1. Z.Latz said:

Israel is not able to keep gaza.Period.
Israel should not keep gaza.Period.
WHY?
There are few answers and the first one is based Daniel Pipes' article "The only solution is military".
Yes, the only solution to real peace is military solution - a complete and total distraction of the enemy, and then imposing a peace-plan on them.
History proves it. But Israel doesn't want to understand this simple principle.
If you want peace - then you need to beat them, to win.
Israel doesn't want to follow this principle.
Israel is afraid to win.
Because of that, all the peeeece "talks" will fail and the future is continuing terrorism.
But there is one more solution - disingagement.
Since Israel is not able to control gaza, then the only way out is - OUT.
This will solve a lot of Israel's problems.
Israel should not play too much with "protesters" of gushkatif, because they are as fanatical as the enemy.
Gushkatif is going to decide what is more important to Israel ?!
Let me remind everybody, that the original gushkatif was in the form of affordable housing solution for the young couples. That's how they settled there, and not because of "love for gaza" and zionistic ideas.
Later the fanatics of flatbush of NYC started to arrive there and eventually turned the place into 80% religious fanatics.
Disingagement is the Only Way to get rid of gaza. Gaza is not needed to Israel and it's the least important.

2. Jerusalem Posts said:

"Bush - unlike his father - will continue to support Israel"

And unlike his father, Bush has insisted that Israel starts with the 1949 Auschwitz borders...

Tell me why over 1 million square miles of land isn't enough for the Arabs???

3. Omri Ceren said:

I agree that US support for Israel is steadily eroding - that's why I think that Sharon needs to act now while there's still the chance of a quid pro quo that no other administration is going to let Israel get away with any time in the future (let alone Europe, the Russians, or the UN). The justice or injustice of the situation is beside the point - of course forcing Israel to give up land won in a defensive war is unjust, but Israel has been forced to do lots of things for unjust reasons - it doesn't mean that Israel wasn't nonetheless forced to do them.
So Israel should definitly give up Gaza - but Latz, we need to be careful not to go too far the other way - the families who are losing their homes, regardless of their original intent (which I don't even think it was as insane as you make it somewhat sound). They deserve our sympathy and their nation's gratitude. That said, of course they should not be allowed to hold the vast majority of Israelis hostage to their ideology - even if they are right about it.
It is self-evidence that the vast majority of Gush Katif is not as fanatical as the vast majority of the enemy - they even now give lipservice to democratic institutions (with some exceptions), and almost to a person would find the enemy's celebration of martyrdom beyond the pale.

4. Cosmic X said:

"The case for disengagement becomes simple: the current administration has provided the most advantageous diplomatic situation that Israel has seen for the last 25 years. But it won't stay that way forever - there are already signs that Israel's diplomatic standing is slipping even in the United States. I think Sharon is gambling correctly that the only way to secure up to 50% of the West Bank is to give up Gaza while the Bush administration needs his support and will grant him the quid pro quo."

This, among other assumptions that proponents of disengagement have assumed, has already be proven wrong. It is one of Sharon's many lies. The US government has already denied that it has conceded that Israel will be able to keep any land conquered in the 6 Day War as compensation for destroying the Gazan Jewish communitees.

The case against deisengagement is simple: It will cause more bloodshed. The Oslo Accords and the behavior of our Arab neighbors over the last 10 years prove this.

Q.E.D.

5. Omri Ceren said:

Cosmic X - it's not exactly true that the US has denied Israel any of the territories conquered in 1967. While Bush did say that anything beyond the 1949 lines would have to be done in consultation with the Palestinians, I'm not alone in thinking that that's as much rubbish as when he effectively promised Sharon all of the settlement blocs by talking about "facts on the ground". That said, yes, Bush administration support for Sharon is eroding rapidly. All the more reason to jump on the quid pro quo now.

But all of this is academic if my fundamental point is not addressed: there will be, in the near of medium future, a US administration that tries to force Israel to give up all of the territories plus concessions on things like water tables and air space. At least now there's the appearance of a quid pro quo - plus the diplomatic cover to annex large blocs, a juridical nicety that makes all the difference in the world.

In order to successfully address whether or not the disengagement is a good idea, one must be able to convincingly argue that Israeli control of Gaza and Yesha is sustainable indefinitely. This case, I would argue, is finally untenable.

6. Carol_Herman said:

It's possible that this Bush lies. His dad did with his "no new taxes" pledge that he broke a year after he said it. But he lost his re-election. And, his son was "selected" inh 2000. The 2004 vote was skewed because Americans were showing their support for our troops. And, because Dan Rather LIED. In spite of Stalin's bragging that "big lies" work; they don't. 12 years after Hitler got started, he was dead. And, his big plans took Germany down a sewer. Russia was a facade for a long time. A "partner" for America to have a "cold war" with ... while Europe decided to "disengage." Except for it's Jew hatreds which the elites hold to this day.

IF Condi Rice, who suddenly whipped out the "road map" has anything in mind. One, might include a Nobel Prize. (And, Bush might enjoy seeing that she gets one. Just to frustrate Bill Clinton.) Who knows?

Meanwhile, it is allowing Arik to "re-evaluate" the disengagement; which is designed to get Jews out of target range of the Gaza terrorists. And, while brave American soldiers are changing the map in Iraq; on a timely basis. And, showing great courage in the process;

THE ENEMY IS STILL THE MEDIA. So just because it's printed may not mean all that much? Can Bush lose popularity? Yup. Some presidents do some good things. Like LBJ forcing through Civil Rights legislation. But he was tossed out of the White House like a midget.

And, what happens to Bush, as people seem to be souring on him. Coupled to the fact that he's not articulate. Coupled to the fact that Condi Rice is NICE and also quite WEAK. What does it matter, now?

The cards are playing out. Eygpt is pulling the Hitler stuff that was done in the early 30's, where anything he signed was worthless. So now Arik knows there's a deep freeze coming from Eygpt (terrified of their own Muslim Brotherhood).

While in Jordan, Abdullah, over there, would be facing the same terrorists that Israel would face. Which way would the fighting go? And, why would anyone be interested in Palestinians? They're now hated in Iraq.

As to America, we are a HUGE nation ... with pockets of arabs already at home on the eastern seaboard. Michigan. Wisconsin. And, places like that. It might be like a sewer pipe that just empties into the ocean? It might get absorbed ... but it won't bring in the success needed to win victories.

While in the republican party there are those who have interests other than the ones owned by the GOP's right wing. Politics, being like horse races, contain a lot of disasters, way before a particular horse gets to finish in first place.

So, Condi talks. I think she'd like to see a "calm" ... whereby the settlers in harm's way in Gaza are brought out to safety ... AFTER THAT SHARON IS FORCED TO SHOW HIS HAND ... because his government is not solid. And, new elections sooner, rather than later, will stir up the mix.

I think Arik Sharon will be vindicated. He has had to play in this field now for years. Saddam is gone. And, Israel's streets are safer than they were when Arafat began killing civilians.

I'll wait for Arik to show his hand. IF Israel is really being abused (beyond the routine stuff coming out of certain elite centers; including the FBI), I think Sharon can polish off Bush's reputation. Just by putting out a compilation of the "promises" that Bush gave for the past four years ... And, show the "new tune" that's in play ... now that the Saudi-MENACE SHOWED UP IN CRAWFORD for the hand-holding dance.

Meanwhile, the Saudis want to survive. They're sensitive to their failures. And, one of the things that "might" occur ... given there are American bases in Saudi Arabia ... Kuwait. And, soon to be accomplished: Iraq. THIS IS A BETTER RATHER THAN WORSE DEVELOPMENT. America can't exactly turn policy around on a dime.

I'd be willing to wait to see how this plays out. So far, Israel does work from strength. It gets all of its agencies together to see how well it can handle these events. (Not a small thing. When most countries have disasters they have to worry about delivery systems, too.)

Before I get angry I want to see how this plays out. Today, in Iraq, more insurgents were killed near the Syrian border. Militarily speaking, the troops have been gaining ground. Plus, experience. Plus, they're doing a terrific job. And, yesterday, two 500 lb bombs dropped on the Syrian/Iraqi border town and rat's nest of Qaim. All this. And, all that's required of Arik Sharon to do is to remain calm.

You'll also notice that Bush, himself, has had to stay calm. Even though fancy and dirty tricks emerge from 10 Downing Street. Including a slew of new FAKE memos. (Those memos? You know the ones. Saying Bush planned his attack. And, poor Tony didn't get a chance to oppose. All around, there are "friends" worse than enemies. Lots at stake. And, Arik Sharon is the best prime minister Israel can have at a time like this. And, at any time!

7. georg von mecklenburg said:

As a German, i can assure you that LAND FOR PEACE is a mere joke... in fact a horrible joke. Sudetenland comes to mind. Not only did we Germans acquire this land, but after the war 30,000 of our citizens were forcibly evacuated from there back to Germany. Many died en route. The story we all learned from this fiasco is that LAND FOR PEACE just does not work especially with people determined to kill you.

8. Omri Ceren said:

It's not Land for Peace georg - Israel already tried that, and no one is seriously suggesting that it should go back to giving tangible territory for intangible commitments to "normalization" (except maybe Assad). It's withdrawing now under relatively (compared to the past or the future) favorable terms instead of being forced into land for peace swaps some time in the future.

9. Lynn B. said:

Ok, no more giving tangible territory for intangible commitments to "normalization." Instead, the order of the day is giving tangible territory for nothing. Sounds like a great deal. I'll take two.

10. Omri Ceren said:

Withdrawal gives tangible territory in return for (a) being able to build a very tall wall and largely forget about the terrorists who infest Gaza (b) what's left of a diplomatic quid pro quo that allows annexation of some of the territories in Yesha.
It's disengagement now or having to do broad-ranging, final status negotiations later (read: it's withdrawal on Israel's terms or yet another pretext in the future to force Israel into negotiations about everything). Might as well do it now.

11. Sabba Hillel said:

The only problem is that no matter what Israel does now, it will be faced in the future with more demands. It will not be a yet another pretext in the future to force Israel into negotiations but demands to surrender to the next set of demands.

12. Wendy Miller said:

Disengagement will be suicide for the Jewish people in Israel. Not only will the Jewish citizens in Israel, which is a JEWISH State, be homeless in their own homeland, the terrorists will fulfill their dream of the destruction of the Jewish people (G-d forbid). Giving up land for peace has proven to be not only futile, but fatal. There is not much land left and the Arabs want to take it apart piece by piece until there is no more Jewish State. Not only do we have a right to that Land by G-d, we won that Land fair and square. Anti-Semitism is on the rise and it won't stop. We need a homeland to go to when there is no other place for Jews to go but home.