1. Leonard said:

I fail to see the point of Ariel's Cohen article. Terrorism happened whilst Israel was present in Gaza and continues afterwards. So what. Nobody really believed that disengagement would be a panacea for all Israel's problems with the Palestinians. As Churchill once said " you cannot appease a boa constrictor". Its quite apparent to all that the Palestinians want all of Israel and would settle for nothing less than her demise. Gaza was infact a calculated strategic withdrawal, it tied down valuable security resources and the settlers presented sitting ducks to terror attacks. Demographics had alot to do with it. In one fell swoop Sharon rid his people of responsibility over one and half million hostile residents, and offered an alternative to the Road Map that was being imposed on her by the World community. In doing so he has brought Israel valuable time to consolidate her hold on Eretz Israel, of which Gaza was never a part. No body said that terror attacks would cease or the Palestinians or Muslims would desist in their desire to wipe Israel of the map.But he has certainly reduced the attacks to a trickle and kept Israel's most important ally on board.

2. Felix Quigley said:

Leonard. Not quite sure where to start in answering you since I disagree with most everything. Since Sharon was the main man on the Gaza issue lets start with how I read him.

The problem with Sharon is at the very bottom of things quite simple. There may be many historical issues, such as that he is a simple soldier turned politician and soon lost his way in the jungle of international political intrigue. It would have been fine if he had remembered he was a simple soldier but Sharion obviously thought he could sup with the big boys (sharks). When Bush reneged on his wink and a nod (hand on shoulder) promises poor old Arik didn’t have a leg to stand on. At that point he should have said “Look here, country, I am out of my depth in these waters and retired to take up rabbit farming at his ranch. Enter the Sharon ego which he gained from years of adulation from weak-minded Jews some of which I have seen even on this site. His ego would not let him give up. And then there was possible jail – what a problem and certain disgrace for those real estate deals his sons got him involved in! So he sacks his cabinet ministers, silences all dissent and pulls out of Gaza. And he is lost. And moreover the country is lost if he is not removed.

Now the issue of the American Government since it is common to say EU bad, America good, or even State Department bad but Bush et al good:

We must accept that the main friend of Bush in the Middle East is James Baker, and that is F… the Jews James Baker, and moreover Bush handpicked Condoleeza Rice. Bush it is. Bush is the main enemy of Israel. More time will tell us more.

I do believe Gaza IS part of Israel. Even on the original Mandate basis it is that.

It can be argued that a strategic withdrawal was necessary. But in that case Sharon could have said, Look the US is against us, the EU is against us, the whole world is against us. Antisemitism in this world is still a major factor in our planning. We have to take one step back here. (But even that reasoning leaves out the danger of having Egypt control Gaza and the danger of an incident and international entry into Gaza of international troops.)

That was not his way. He attacked the young Jews who were critical of him.

He sacked his cabinet ministers.

He explained nothing. Everybody was guessing, including Ted, as to what the guy was up to. There were all kinds of interpretations. Some even used the analogy of a good poker player. What bunkum.

A leader of a revolutionary state like Israel has to first and always explain to his people what are the issues and what is his strategy...patiently.

I am not Jewish but I feel there are many millions of young people who could be won to the Jewish and Israel case. But it is necessary to tell the truth.

Let me give you one example. Sharon and his Ministers have been slapped in the face repeatedly by Bush and Rice. A real leader of the Jews at this stage in the game would divulge at once the detail of all these meetings and the details of all these betrayals.

Do you realise that there are many millions of people in the world who still believe that America will back up Israel and they lump America in with Israel. That is the fault of the Israeli leadership.

I feel that BobW is correct on this issue. The roots of this lie in the very early leadership in Israel pre and post 1948. I have termed this leadership as Stalinist with a dose of decrepid social democracy thrown in.

The answer, a new leadership inside Israel and ALSO in the Diaspora incorporating many non Jewish supporters of the Jewish cause.

3. Leonard said:

Felix - thanks for your response. I think Israel is fortunate to have friends like you to support her, there are enough self-styled liberal jews who are prepared to side with the enemy. We are essentially on the same side and recognise the importance of Israel-s survival, a tiny democratic Jewish State a tiny blip on the map reborn after a millenium in exile surrounded by a hostile Ocean of Arab and Muslim countries determined to wipe her of the Map.

My late father survived Auschwitz,Buchenwald,Rehsdorf and Terezin and two death marches aged just 14 and only survived due to the speed of the collapse of the Third Reich at the hands of the allies. He remained an ardent zionist to the end and so will I recognising the perils of Jewish survival in a hostile World. Enough of this personal note.

It is a Jewish trait to have various opinions on every subject including our national survival - some to our detriment. Israels survival is a balancing act.The country is just to small and has no real depth to take chances with her existence. As a consequence any serious miscalculation in policy can terminate her very existence.I am only to aware of her vulnerability, and when Countries like Iran that are about to acquire nuclear capability threaten to "wipe her of the map" I know they mean it.
Every thing is relative. Clinton and Barak were going to make concessions that would have jeapardised Israels future by retreating behind the Green Line. By withdrawing from Gaza - I believe that Sharon has bought Israel valuable time to consolidate her presence in the West Bank which is the true heart and strategic depth of Israel, and taken the pressure of Israel to make further concessions since the the ball is firmly in the Palestinian court to desist from terror, something they are incapable of.

In my honest opinion - disengagement was a courageous step that required true leadership
and was at a tremendous personal cost to Sharon, and Yes the settlers of Gaza also payed a high price, but demographically the situation wasn't sustainable, with 8000 settlers surrounded by 1.4 million arabs who were expected to double their number within 20 years.

As for Bush. I'm afraid Israel needs American support.The situation is an improvement on Clinton/Barak. Bush has alot of Christian support that is pro-Israel, and I cannot see Israel being forced to make any more damaging concessions in the near future.

4. georg von mecklenburg said:

It is hard to think of Gaza as not being a part of Israel. The land was won by a war twice. Israel stood victorious in both instances. In the USA, you wouldn't think that Texas, California, or Arizona were not a part of the USA, even though the land at one time belonged to Mexico. The Mexican-American War of 1848 was somewhat suspicious when we analyze it on its own merits, yet the outcome remains the same. Mexico lost one half of its territory and no one care one iota today.

Israel has suffered from many multiple personalities since its founding. As early Zionists who came into the land, and later settlers who created new communities there has been a schizophrenic desire to have peace and war, love and hate, cut and run, appease and acquire. The modern Nation of Israel is so twisted in its own body politic that regardless of what Sharon says or does not say to the populace, his remarks will be deemed worthless. Consequently, any other leaders remarks concerning Israel must also be deemed meaningless. This includes Mr. Bush's and Ms. Rice's

There is logic in telling the truth to the people, but for someone like Sharon at this late stage in his life, who would honestly believe him if he did start with the truth? The Disengagement was a terrible and tragic mistake. One never can appease an enemy that has sworn to kill you in so many munerous ways. Appeasement has never worked, and never will. Disengagement then would have been considered a tragic blunder.

The so called "Road Map" may work for Russia, or the USA, but who the hell are they to think that they can impose their will on Israel? Russia desperately needs a Road Map just to define its own territory who still is having major conflicts with its own minority Governments in the Moslem lands Russia still tightly controls. The USA may need a Road Map just to figure out what to do with its Southern Border with Mexico.

I have often thought that it would be nice for Israel to once and for all stand up and thank the USA for all its help, support, and aid, but also to keep its nose out of ISRAELI BUSINESS AND POLITICS. Let the USA worry about the USA, and let Israel ( who only has God as an advisor) decide its own future.

5. Leonard said:

Georg - Texas must be a thousand times the size of Gaza. If you had the same concentration of Palestinians in Texas you would have 1.4 billion of them. Transfer at present is not an option - so you would then probably consider whether it would be worthwhile hanging on to it.

But I take on board your point about Russia needing a Road map. The country once consisted only of the province of Muscovy around Moscow. In the mid to late 19th century it expanded eastwards all the way to the Pacific,Iran and Mongolia taking over the populations in the process. The Russian Empire is currently in the process of unravelling itself and requires a Road Map. I am sure Israel can assist in that respect. Russia has also armed and financed Arab aggression against Israel for the past 40 years
especially Syria, Saddams Iraq, Gadaffi's Libya,formerly Nasser's Egypt and trained Palestinian terror groups. Russia is presently supplying Nuclear facilities to Iran whilst brutally suppressing Chechnia. Russia is the last country that should have any say in Israel's future via the Road Map.

6. Ted Belman said:

I find I am entirely in Leonard's camp. The only issue regarding disengagement from Gaza was whether Gaza was an asset or liability. The issue is not whether their is more terrorism as a result of withdrawing but whether Israel is in a better position to deal with it.

Withdrawal was not a peace move. I don't believe in the peace process. It is a means for the world to force Israel to make painful concessions. Anything that takes the pressure off Israel to do so has my support. Withdrawal is a move to enable Israel to solidify more of the West Bank. It also underscores the futility of the peace process. The more chaos the better. Feeding the alligator sometimes allows the feeder to escape or causes the alligator to choke. Either way, Israel is better off out. I don't believe that we can do without the support of the US. But we must continue to resist the negative and benefit from the positive. Make nice but do what needs to be done. The US has its hands full now. It is in no position to force Israel to do anything. Bush is too weak to try. So I believew that Israel should continue to build the settlements and should bujy Arab land and encourage Arabs to leave. I don't believe the fence should be completed if its location is not a good border for Israel.