 |
 |
 |
Sharon may be right
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/8597
Comments
1
.
David Gerstman
said:
Ted, I agree with you that Sharon is not a flunky. I also don't believe that he's doing this to stave off a criminal investigation. I still have a hard believing that this is something that's been thought out.
I've read (and commented on) Charles Krauthammer's endorsement of the disengagement. I've read (and commented on) Norman Podhoretz's endorsement too.
Each one has significant weaknesses. Krauthammer's weakness is arguing that by dictating the size and borders of a state to the Palestinians, Israel isn't giving into terror. But the fence defined borders will give the Palestinians roughly all the land they gave up at Camp David. And Podhoretz largely quotes critics of disengagement so his endorsement of the plan comes accross as disconnected from the evidence he's presented.
And finally there's PM Sharon. I believe he's one of the great politicians of our time. He was forced from government in disgace in 1982 (or 1983). That he achieved any level of governance is incredible. That he became PM is virutally unheard of.
Yet instead of politicking for his plan he seems intent on forcing his plan through ignoring votes to the contrary( the Likud vote, dissenting cabinet ministers) , voices to the contrary (Ya'alon and Dicter) and even his own past. If there are serious benefits to the disengagement plan, he should be making them; or his proxy should be making them, but that's not happening.
Posted by: David Gerstman on May 16, 2005 03:19 PM
2
.
Kin
said:
The only problem with all of that is, there's absolutely no proof any concesions on Israel's part will enhance it's security in any way. Rather the opposite. It's just an empirical fallacy. There are still rockets and terrorist attacks coming from Lebanon, even though there was a pullout. All the current land under total PA control is nothing but a hotbed and base for attacks on Israelis. And Abbas has shown no reason why the existing trends should change. So, it's not a gamble. A gamble has at least some chance of paying off.
Posted by: Kin on May 16, 2005 03:26 PM
3
.
bunuel
said:
Agree with David. Exactly.
Posted by: bunuel on May 17, 2005 02:26 PM
Sharon may be right
The Gamble of a Lifetime
Romesh Ratnesar and Matt Rees (TIME)
(What follows is a condensed version of the interview. The die-hard anti-disengagement people must not write Sharon off as a flunky. He is a pragmatist. He is also a fighter. This interview rings true for me. That is not to say he is right because good people may differ on the right approach. His Disengagement Plan is really a consolidation plan. Ted Belman)
In an interview in Jerusalem with TIME, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon rejected the idea of withdrawing Israeli forces and civilians from the West Bank once the Gaza pullout is complete, saying that he intends to limit future concessions to the Palestinians to those spelled out in the U.S.-backed road map, which outlines a series of incremental, confidence-building steps to be carried out by both sides before the start of negotiations for a final settlement of the conflict.
Sharon has repeatedly insisted that Israel will never abandon the large West Bank settlement blocs.
While Sharon believes that Mahmoud Abbas "understands the danger of terror...right now we don't see any steps that have been taken. I hope it will happen. Right now we don't see anything."
Sharon said he believes the Oslo agreement signed in 1993 was "the deepest mistake that any government has done, bringing over here thousands of armed terrorists."
Sharon isn't pulling out of Gaza because he has changed his view of the Palestinians; rather, he's withdrawing precisely because he still mistrusts them, refusing to believe that Abbas and his aides are willing to take the necessary measures to keep Israel safe from terrorism.
"The basic problem between ourselves and the Arabs...is that Arabs do not recognize the birthright of the Jews to have an independent country here," he says.
While preserving the long-term viability of the Jewish state may require giving up some territory, to Sharon it does not mean giving ground.
Posted by Ted Belman at May 16, 2005 10:09 AM