1. Ed D said:

As I have commented on numerous occasions, it would be best to go on a massive offensive to eliminate completely all terrorist operations. All Arabs who profess to operations against Israel, must be deported or killed. Negotiaations are accasionally helpful; however over the many years, the Palestinians do not negotiate, but they lie. The only thing they respect is force.

It is now the time for a change in government and a transfer of power to a leader who is determined to rid Israel of terror. Israel and the IDF have the ability to do this.
Attrition is the power to destruction.

2. Bill Levinson said:

"Unilateral withdrawal is not the only option open to Israel. It could decide to end the Roadmap and Oslo and destroy the PA. It would then proceed to destroy the terrorists and expel them from the country. But such a policy must have as its goal to annex the territories." This should have been done ten or twenty years ago.

3. Akiva said:

Nice analysis, missing several points of reality, but nice.

Massive response, parking lot. Are those actual options or just a pipe dream? I contend, unless Israel is willing to take a "massive blow", with hundreds dead in a single incident, which no sane government would, that the 'massive retaliation' option simply doesn't exist.

So, lets say with upgraded weaponry the PA fighters decide to start launching rockets from the rooftops of schools and apartment buildings (holding 40 famlies, or 200 men, women and children). So, they're launching from an apartment block, 4 buildings, 800 people below them. They're hitting Ashkelon, killing 1 and injurying 5 per hit, 3 accurate hits a day.

What's Israel's response? Bomb the launch sites killing 200-400 people, men, women and children? Legally is such a response valid and appropriate, yes. Now lets watch it on the evening news. What's the world response to Israel?

Boycott, blockade.

By being in the middle and buffering, the expansion towns protected Israel, buffered Israel, and willingly (though certainly not happily) took the brunt of such attacks. They also provided a counter-pressure, by being threatening, nearby, and yes reducing frredom of movement.

It was not a solution, but it was a way to keep the situation on low simmer indefinately. Now things are absolutely going to boil over.

4. Imre said:

If Israel has not attacked massively against the terror factions, it is because of the big pressure and blackmail by the US and EU. If the elections in the territories have a positive end and terror attacks, as well as rocket attacks stop, this policy will not change. But if these attacks continue, then Israel will have the right to retaliate, even if it will cause civilian deaths. It is up to the US administration to force the Palestinian authority to disarm the terror factions. For the last 10 months, there have been no ultimatum on this from the US and even General Ward had stated that this was not possible.

Imree Herzog

5. Lee Kaplan said:

While Ted Belman has some interesting ideas, his perspecitve about the "occupation" is strictly an American one.

Sharon did not seek to end the "occupation" for military purposes as much as to preserve Isarel as a democratic state. Israel's 21% Arab population right now insures a pluralistic democracy. But the Arabs have a birthrate nearly seven times the number of children as do Jewish Israelis. Sharon's main fear was an Arab majority that would vote along ethnic lines and turn Israel into a Muslim dominated state. Arab families used to get a stipend for each child from the State the same as Jewish families. But some Arabs can have four wives. In Israel, many Arab men didn't have to work because they live off the dole they receive for mulitple children. Israel only recently cut back on this program.

In a military sense, certain areas required thousands of soldiers to protect them for a limited number of settlers. One settlement had 32 residents but would have needed thousands of soldiers to protect them since they were living in a sea of Arabs on both sides, accessible to Israel only by a thin corridor. I asked a resident if she
was allowed to keep her home (since dismantled) but live in a state of Palestine as a Jewish resident, would she accept that. She replied she would do so, feeling she was living on the land of Israel but would respect the Palestinian home government--if she and her children would not be murdered as Jews.

And there is the crux of the problem. No withdrawal will work if the PA does not cease incitement to murder and expulsion of Jews. The only way peace will come about is to remove the old guard PLO leadership and the terrorist groups in their government. The Arabs will never do this themselves. I personally feel Israel was lost after the Passover Massacre when Sharon demolished the Mukata but left Arafat and his terrorist leaders alive and in charge. Had he killed all the thugs and told the Palestinians to find new leadership to negotiate with, peace had a chance.

Ted calls the peace plan the Road Map. Again, that's American and Western media hype. The Arabs call the Raod Map Abdullah's Plan. To them, the Saudi potentate who finances the terrorism by Hamas proposed and is dictating a plan for the eventual dismantling of Israel with US and EU participation.

As for responding to attacks: it may be too late. The CIA estimates a war with the Arabs will leave a pyrrhic victory for Israel with 200,000 dead Jews. The scenario goes like this: Maybe Israel loses 5 here, 4 there, 20 in a bus attack. The country can absorb such losses. But 200,000? Of course, such logic is worhtless if you're one of the sacrificial lambs in those smaller numbers of the Jewish population.

The hope is that if they keep talking and marching toward peace, maybe eventually the Arabs will grow weary and build a country. But the PLO mafia isn't really interested in a country. They want MONEY. And as long as they get it from the EU, the UN, the Arab League, the stupid Americans and EU, they will continue the war for the annihilation of Israel. If Israel goes, Spain is next.

The only thing we as Jews must hold steadfast on is this:no deportation of Jews any time ever again. A Palestinian state must incorporate and protect Jewish residents of the West Bank as Palestinian citizens or the deal is off. Israel provides 70% of the PA's budget and controls water and electricity. If the PA doesn't stop advocating making the area judenrein and killing Jews, then stop the money and the lights. One terror attack means no power for 5 days except for
medical facilities. Another means no power for ten days, etc. All property destroyed in terror attacks is to be paid for from the PA budget controlled by Israel. If incitement does not end, then take out their leadership and do a thorough housecleaning. No Marwan Barghoutis in jail running for the head of the PA. Institute a death penalty for terrorism.

Whatever the outcome, under no circumstances should Jews be deported. Separation now will only mean the problem will grow with the Arab population. If transfer will not take place due to world opinion, then Israel msut take her own life in her own hands and not disengage by deporting Jews, but rather engage by controlling the PA until the terrorists have to fear their own population's wrath for what they bring down on thier heads from the Israelis.

Any more withdrawals, or even the creation of a Palestinian state without the understanding Jews are there to stay, will mean certain war. A state will invite in foregin armies as "protection" and eventually the wars of '48, '56 '67 '73 will be repeated, but with horrendous casualties.

It may be too late.

6. Bill Narvey said:

Lee Kaplan's comment provides an interesting balance to the "go to all out war against the Palestinian" advocates.

Sharon's reputed, but unconfirmed ultimate plan of eventual withdrawl and delineation of Israel's new boundaries by the security fence may be the only way Palestinians will ever come to realize that the land Israel has withdrawn from is what they have to work with in fashioning an independent state.

Palestinians have paid lip service for the Western perception of an independent Palestinian state being in the Palestinians' best interests and the goal that Palestinians should have for themselves. The evidence compels one to believe that the Palestinians do not see their objectives as the ones the West lays out for them.

The focus of Palestinians has been on destroying Israel, not in one fell swoop, but through attrition and in stages. For Palestinians, each new agreement with Israel, pushes the yardsticks for a starting point for new demands and new negotiations that much farther. The evidence strongly suggests that while Israel is desperate for peace and America and other Western nations are pushing for peace now, the Palestinians are quite content to bide their time and take whatever time they need to eventually fulfill their charter call for the end of Israel.

In an all out war against Palestinians, Israel certainly would court a risk of devastating losses, notwithstanding even greater loss would be suffered by Palestinians. Additionally, there would be a conceivable risk that other Arab nations would react by declaring war on Israel and Israel would face war on many fronts. I would think that such result, even if only a possibility, would give Israel great pause to hold such military option in abeyance as a last resort only.

As things stand now, it may well be in Israel's interests to not take any provocative military actions. We are witnessing Palestinians descending into chaos and confusion without any push from Israel. As this continues and provided Israel takes no action for which it could be blamed for increasing Palestinian anarchy, the more Palestinians will be seen as digging their own ditch.

Already some news reports sources and analysis, that generally sought to heap some blame on Israel at every opportunity are now implying if not expressing the view that Abbas' ability to lead and the Palestinian readiness for an independent state is very much in doubt given the declining and violent situation in Gaza.

Those who have advocated expelling Palestinians or inducing them with money and benefits to leave Israel and take up residence in any other country of their choice may well be worth considering to see whether it can be made a realistic option.

In terms of any peace agreement, be it the Road Map or some newly labelled initiative, between Palestinian and Israel, rather than giving credence to any Palestinian right of return, which should be dropped outright, Israel perhaps could work into the negotiations the emigration of Palestinians.

If Palestinians are insisting on their ultimate territories being Judenrein, it seems Israel should be demanding no less as part of any ultimate peace agreement where Israel has no Palestinians within its borders. Already, Israel has a problem with many Palestinian Israeli citizens. It seems the last thing they need are more Palestinians.

As a final note, greater efforts are needed to encourage Jews to immigrate to Israel to ensure that Israel will have always have a majority Jewish population. Again, Muslims insist on ensuring their countries are and remain Islamic. Israel should not be criticized for wanting a Jewish nation and laws to ensure it remains so.

7. Fred Leder said:

Lee Kaplan has it exactly right. Jews may never again be moved from their homes and villages. Judenrein Palestine east of the barrier is unacceptable. Attacks on Israelis must carry a price.

Forget about massive retaliation. There will never be a reason sufficient to justify massive retaliation in the eyes of the world, so any military action will be at the discretion of the IDF, and the consequences will have to be borne by Israel.

Permitting the disputed territories to be turned into Somalia is completely crazy. It's not clear why the EU or the US would want this but they do seem to want it.

In the end six million Jews are trying to find peace in a sea of Muslims who don't want peace with Israel at any price. The world, for reasons we all know, doesn't care. The real question is what is the best defensive posture for Israel to take for now and for the future and how can this position be improved. Maybe better education/hasbara in the west. Maybe a clearly defensible border, established unilaterally in the east. Maybe a response to terror which is more western and less Jewish, ie, more violent.

8. Ted Belman said:

Bill's comment strikes the right note of caution. Withdrawal without deterrance is not a good idea. Better stay where you are. On the other hand Israel could follow Ettinger's ideas of killing Oslo and the Roadmap and not stop until it has changed the paradigm. As long as Israel is resolved and backed by a substantial majority it has the best chance of finding a workable solution which the two state plan is not.

9. Salomon Benzimra said:

As much as I was against the disengagement from Gaza, now that it is a "fait accompli", we must draw the proper conclusions:

1. The new Gaza provides a representative sample of what an independent, 100% Judenrein, Palestinian state would be: chaos, continuous aggression against Israel, no rule of law.
2. Why then continue the same experiment in a grander scale (the "West Bank") without a shred of evidence that it would lead to different results?
3. The withdrawal of all Jewish civilian and military presence from land the Arabs deem theirs did not translate into any concrete peace initiative from the Arabs. This shows clearly that "occupation" was nothing more that a pretext used by Arabs to justify their ultimate goal of destroying Israel.

And this is the crux of the matter: Israel should redouble its efforts to show that "occupation" is a bogeyman, rather than continuing to "disengage" and by so doing feeding the false idea that Israel is "illegally occupying Palestinian land".

Transfers of Jewish populations have been taking place since the 1950s (from Arab countries) and since 2005 (from Gaza). If we continue to transfer Jewish populations to accommodate Arab demands, without any parallel action from the Arab side, we will be sending the wrong message that Israel has no rights to the land, any land between the Jordan and the sea.

10. Ted Belman said:

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that polls show Kadima with its intended unilateral withdrawal is way ahead in the polls. Unless Bibi pulls off a miracle with the aid of Palestinian terror that's what we are in for. With that in mind, I am trying to shed light on what it means and perhaps open the door for another alternative.

11. t said:

Israel MUST stop caring about world opinion and handouts! People are being murdered!The Us govt is sooooooo hypocritical it makes me sick! If someone killed my child I would take ten of theirs!

12. kuhnkat said:

I don't get it. What don't you guys understand about the phrase used by the so-called Palestinians and Islamofascists "from the River to the Sea"?????

Yes there are corrupt people in the terrorists. Yes there are Politicians that will use their people for self promotion. It doesn't matter. 30 years ago the population hadn't been propagandised by the Wahabbists and others for thirty years and what you are discussing NOW MAY have been possible THEN. That was thirty years ago. You now have over 60% of 2 million people who will give their lives, their neighbors lives, their sons and daughters lives to WIPE OUT ISRAEL.

The only thing you can do is DELAY THE OBVIOUS!! Israelis will fight and kill or run the animals out of their territory or they will have the same choice, run or DIE.

Now, you want to do it today, tomorrow, next week, several years from now while the Palis become even more numerous and polarised???

Politics is the science of keeping war at a low level. Unfortunately a lot of people get tired of the continuing drain of friend and neighbors dying. We are seeing that in Israel NOW. A lot of people have pretty much given in and they don't even understand what they are doing because of the obfuscation of the actual situation. What their enemies are actually fighting for and intend to do to them is not known to them.

Isn't it time to tell it like it is and start motivating the people of Israel with REALITY. How can they make reasonable decisions as to what they want to sacrifice when all they get is BULLSHIT ABOUT WHAT THE POLITICIANS THINK THEY CAN DO!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah, I include a lot of what I am reading here.

Who on the forum really believes they can deprogram 2 million Islamofascists in time to save Israel?? What are your other choices??

FIGHT FOR ISRAEL NOW!!!!!

13. Rajiv Singh said:

The ONLY real solution is a population transfer of the Arabs out Judea and Samaria. The huge sums currently being supplied by the EU and the USA would be more than sufficient compensation for the purpose right now.

Failing this then massive deterrence is the only other option. Sharon has for a long time now been viewed as a completely toothless tiger, threatening zero tolerance for Kassams etc. and NOT DELIVERING. What message would you get as a dedicated Jew hater? Go for it man. That is exactly what they have been doing, no?

I am ashamed to say my in law family in Israel is still planning to vote Kadima without Sharon - he will never return to politics, if he even survives which is highly doubtful. The one thing this party is not is "kadima" or "forward!" More of the same most like only even more wimpish!

14. Shelley said:

Every evening I read most, if not all the articles posted here by Israpundit. I find the commentaries particularly fascinating. I don't say much because I don't know much. But I am learning.

So, that said, I'm with kuhnkat on this one. There's really only one issue: the life or death of Israel. The Arabs will never accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel. It is not common knowledge and this is where Israel has failed to make it's case to the world and to average people like me. Arabs/Muslims around the world are experts at demonizing Israel. Public opinion is against you and grows every day.

Perhaps it is also true that the average Israeli does not understand this either, which is surprising. If this is true, it is crime. If any Israeli still believes that a two state solution will ever be acceptable to the Arabs then Israel is doomed.

15. radiorote said:

Good points, Ted.

Also, Israel lost strategic depth of field. The Brits can always retreat from Northern Ireland, Israel cannot back out when attacked.
The only choice they have in defense is deep intel -- like the Iranians have been nicely doing in Iraq for years or the Russians within the Abwehr.

16. J. Lichty said:

Ted: excellent point about the polls, however a note of caution. Just as we saw with our own presidential election, the Media has lined up not only shoulder to shoulder with the "Palestinian cause" but also with the cause of Kadima.

Let us see the polls in the coming weeks to determine if there really is life in this abortion of Sharon's.

If Israel really wants to vote in a government endorsed by Shimon Peres then it is time to really start losing faith and realizing that no one can save Israel from itself.

It is time for the right to unite in Israel. It is time to flex a unified electoral muscle. It can be done, but sadly only through uniting behind Bibi and Likud. It appears that Bibi is once again going to engage in the folly of appealing to the "center" (whatever that is) and the right will be marginalized. Dangerous times in Israeli politics. But if Olmert and Peres think that they will have as easy a time evacuating Jews from Maale Adumimin, or Ariel than they had in Gaza, they are in for a real surprise.

17. felix quigley said:

Ted

I like the Mike Case "Plan" and I see it as a development of the work of Joseph in 23 Reasons.

Please see the long debate below and my answer to M.Simon.

I think the issue is that Israel must have a strategy and the Case Plan could be that. But it will have to learn to fight tactically.

As I saw it Sharon fought without a strategy. He was not into politics really, he was a military man and for him all was tactical manouvres. People like that can become the prisoner of stronger ideologies, so his subservience to the US and his fear of the EU.

Basically Israel cannot ever actually win the total victory if isolated. Israel did not create antisemitism and cannot actually end it. That is the task for the ordinary man and woman in countries like mine to do. Is that possible. Well many are now becoming very concerned about Islamofascism and about Sharia, for example see Bill's work in relation to feminists.

What Israel must do is to fight tactically to defend itself while maintaining its strategy intact.

An example of a tactical fight is in the next election. We must throw our weight behind Likud not because we trust them but in order to defeat Kadima and Labour.

The issue of Gaza has shown the danger from fascists. But the problem is that is NOT getting across to the public in the west or anywhere. That is the fault of the Media but also of the Israeli politicians around Sharon.

The US strategy is really weak as is shown in the crisis they are in with Sharon's illness. We tend to emphasise the strength of the US, in fact they operate from a position of continual crisis and essential weakness.

I would say still all to play for if we understand the concept of strategy and tactics and learn to apply it conscously.

18. Leonard said:

I agree with Akiva that the article was somewhat detached from reality - it provided a somewhat over simplistic perspective using the benefits of hindsight to what is indeed an extremely complex scenario.

The situation for Israel in 2002 was very much a more precarious one than it is today. The situation that Sharon inherited from Barak was a dire one with the Palestinians unleashing suicide bombings in Israel at will - with over 150 Israeli civilians being slaughtered in one month alone. In addition to that - it was by no means certain that Bush would remove Saddam who was believed to have weapons of mass destruction and was intent on using them against Israel. The arab World perceiving Israel to have been abandoned was preparing to move in for the kill - and I am including Egypt amongst her adversaries a country which had severed ties with Israel. Skilled Israeli's were also emigrating en masse following the collapse in the technological sector and tourist industry.

Sharon had not only inherited this dire situation, but had also inherited the consequences of the Oslo Accord and Madrid - a product of the Rabin,Clinton, Arafat era when Israel had already designated zones A & B in the West Bank that were to be handed over to the PA, and Bush became the first American President to declare his support for the creation of a Palestinian State even setting a time plan. Once the Iraqui War broke out - the UK was the only country to significantly back America both diplomatically and militarily. Eternally grateful for this support Bush was prepared to offer Blair anything he wanted as payback. Blair demanded the creation of a Palestinian State to appease his left wing and British Muslims and the rest of the Muslim World who had turned against him, particularly when the WMDs were never discovered. Blair made a number of trips to Washington with the objective of committing Bush to a peace plan that would result in the creation of a Palestinian State. It also suited Bush's agenda in trying to humour the Muslim World following Iraq.From then on the pressure was on.

When Sharon was invited to Washington to seal the Road Map, it was to substitute other iniatives that were being canvassed at the tiem including the Saudi iniatives and the Geneva Accords being proposed by Beilin and the Israeli left - it was backed by the Quartet ie the UN, USA , the EU and Russia. In other words it was being imposed by the World and Sharon had no alternative but to accept it. But there was one important proviso contained within the very first paragraph and that is its implementation was dependent upon a cessation of terror on the part of the Palestinians.

We all know the rest of the story ie that Arafat was unwilling to bring about the cessation of terror, and that Sharon took the unilateral step of withdrawing from Gaza, which has been interpreted by some as the first step towards implementation of the Road Map. But I see it differently. I consider it to have been a stategic master-stroke by a master strategist. Gaza was a demographic time bomb - and continued Israeli presence there was self-defeating. The few thousand settlers were sitting ducks who required an enormous military presence to protect them. By with drawing from Gaza Sharon ensured that Israel would continue to remain on the West Bank for eternity, since by creating this terrorist run enclave in a State of total anarchy shortly to be taken over by Hamas he has proved to the World that the creation of a Palestinain State is not a viable option and that they have no intention of co-existing with Israel. The country that needed the most persuading is the United States. In other words the end result is that disengagement has killed off the Road Map.

Those who propose the removal of the arabs from the West Bank are also detached from reality and are no doubt making this proposal from a safe distance from the consequences. This is 2006 and not 1945 when the Czechs removed the Sudeten Germans to Germany. The consequences of such a move would be a catastrophic regional War, and we know what happened to Serbia. However desirable it may sound its simply not feasible.

Although I understand the bitterness of those who opposed disengagement - I'm convinced that the legacy of Sharon will be a good one - he has helped to bring the second intifada to an end, constructed a defensive barrier, kept Bush on board, and brought an end to the Road Map. He is one of the true heroes of the Jewish State who has helped to ensure its continued survival through dangerous and difficult times. He kept his nerve and always prevailed and unfortunately paid the ultimate price with his health.

Long may his memory endure - this true and formidable Warrior of Zion.

19. Ted Belman said:

I fail to see how the article is "detached from reality." I think Akiva was advocating maintaining the status quo because the option of massive retailiation is not realistic and that there is a value in maintaining a buffer which I take to mean the settlements in the West Bank, though I don't know how that would serve as a buffer. I am not revisiting the disengagement from Gaza. Like it or not Israel will be forced to stop the rocket attacks or they will continue to increase in volume and lethality. Is Akiva advocating that Israel must get used to absorbing a few deaths a day as the price for not going on the offensive.

Leonard with whom I usually agree is missing the point. Nothing in his second and third paragraphs contradict anything in my article. I am in full agreement with his summary.

But Sharon wasn't "invited to Washington to seal the Roadmap" so to speak, he was intimately involved with the planning for the new ME which included the invasion of Iraq and the settlement of the Israel/Arab conflict. Sharon argued that he had to have an initiative to ward off the Saudi Plan and other initiatives. This made no sense to me because he could have just said "no" assuming that Israel still has a choice. Even so the Saudi Plan is referenced in the Roadmap and Powell refused to remove it. Furthermore, why would the US want to reward Russia, China, the UN or France and Germany all of who opposed the invasion of Iraq. The only players in this piece are the US, Saudi Arabia, the UK and Israel all of whom are US allies. The US intended to transform the ME starting with Iraq. Saudi Arabia was on board and publically supported the US position as did the UK but they both wanted to liberate Palestine as part of the deal. Thus Sharon's agreement was necessary to enable the US plans to go forward. Sharon bought into the Roadmap on the condition or belief that there would emerge a New ME and a democratic PA before the state was created. His entourage visted Washington in the last six months of '02 over a dozen times. This was not to seal the deal but to work out all aspects of it.

As for the master stroke of disengagement from Gaza, I too agreed because I viewed its occupation of more of a liability then a benefit. Even so had not Sharon advised that any attacks from Gaza would be met with a vigourous response I would not have been in support. Furthermore if he advised that he would accept the Rafah Agreements allowing for no control and multiple convoys, I would have not been in support. Who could imagine that Israel's policies would be so suicidal.

The rational offered at the time and still believed by Leonard is that it would enable Israel to "continue to remain on the West Bank for eternity" was also believed by me at the time. I felt that to give up Gaza in exchange for a better hold of the West Bank was a valid reason for doing so. Unfortunately it failed to serve this purpose. All signs indicate that there will be further withdrawal and that Ariel will be lost and Maaleh Adumin will not be contiguous to Jerusalem.

In discussing Sharon's legagacy Leonard says,"he has helped to bring the second intifada to an end, constructed a defensive barrier, kept Bush on board, and brought an end to the Road Map." Would that it were true. The second Intifada may have ended but it is being replaced a more violent one. The "defensive barrier" merely served to make the bombs we are exposed to airbourn rather human carried. It also served to limit our hoped for "land grab". As for keeping Bush on board, I ask, what are the benefits.

While I argued for a significant response as a necessity both Akiva and Leonard correctly pointed out that that such a response is not in reality an option. If so we are doomed. We all believe that the Arabs will never bury the hatchet with Israel accept in their backs. What properly follows from this belief? Should Israel should withdraw or draw a line now.

20. Ed D said:

According to Leonard, Sharon was a genius, staving off Arab violence by evacuating Gaza. He was definately confused because all he did was postpone the inevitable, the continued loss of land and more and more terrorism.

Let's stop this insane attitude of conceding to the Pals. Wars are always a risk, but in our case one worth it. True, there will be Jewish casualties, but that will be the price of freedom. The US, from it's inception has fought many wars to protect it's freedoms and have become stronger for it. The same holds true for Israel.

Kuhnkat, sign me up.

21. Leonard said:

Ted - Havingly carefully re-read your article I think the words I opened with were a little too strong and perhapes inappropriate for which I must apologise. You were placing your interpretation on what you perceive to have been Sharons strategy and that is to retreat behind the security barrier and to permit the Palestinians to run riot. My interpretation of his intention is different in that I considered it to be a Gaza first and Gaza last unilateral withdrawal, since the Road Map was conditional upon a total cessation of violence by the Palestinians, something that they are evidently incapable of.

I think we still tend to agree on the fundamental issues and both agree that I occasionally tend to miss the point. But I think that the threat presently posed by the Kassams is being somewhat exaggerated and Israels capability in responding to be somewhat played down. The memory and performance of Sharon is also being somewhat denigrated by many who contribute to your site from the safety of America by people who unlike Sharon have never been in the thick of battle and proved themselves time and time again by their courage and considerable capabilities in the defence of Israel. Also now doesn't seem to be the best time to attack him whilst he is on a ventilator and on the brink of life or death. The story of Israel is never ending - and instead of trying to speculate over Sharons motives we should put the spot light on the new players who are likely to take over in the forthcoming elections since it is they who will decide the outcome of Israel's war on terror and not Sharon who is sadly out of the frame. But I do believe that his legacy is a remarkable one, and that he pulled Israel through during a very difficult time.

22. Debbie said:

I have been checking in with Israpundit for a while now, reading some of the posts and comments. In this post I feel very uneasy by some of the comments about America. I am not Jewish or Arab, but Christian American. I have believed all my life that Israel is God's chosen people and that the land belongs to Israel. Everyone I know believes this and I also think that most Americans believe this. Also I have always believed that Israel had no better friend than America and America had no better friend than Israel.

In these comments I feel a lot of anger/dislike/whatever toward the US and I fail to understand why. I am not a student of history and by no means claim to be well informed on the politics in this this situation. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the reason for the anger toward America. As far as I know, the Presidents in my life time have all tried to help Israel. Haven't they? Thank you

23. Ted Belman said:

Debbie

To really explore your question read US Hidden Goals??? just below. With all the comments it is very long but still worthwhile. Bottom line is that of the face of it the US is a good friend of Israel but behind the scene, it is always forcing Israel to make concessions and yield. This is done to curry favour with Saudi Arabia in the main and secondarily the EU. This is beyond question and the historical record as far back as '48, confirms.

24. Debbie said:

Thank you. I will read US Hidden Goals.

25. Ed D said:

Leonard, you mentioned that no one has been in battle like Sharon. I've been there, done that twice. War is not glorious, it is brutal and the scars, both physical and mental last one's lifetime. I have no regrets and, if I were younger, would go again.

The Allies went to war with Germany and Japan to preserve their freedoms. Again in Korea, Viet Nam (probably a mistake) and twice in Iraq. Israel, too, did battle several times, always taking casualties, but they were protecting their freedom and their rights to live in peace.

The Palestinians are not allowing these rights; therefore, in light of the probability of more bombings, more children being more traumatised and more insecurity, I believe to have a peace, at least over a generation, a total war is advisable, especially when Israel has the technical advantage to fight this war.

One other thing I would like to mention is: after reading the posts and comments in Israpundit, I believe that these writers a far more intelligent than those in the Knesset.

26. dave b said:

Israel has now lost strategic depth. Any favor she gains with the world is temporary. The Arabs smell weakness and are emboldened. We also tend to forget that American troops can fly in two directions. MI6, and others, are in Gaza and the West Bank.

The only solution I see is for the concerted Western campaign to destabilize and factionalize Israel be together acknowledged by Israel and contained by Israel. That country must make a decision, one they have debated and struggled with for decades. Either the territories are an integral part of Greater Israel and our destined birthright to be guarded and settled, OR the territories were always and are simply bargaining chips to be utilized in a final peace agreement. Until that decision is truly made, the Western powers will, in their own way, divide and conquer Israel (God Forbid) no less than the Arabs wish to do. Regarding the above post about CIA estimates of 200,000 dead Jews during wartime, that number could be obsolete if Israel has the WILL to carry out a sane defensive strategy. Did the ghetto ever really leave the Je...?

27. Leonard said:

Ed - like Sharon you've been there.No doubt you've read his autobiography - his participation in every single conflict Israel has been involved in from taking four bullets in the stomach in the assault on Latrun in 1948 in order to relieve Jerusalem then besieged by the Arab Legion,to his involvement in an elite unit that cleared Gaza of terrorists and reduced their operations to zero, to his frontal assault on the Mitla Pass to relieve a beleagued unit of paratroopers in 1956 in defiance of orders, to his thrust across the Suez canal in 1973,without airsuppor with a headwound inspiring his troops and trapping the Egyptian Third army , right up to the 1982 campaign in Lebanon where he took Beirute, and Arafat was only saved by the intervention of the French and Americans etc. Give the man credit where its due - Sharon is a fighter, a legend.He deserves our respect.

Israel has been in a constant State of War since her baptism under fire in 1948.. When she declared independence - Jerusalem was already under siege & Tel Aviv was bombed within minutes of the Declaration .She was attacked by six arab armies determined to drive her inhabitants into the sea. American intelligence estimated she would only last a few days & a military embargo was imposed.She proved them wrong.

You admit one of America's war -in vietnam was probably a mistake. Look at a map at the size of Gaza compared to the West Bank. Its one giant favela or slum. Where is the strategic depth in Gaza? Gaza was more of a liability tying down scare military resources, historically it was part of Philistine. There were only 7000 settlers there surrounded by one & half million arabs who were expected to double their number within 20 years.

America fought a total War with Germany & Japan from a distance - your mainland was never bombed until September 11th. Look at the size of Israel compared to her Arab neighbours. Look at her vulnerability - the country has no strategic depth whatsoever. I don't believe that Sharon ever intended to abandon the West Bank settlements - he pioneered the settlement movement and told the Israeli's to take the hilltops. When you have a hostile population within your country you have to take defensive measures to protect your population, like protecting your King on a chessboard. You can't go onto the offensive leaving your cities exposed - that is what the security barrier is all about; that is what Homeland Security in America is all about.

The Iranian President talks about wiping out Israel - The threat of
Total war is always just around the corner for Israel. Her population has learnt to live with it. Many Israeli's couldn't take it anymore and emigrated to America. Total War is the Armegedon scenario - its certainly not something to be talked about lightly by those who from the comfort of their livingrooms live thousands of miles from the conflict zone. Its not a game of Nitendo - we're talking about the impact on millions of innocent lives !.