not comparing them to the twentieth century's only Satan.

8. Ruth said:

I also feel anxious about the withdrawal and fear that Israel might once again be too eager and therefore not careful enough when dealing with the same Palestinians who not so long ago (and possibly still today) supported suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by over 50%.

However, I deeply resent all Shoa comparisons and connections. Could we not at least among ourselves discuss with more integrity?

I also give credit to the thinking that Sharon, as the strategist he is, realized that the better position is offensive, not defensive. His withdrawal plan defined Israel as the player and filled a vaccuum which otherwise might have been filled by European - UN - Arab League (your choice) concepts.

9. Alan A. Grosser said:

I am surprised that there are no additional comments since Feb. 3rd. Is it because Israel is going through what is perceived a quiescent period? It is less volitile because Israeli guards are intercepting more and more would be bombers at the crossings and those trying to breach the wall. Imagine, there are still Israelis who decry the erection of the wall despite its saving of untold lives. Fie on the Peace Nowers and their ilk, the Chamberlains of Israel, who would make untold concessions to the Palestinians for the inchoate promise of peace. Israel will wind up losing territory and not gaining peace.

The main problem in Israel today is that all Israelis think. All Israelis have political opinions and fashion their arguments to support their opinions. They stubbornly refuse to change their viewpoints regardless of the evidence as if it's a sign of weakness. The result is that there is no dominant policy or party to carry out the most appropriate policy for Israel. An amalgamation of political parties and political thinking would embrace all of Israel except for the usual diehard minority opposition. Israel already has the skills, the wherewithal, the morality to endure and prosper. What it needs now is UNITY.