Another excuse. Sharansky has his hands elbow-deep in the settlements. I don't take him seriously, and neither do most Israelis, which is why he's a marginal political figure there.

I would agree that solving, or soothing, the Arab/Israeli Conflict is essential to establishing peace in the Middle East, yet I would assert that current Arab autocracies fuel the mindset behind the conflict, and as a matter of principle – unilateral withdrawal is unlikely to impact the mindset either in the Palestinian Territories or outside them. That being said, it is a bold gesture by Sharon, and an attempt to lead those who are desperately in need of leadership. Would he be better served to lead the Israeli’s instead of the Palestinian’s, who may or may not follow, perhaps?

Saying you don't take the man seriously is a good way to avoid confronting his actual argument.

I respect and admire Sharansky also, but he is wrong on this for several reasons (or one very complicated reason):

Sharon recognizes:
1)IS cannot create a PA democracy,only the PA can.
2)The PA cannot/will not while occupied.
3)Demographics rule out long-term occupation.
4)Status quo is unacceptable, change is required.
5)IS wants a PA country ASAP,preferably yesterday.

I think Sharon is setting everyone up for a huge surprise ... not a 2-state solution but a 3-state solution.

Gaza will be cast adrift as a separate PA state to stand or more likely fall on its own with IS sealing the borders tightly. Rockets / mortars from Gaza will be treated as from an independant country and will be responded to militarily, probably by airstrike, not invading tanks.

Similarly, the parts of the WB that IS is willing to let go of will be set up as a separate PA country to be closed-bordered and with airstrike retaliation for rockets etc.

Sharon is doing the right sneaky thing: reprogramming the no-win-scenario set up by the arabs countries around it.

The arab countries have set up the no-win scenario with a war-of-attrition on IS using the stateless Palestinians that no country wants to adopt, trapped with no economy, no resources, and provocateurs shipped in from Syria and Iran to ensure that noone accidentally stabilizes the PA before IS is worn down. Consider the mistreatment that the Palestinians have had at the hands of arab governments, consider who provides the arms money and leadership (Arafat was Egyptian AFAICR).

A) If IS beats the PA decisively, they are castigated as being as bad as the Nazis.
B) If liberally they do nothing, the provocateurs will ensure that attacks continue until IS is demoralized and economically crippled or is provoked into something drastic ... see option A.
C) If IS tries to modernize and co-opt the PA, the Palestinians will outbreed the Israelis and take over by voting, leading to a panic by well-armed Israelis, leading again to option A.
D) For religious reasons, IS cannot give up land for real to the PA, and hurting them badly enough to induce a retreat will again lead to option A.

This is intended to cause a South-Africa-type isolation in which Is will be cut off by well-meaning play-nice leftist politicians in the EU and USA, and once IS cannot get US military hardware and resupply as in past wars, the arabs have the manpower and newly acquired US military hardware (M1A1/M1A2, F16/F15/F18,AWACS, etc) to flatten IS before we can usefully act.

(Remember the No-Win-Scenario was constructed with Bush41, Saddam-of-the-1990s, Clinton and Somalia and Post-Vietnam-Syndrome in mind. Also remember that Arab/mideast military planning centers on guile and situational setup rather than combat effectiveness, for an effective professional military can topple the king/sultan/president, but an effective secret service cannot reliably topple a king backed by a family-run-crony-military.)

Sharon has recognized:
1) The Torah is not a suicide pact.
2) Land is a tactical, not religious resource.
3) Gaza is indefensible and not IS-proper anyway.
4) GWB will have the spine to stick up for IS.
5) GWB gives IS a window NOW to act out-of-the-box
6) Flip the NWScenario so IS is provoked from Gaza
7) Post-GW2, the Arab governments are paralyzed
8) Arab attention is on democracy,not Jew-killing.
9) GWB's successor will either be Condi (Da...Nyet,Nyet,Nyet!) or Hillary, who'll have a don't-tread-on-me complex to prove she's no wimp, so long-term is likely to be safe, but short term is all that is necessary to flip the NWScenario.

So ... Sharon has 2 years of GWB effectiveness to act to escape the NWScenario the arabs constructed while those same arab governments are paralysed by the democracy movement that GWB + GW2 induced in the mideast. If Sharon acts smartly and quickly enough in the Intifada Hudna, the hudna-regrouping will fail as there will be no fight to regroup into.

Worse for the arabs, if IS and the US get MTHEL deployments around the 2 PA half-countries, the laser systems will shoot down the rockets and mortars mid-flight as they have already been shown to do, negating the PA's only long-range weapons. The PA's short-range wespons will not be allowed to walk through the newly reinforced walls/moats that IS will have everywhere before GWB leaves office. With MTHEL also able to take out AUVs, that leaves no useful means of attacking IS except to borrow Israeli-arabs, who have shown little interest is attacking their home country to date.

Given the operational capabilities that MTHEL laser systems have shown to date, it is reasonable to expect that over the next 2 years that IS can deploy MTHEL or something equivalent around areas of interest, including the Lebanon border. Also, given MTHEL's capabilities, arab countries will not send warplanes to attack IS as that is simply suicide. IF MTHEL can shoot down artillery, mortars and rockets, it can punch many interesting holes in fighters or missiles launched at the MTHEL itself.

So ... how can the PA attack an IS that is purged of its walled-off+gated PA-territories, surrounded by MHTEL arrays and retaining its full military capabilities?

Especially now that Arafat is dead, the PA will have nothing to do except grow up into a real country fueled by EU aid (only partially stolen from) and with increasingly tired-of-war and financially-motivated citizens who want to repeat what IS has created from raw desert.

Bluntly, Sharon is escaping a 2-dimensional attrition conflict over land by thinking 3-dimensionally, reprogramming the no-win-scenario by creating a land-barrier air-defence network that isolates Israel from arab asymmetrical-warfare weaponry by turning a continuous-landmass into a series of tactically-enforced islands with restricted egress.

/\/\
\/\/

I don't take him seriously

And with a wave of the hand dismiss everything he said.

Which of course, is your only option if you can find no fault with it.

such is the folly of the left.

MAW

On target, success isnt certain, but given the Jew-Hatred that rules Eurabia and the american left, who dream of the "final solution" being accomlished by the arabs, one wonders what other options they have.

We have our own madrassas here in the USA, in our leftist controlled universities. we will need to do something about those too.

A pretty solid analysis.

Some qualifications, though.

1. The PA (certainly under Arafat, and also under Abbas, currently) has had and continues to have no intention of forming or constituting a Palestinian state (and most certainly not a demilitarized one) side by side with Israel. The goal is Israel's elimination and replacement by....some Arab polity, the what or the whom is not important (nor is the how or the when; the important thing is to get it done). With this end in mind, it is necessary to continue the terror war of attrition and perpetuate the very graphic, and constant, presentation of Palestinian suffering over airwaves of the world (and cyberspace); which is why any---at least, public portrayal of the---alleviation of Palestinian suffering while Israel still exists is antithetical to the goals of the PA.

To be sure, the Palestinian leadership, much more pragmatic than some perhaps are willing to give it credit for, will continue to make noises insisting that it is in favor of the two-state concept ("compromise," "solution," what have you), with much fanfare for public consumption (e.g., "new" PA police recruits undergoing newly devised training under new trainers, with jumping through flaming hoops and crawling under tripwire the more common evidence of their newly found determination)---while making every effort to subvert the possibility---and blaming Israel for the lack of implementation, or more correctly, blaming Israel for making it impossible for the PA to implement it. This is a tactic that has worked since September 2000 to chip away at and significantly erode Israel's diplomatic legitimacy, economy and public morale, while killing and maiming a respectable percentage of Israel's citizenry and also proving that the Palestinians continue to be the world's most oppressed people while Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. There is absolutely no reason for the PA to change these tactics and every reason for it to continue.

One must keep in mind the goal. Israel is a ghastly, criminal mistake. A historical injustice that must be corrected.

2. As such, while there may be individual exceptions (but if so, they are powerless to affect policy), it makes no sense to insist that the PA and the Palestinians it purportedly represents seek a Palestinian state but are prevented from doing so by provocateurs backed by other Arab governments and/or terrorist groups (whose goals are to fan the flames of conflict and prevent any possible compromise from being made---to prevent peace from "breaking out"). To the contrary, there is nothing for these agents provocateurs to undermine, since the PA's goals, though it must be a bit more deft, perhaps, in its strategy, is identical.

Therefore, point 2---"The PA cannot/will not [agree to form a Palestinian country] while occupied"---while true, misrepresents the situation (a situation, albeit, misrepresented by the MSM with impunity for the past four-and-a-half years). It is more correct to claim that they will not agree to form a Palestinian country while Israel continues to occupy any part of the region between the Jordan and the Sea. Which is of course, nothing new, having been stated and reiterated countless times in the Palestinian media (though once again, deftness is required when dealing with the external media). To this end, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza must be played up continuously. What, after all, did Arafat and now does Abbas want? Very simply:
* the return of ALL lands captured by Israel in 1967.
* the return of East Jerusalem to the PA.
* the return of ALL refugees to those areas of (1948-1967) Israel from which they left or were forced to leave, and (mostly) not allowed to return to, as a result of the failed Arab effort to destroy the incipient Jewish state.

And no, these are not mere negotiating tactics, as the enlightened are so ready to rationalize and explain. These are the euphemistic renderings of Israel's elimination and precisely the rationale why the conflict must continue. No, peace is not around the corner and never has been (though one wouldn't grasp this from reading the earnest analyses of the experts in the media). The conflict must continue because the injustice constituted by Israel's very existence must be rectified. It must be shown decisively that no peace in the middle east is possible until such justice is achieved. Some have referred to this process as "moving the goalposts"; but, Arafat and now Abbas have already placed the goalposts in position. It's just that most of the pious, progressive members of the world, eager for a solution and lusting after peace (and why not?) have managed to ignore those goalposts so effectively.

3. Which brings us to point 5---"IS wants a PA country ASAP,preferably yesterday." Indeed so; yet, if Israel (and the US) would like so desperately to create a Palestinian state, if such a state is good for Israel, why then should one expect the Palestinians to agree to it? Why should they agree to something that is good, even necessary, for Israel? Merely because in the west, the idea has evolved that a win-win situation behooves all parties? That compromise, while painful for both sides, is the only realistic solution? (Rather ironically, nothing might better "prove" Edward Said's theory of Orientalism than such a wholesale imposition of the western worldview, of western "values" on this part of the world.) To believe this, though, is to ignore Palestinian goals---to believe that there is a certain symmetry between Israeli and Palestinian goals.

But the only "symmetry" here is that while Israel wishes to create a responsible, viable Palestinian state, one that does not pose a threat to Israel's existence (should that be "DOES NOT POSE A THREAT TO ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE"?), the PA, along with its cohorts, wishes to end Israel's existence and is willing to do anything to ensure that that goal is achieved; so that precisely because of this goal, it cannot countenance the formation of a Palestinian state. The arguments will be various and even, in some cases, compelling, viz, the Palestinian state cannot be viable because:
* the geographical state is not contiguous (however one wishes to define "contiguous").
* of Israeli settlement (or any remaining settlements).
* the PA will have no army to defend it in case of attack and will have insufficient weapons and policing powers to provide security and keep civic peace.
* the PA will not have control (and thus have no proper authority) over its borders and/or air space and/or ports.
* the PA will not have control over its inalienable water rights.
* the PA has insufficient infrastructure and resources.
* the PA has no money.
* The withdrawal from Gaza not only does not change any of the above but serves to impose a unilateral situation on the area and enable Israel to confiscate areas of the West Bank (and continue to exist, but this latter will not be stated as such).
* But most importantly, why should the Palestinians create a legitimate political entity that would be viewed as being responsible for continuing (or at least, not preventing) the terror war against Israel and that hence would be a target for Israeli reprisals? And why should there be any desire for such an entity if its existence meant that it would be held responsible for improving the (supposedly lurid) conditions of the Palestinian people, when such conditions are so effective a weapon in their battle against Israel?

Yes, one would like to believe that Especially now that Arafat is dead, the PA will have nothing to do except grow up into a real country fueled by EU aid (only partially stolen from) and with increasingly tired-of-war and financially-motivated citizens who want to repeat what IS has created from raw desert. But once again, such a view, however, rational, disregards (and misrepresents) Palestinian goals utterly and entirely.

Realistically, how can the Palestinians accede to the existence of a criminal state on any part of Arab territory? And so the demonization of Israelis and Jews must continue to dominate the Palestinian media, and any Jewish connection to the land between the Jordan and the Sea---and any connection between Jews today and Jews of yesteryear---must continue to be adamantly refuted.

No. The conflict must continue. Constantly. Continually.

Certainly, for the Palestinians, if things seem a bit bleak---if---there is always hope on the horizon:
* How long will Bush govern, anyway?
* How long will Israel be able to continue to withstand the blistering attacks due to the view that the absence of peace in the region is Israel's responsibility alone? For
if Israel's diplomatic situation has eroded so much in four-and-a-half years, how much more so will it (and/or its economy and/or its morale) erode in another four or five or ten or twenty?
* How long will it take for Iran to develop the Bomb and so sufficiently "shake up" the situation?
* How long will it take before some other foreign power---Europe, or say, um Russia---comes to the (not only diplomatic but) military aid of the Palestinians (and other Arab states)? (After all, if the US can "interfere" in Eastern Europe, the Ukraine, in Georgia, in Kazakhstan, why shouldn't Putin be able to "interfere" in say, Palestine, Syria, even Egypt?---or for that matter assist Iran to acquire "a balance of power"?).
* Keeping in mind that Hizbullah, in all likelihood, will continue to remain an armed terror state in South Lebanon with its missiles pointing south. Gaza, if it is allowed will be up to its teeth in weaponry. And who knows what will happen with the re-armed Egyptian army after Mubarak?

After all, what is 57 years when compared with the rule of the hegemonic Crusaders a thousand years ago? The future provides all kinds of opportunities.

"Saying you don't take the man seriously is a good way to avoid confronting his actual argument."

Such as it is. Have you read his book? It sucks.

Short version: Israel should continue to colonize Gaza and the West Bank until all of the governments in the region meet unspecified criteria.

Barry

And our leftist media knows all of that, and participates in the ruse, they would be more honest if they would just chant "Death to the Jews" during their prime time news broadcasts.

Americans are slowly waking up to this however.

Prak, if you end your self decerption, ie ... unwrap yourself from the dishonesty of the ruse, the fake reality,,, then what he advocates makes sense.

You own nothing to those whoes every intent is your death.

However, Sharon is thinking militarialy, his plan seems to have merit. remove the killers ability to kill your kids on the school busses....

Sharon might be be wrong, they might simply try to overwelm the AM defense screens etc. but none the less there is merit in what he is attempting to do.

The rationale behind Sharon's withdrawal is less a military one, or one based on demographics. It is based on Israel's image: if Israel is perceived as a willing occupier, Israel will not receive support, but if Israel is perceived as willing to create a palestinian state, then continuing attacks against Israel will now be seen as the Palestinians (and not Israel's) fault. How true this will prove to be, I don't know: in many parts of the world, people already have an "evil" image of Israel, as unfair as it seems to those who understand the history.

However, there is one hope for optimism. If the Palestinians are forced to live in a state of their own (which is what they claim they want to Western politicians)... and if they are given no hope of winning against Israel or achieving any more of their "objectives" than Israel is willing to give... and if Israel does begin to get more world support (no longer being the occupier)... then they will have to give up those goals as unrealistic for the near future.

But what would that do for the palestinian refugees? It must be made clear that the Palestinian state will be responsible for taking care of those refugees, and for integrating them into the society (i.e. making them normal citizens, no longer refugees). There must be no other option, or this conflict will explode again.

They pursue those goals because the terrorist tactics have worked so well in getting them sypathy. That is the situation that needs to be reversed now, for Israel's immediate security. In the longer-term, I agree with sharansky, the Palestinians would need democracy as well.

the terrorist tactics have worked so well in getting them sypathy.

It worked because the jew hating leftist media already had their sympathy.

Sharon better not be banking on that perceptions of behavior manufactured by the leftist information controllers will change. they manufactured the jew hatred in the west in the first place.

Evil is emboldened by submission, and thats all that Sharon will reap is emboldened evil.

To the left and the terrorists, the problem is Isreals existance. and untill every last Jew is dead or pushed into the sea, the way they are depicted wont change.

Do republicans ever win any praise by ceeding to the left ? no .. If they suddenly implimented the agenda of PolPot, the left still wouldnt be happy because the death quota of "enemies of the people" wasnt high enough.

You do not win anything but defeat by ceeding to evil, evil must be defeated. its that simple.

Sharansky doesnt address one simple and inescapable question, "how does remaining in the Gaza strip advance the cause of Palestinian democracy?" The answer is, of course it doesnt. So we have a straw argument. Neither the current course nor (according to Sharansky) disengagement can affect Palestinian internal workings. But the current course is interminable and we know is goes nowhere. When you cant go back and you cant stay where you are, you can only go forward and god bless Sharon for recognizing that fact. Israel cant force the Pals to do anything, unless they really force them, which they wont do. So either unilaterally go where you are supposed to be, or move in permanantly and establish a government and admit you are thieves. The current course is neither honorable nor practical and has much to do with Israel internal politics. There is simply no security advantage to holding the Gaza strip or the West Bank settlements. Yank your settlers out and build a big wall. Then if any rockets come over it you have no questions about who is on the moral highground. That is what the Arab autocrats and extremists fear the most, and that is another good reason it should be done.

There is simply no security advantage to holding the Gaza strip or the West Bank settlements. Yank your settlers out and build a big wall. Then if any rockets come over it...

So goes the argument. And any other country worth its salt would be happy to place itself in existential danger.

Still, might one might sense a bit of a contradiction here? Perhaps?

Perhaps the answer depends on how many rockets, of which type, with which kind of warhead, coming in how fast and how often, to which targets. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Of coure, it is Israel's right and privilege to be attacked by missiles of whatever variety. But not to worry. Israel's invincibility is an established fact, as everyone knows. So what's a mere rocket attack, of any dimension, any size, any frequency. Or a concerted rocket attack? Or a concerted tunneling attack?

(And if Israel suffers, well she deserves it, doesn't she?)

There is simply no security advantage to holding the Gaza strip or the West Bank settlements. Yank your settlers out and build a big wall. Then if any rockets come over it you have no questions about who is on the moral highground. That is what the Arab autocrats and extremists fear the most, and that is another good reason it should be done.

Dittos

Yup, there is merit, it has a chance of confounding the designs of their ememies.

They will, of course, readjust tactics, like any enemy does. Sharon better be ready for that.

That AM defense gear better have the ability to target incomming Iranian nukes, whereopon they will simply deliver it via a ship into Hiafa seaport.

Germany and Japan didnt go into a few year hudna and then start dropping German nukes (that they would have had by then) onto London and New York, because we defeated them.

Isreal better get to work on their own warheads, they will be needing some midrange nuke missles of their own.

"Yank your settlers out and build a big wall. Then if any rockets come over it you have no questions about who is on the moral highground."

I think that's how it has to be, but I don't think that's going to happen in the West Bank in the near term. This Gaza disengagement is traumatic enough for Israel's political system; can you imagine how difficult it would be to pull off the rest without a comprehensive settlement?

Barry, I share your fustration, im just sick and tired of the lies, treating those whos design is your extermination as honest brokers.

And those in the media, that depict them that way, do so, particiapate in the Lie, because they share the same Hatered of the Jews, and have in mind the same extermination. the "final solution" implimented by their arab proxies.

There is no intelectualy honest alternative explanation for their participation in the Lie.

However, cannot you see a better barganing position at the expense of the settlements ?

The move looks pragmatic to me, an adaptation to the terrain on which he finds himself deployed.

Ill admit I loath giving up anything to an enemy hell bent on your extermination, but it can improve the security situation. well, as applied to their current tactics, they can, and will, adjust, they will launch the rockets in salvos to overwelm the ability to detonate them in flight, they will apply reflective and abalative heat sheilds to survive the lasers, (works for reentering spacecraft) they will use the absence of IDF eyeballs to expand their tunneling projects.

The benifits could be rather short term, every tactician knows that a bunker-only method of dealing with an attacker is a recipie for defeat.

Its never worked, Sharon better not be banking on it.

...but if Israel is perceived as willing to create a palestinian state,...

Indeed, Camp David II and Taba have already been long forgotten, relegated with contempt to the dustbin of history. Or, perhaps, if not exactly forgotten, then either casually treated ("Just didn't work out, eh? Pity.") or venomously served up as a prime example of Israel double-dealing, under America's auspices....

In fact, the demographic argument is the key. And that argument, made so forcefully as the main reason why Israel must withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza or otherwise risk being treated, with justification, as a pariah, apartheid, outlaw state, will---must---after any future Israeli withdrawal takes place, be dusted off and applied with equal ferocity to the next round: to the entire area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

For that same argument, this time applied to the demographics of the entire region, will provide the justification for the moral and ethical, indeed practical necessity of replacing Israel with a bi-national Jewish-Arab political union.

In fact, the argument, sweet as it is, has already been made; and not only by the loopy Qadafi but by the legal adviser of Arafat himself in an op-ed last year in the NYT), along with certain Israeli luminaries of the left, distraught over Israel's FAILURE to establish justice in the region.

But then, what would one rather have? Endless conflict? Or the civilized---inevitable!---resolution of a thorny, intractible dispute caused by a tiny percentage of a traditionally despised people who, by their obstreperousness, their imperiousness, their obduracy, risk bringing the entire world to the brink of nuclear destruction?

Shades of Czechoslovakia, perhaps? (But no, let us not go there, to that rank, dark corner of a past that has no relevance to the glorious present).

"Of coure, it is Israel's right and privilege to be attacked by missiles of whatever variety. But not to worry. Israel's invincibility is an established fact, as everyone knows. So what's a mere rocket attack, of any dimension, any size, any frequency. Or a concerted rocket attack? Or a concerted tunneling attack?"

Are you seriously arguing Israel's strategic position would become precarious due to rocket attacks? Or tunneling attacks? Come on.
Rockets kill Israelis, and that is the point. But rockets kill Israelis now. So whats the difference if rockets are hitting Israelis in Gaza or Israel proper? Nothing that has been proposed is going to stop the attacks, so why absord them where people will say 'well they were in occupied territory anyway'. If Israelis start getting hit inside the green line, its a hell of a lot more sympathetic, fair or not. If Israel responds by sending an Apache to level the offender, no-one of any consequence will complain.

"(And if Israel suffers, well she deserves it, doesn't she?)"

Anyone who believes that is a boob and anyone who thinks criticizing Israel for its illegal settlements both strategically and morally is tantamount to wanting to see Israel harmed is a boob as well.

Well, it does seem that we shall soon find out.

Bring it on, eh?!

"will---must---after any future Israeli withdrawal takes place, be dusted off and applied with equal ferocity to the next round: to the entire area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea."

What a bunch of crap. You know what insures that such a nutty outcome is implausible? A dozen Israeli submarines carrying ballistic nuclear missiles which guarantee the existance of the State of Israel till the end of time. Israel can never again be threatened with conquest, suicide would be the only possibility and that seems unlikely. This is all smokescreen and nonsense. Nobody wants to talk about the fact that Israel wont do the imminently logical thing (withdraw to the green line, build a huge wall, and shut down the border completely) for two internal reasons. One the politically powerful settlers who have every intention of having all of Israel, and two the same dirty secret America has with Mexico, Israel relies on Palestinian labor and wont take the economic hit of closing off any crossings no matter how many suicide bombers sneak into Israel.
I have no truck with the Palestinians, they have made their own mess and they are lying in it. But Israel is responsible for much of its own problems. They have it completely within their power to be rid of the Palestinians as a problem, but their own internal politics forbid it. There is no moral equivalence here, but there is a simple truth that Israel could end this problem, from their end in a matter of months if they were willing to take the pain.

A few points:

Sharansky doesnt address one simple and inescapable question, "how does remaining in the Gaza strip advance the cause of Palestinian democracy?" The answer is, of course it doesnt.

As it stands, you're right. That isn't the same thing as Israel being unable to advance the cause of palestinian democracy. Destroying the PLO root and branch, and then taking over education and monitoring media, could well change things. Any hope for the palestinians lies in their children.

We should remember that before the PLO were brought back to Yesha, there was little in the way of local terrorist groups - and they relied on outside funding. With the PLO in control, there simply will not be a cessation of violence, let alone a move towards liberty.

Yank your settlers out and build a big wall. Then if any rockets come over it you have no questions about who is on the moral highground.

5,000 rockets & mortars have been fired at Gush Katif, and hundreds at Sderot, in the last four years. The Israeli response has been pretty hopeless (though a lot better than the PLO's revolving door prison system). Hamas, et al, figure that firing rockets at Israel isn't a big deal, and so has the rest of the world (see their reaction to Israeli operations to kill rocket crews). Firing rockets at Israelis isn't a big deal to the Israeli government now, so why it would be post-retreat, I'm not sure.

I'm astonished that you think the moral highground has any bearing on how the world reacts to what Israel does.

Short version: Israel should continue to colonize Gaza and the West Bank until all of the governments in the region meet unspecified criteria.

That beats the current plan: Israel should give up Yesha on the off-chance that Mahmoud Abbas is really a latter-day George Washington.

GWB will have the spine to stick up for IS.

LOL!

BTW, the demographic argument is a crock.

Mark:

If Israelis start getting hit inside the green line, its a hell of a lot more sympathetic, fair or not. If Israel responds by sending an Apache to level the offender, no-one of any consequence will complain.

I can't remember the name of the operation, but after a spate of rocket attacks on Sderot (inside the '49 armistice line) and an attack on a checkpoint (six killed, IIRC), the IDF went in pretty hard. Uproar from the usual suspects - EU, UN, US.

It is patently false to claim that the world will be okay with Israeli defensive measures, if only Israel would withdraw from Gaza (or anywhere else).

If Israelis start getting hit inside the green line...

If?

"5,000 rockets & mortars have been fired at Gush Katif, and hundreds at Sderot, in the last four years"

How many Israelis have been killed by rockets and mortars in the last 10 years? A handful? Ok how many have been killed by suicide bombers and gunmen? End of story.

Ok, as to the international uproar element, I said anyone of any consequence, which does not include the EU or the UN.

Look, sometimes doing the right thing just works. The IDF cannot permantly occupy the territories and lock them down to such an extent that Israel can run schools etc. Yes, they 'can' do it, but it would wreck them as a fighting force and within 10 years they would stumble out defeated and harrassed. Such an occupation requires level of brutality that turns a fighting force into a guilty mob over time. Disciplined troops hold out longer, but inevitably good, honorable men cant keep their thumb on a people and remain good and honorable. Thats a fact of history, militarilly speaking. Defending your own territory is quite the opposite.

Im not concerned with what the usual suspects think, im concerned with what the US and Israeli populations think. Right now the Israelis are in an untenable position. Pulling back to the Green Line and closing the border certainly wont increase Israeli casualties. That argument makes no sense. Israel is subject to rockets now just as they would be then. But lets face facts, the more legitimate greviences you take away from the Palestinians, the more likely you can garner international support and strike a deal. I dont understand the downside argument, it is completely illogical. What does Israel lose by pulling back except the territory they theoretically dont intend to keep?

How many Israelis have been killed by rockets and mortars in the last 10 years? A handful? Ok how many have been killed by suicide bombers and gunmen? End of story.

Most of the Israelis killed by rockets have been killed in the last year or so. The range, payload and accuracy is improving. They will claim more lives in future. I've never said that the Qassams are a threat on a par with suicide bombers, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. I don't think we're going to agree on this, because I don't think there's an acceptable level of terrorism.

The IDF cannot permantly occupy the territories and lock them down to such an extent that Israel can run schools etc. Yes, they 'can' do it, but it would wreck them as a fighting force and within 10 years they would stumble out defeated and harrassed.

Israel used to administrate all of Yesha, with a single battalion of Border Police patrolling most of Judea and Samaria. Was the IDF a wrecked fighting force in 1992? I'm not saying that, without the PLO things will be peachy. But as it stands, the palestinians do not have a chance. They will continue to be brainwashed by their teachers, incited by their imams and robbed by their 'leaders' - even if there is a palestinian state.

Im not concerned with what the usual suspects think, im concerned with what the US and Israeli populations think.

Would you support a referendum in Israel on this?

But lets face facts, the more legitimate greviences you take away from the Palestinians, the more likely you can garner international support and strike a deal.

I thought anyone besides Israeli and US publics and governments were not of any consequence.

And the last thing Israel needs is another deal with the PLO. Israelis are still being killed as a result of the last one.

What does Israel lose by pulling back except the territory they theoretically dont intend to keep?

Security. The Qassams will get better, the SAM stockpiles will increase, heavy weapons will be brought in. The IDF already uncovered one tunnel from Gaza in to Israel. Without IDF patrols and roads to hamper the terrorists' logistics, those tunnels will increase in number - and no-one will find them until a half-dozen suicide bombers come out the other end. Hamas are apparently optimistic enough about the situation post-retreat that their Damascus and Beirut leaders are going to relocate to Gaza - invited by Abbas. The message that Hamas has already acknowledged that killing enough yahood gets you territory is, to put it mildly, unhealthy.

If IS beats the PA decisively, they are castigated as being as bad as the Nazis.

You know, not everyone gives a damn what antisemites think.

"Most of the Israelis killed by rockets have been killed in the last year or so."

Which you could still count on your fingers if im not mistaken. The truth is the vast majority of rockets have come from Lebanese terrorists on the Northern border, hundreds a day sometimes and managing to inflict very few casualties. Nothing we are discussing will fix that, but it isnt considered a vital Israeli defense crisis either.

"The range, payload and accuracy is improving. They will claim more lives in future."

And Israeli anti-missile defense is just starting to come on line. There is a heck of a lot better chance of shooting down missiles than stopping snipers from shooting settlers or suicide bombers from sneaking through a checkpoint. And your argument moots itself, if the rockets keep getting better, the extra territory isnt necessary to launch them. If they can hit Israel from where they currently are whats the point in holding the buffer?

"I've never said that the Qassams are a threat on a par with suicide bombers, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored."

Of course they shouldnt be ignored! We arent talking about ignoring them. We are talking about whether holding Gaza and the West Bank is militarilly more valuable than the political and moral dividends of disengagement.

"I don't think we're going to agree on this, because I don't think there's an acceptable level of terrorism."

We agree on that, but what does it mean? If all ends are justifiable to stop it, why does Israel only occupy part of the Territories? Thats a facile, throw away line. Im not saying sit back and grin when you get hit. Im saying you are getting hit and nothing we have discussed will stop that either way, why not at least try something new that holds out some hope for settlement? Or at least cooling some provocations.

"Israel used to administrate all of Yesha, with a single battalion of Border Police patrolling most of Judea and Samaria."

Yes and the Americans held Saigon too, much good as it did them. Meanwhile Israel invaded Lebanon with probably the finest mechanized army ever fielded to the time and was chased out bloodied and exhausted by untrained rabble with AK-47s and RPGs. And i'll quote you 100 more examples of same.

"I'm not saying that, without the PLO things will be peachy. But as it stands, the palestinians do not have a chance. They will continue to be brainwashed by their teachers, incited by their imams and robbed by their 'leaders' - even if there is a palestinian state. "

All true. All completley irrelevant from an Israeli pov because there is nothing they can do about it. Israeli teachers would be murdered, schools blown up, students that attend class disappeared. What are you going to do? Put a squad of infantry in every school in Palestine, barricade it, set up Patriot missile batteries, bomb sniffing dogs, send out roving patrols to round up the kids every day and fight running gun battles in the streets? Escort Israeli teachers in armored caravans too and from the schools every morning? And thats just education! Electricity? Garbage? Plumming? Sewers? Israel simply cannot rule the territories. And even if they could, it would provide more attacks on Israel proper.

Mark, your excessive hyperbole does not address the fact that by pulling out and recognizing a state, Israel may allow the PA to become more of a sanctuary for those terrorists.

"Mark, your excessive hyperbole does not address the fact that by pulling out and recognizing a state, Israel may allow the PA to become more of a sanctuary for those terrorists."

Please let me know what you consider hyperbole. Everything I wrote I find to be dead on accurate. If anything, I understated the bloodletting that would result in Israel trying to directly rule the territories.

Secondly, Palestine is a sanctuary for terrorists now. Only now they have ample targets inside and outside of Israel instead of staring at a 20 foot wall with no gates in it.

Which you could still count on your fingers if im not mistaken. The truth is the vast majority of rockets have come from Lebanese terrorists on the Northern border, hundreds a day sometimes and managing to inflict very few casualties. Nothing we are discussing will fix that, but it isnt considered a vital Israeli defense crisis either.

That's only accurate if we're talking about the 1970s, when the PLO were firing missiles from Lebanon. Hezbollah fires missiles at Israel relatively infrequently - certainly not hundreds a day since an attack in the 1990s.

Back in the 1970s, PLO artillery was concerned a serious threat, even though it claimed relatively few lives. Kids were sleeping in bomb shelters, people were moving further south, etc. Israel was launching airstrikes, sending special forces, using counter-battery fire... They eventually invaded - twice.

And Israeli anti-missile defense is just starting to come on line. There is a heck of a lot better chance of shooting down missiles than stopping snipers from shooting settlers or suicide bombers from sneaking through a checkpoint. And your argument moots itself, if the rockets keep getting better, the extra territory isnt necessary to launch them. If they can hit Israel from where they currently are whats the point in holding the buffer?

This isn't an either/or choice. There are many things Israel could do to stop the flow of arms in to Gaza, and thus the development of improved Qassams. The IDF had an idea a while back for a moat. Worth a look, given this:

The estimated amounts of arms and explosives smuggled in to Gaza in the past four years are: 2,000 kilograms of explosives, 6,700 Kalachnikov rifles (including 5,000 since 2003), 750 anti-tank shell launchers, 33 mortars, 18 submachine guns, 5 anti-aircraft missiles, 580,000 bullets, and dozens of rocket propelled grenades(RPGs).

What is 100% guaranteed is that, after Israel retreats, that flow will increase.

Thats a facile, throw away line. Im not saying sit back and grin when you get hit. Im saying you are getting hit and nothing we have discussed will stop that either way, why not at least try something new that holds out some hope for settlement? Or at least cooling some provocations.

Because this plan is a bad idea. Rather than destroy the terrorist group that has fostered the current situation, the proposal is to give them arms, money and territory. I'm surprised you think that's a new idea.

We are talking about whether holding Gaza and the West Bank is militarilly more valuable than the political and moral dividends of disengagement.

Political dividends? This isn't a popularity contest, and note that as soon as Israel acts like it is, more Israelis die. Moral dividends from whom? The people of no consequence? There's not an inconsistency there?

Israeli teachers would be murdered, schools blown up, students that attend class disappeared. What are you going to do? Put a squad of infantry in every school in Palestine, barricade it, set up Patriot missile batteries, bomb sniffing dogs, send out roving patrols to round up the kids every day and fight running gun battles in the streets? Escort Israeli teachers in armored caravans too and from the schools every morning? And thats just education!

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say the Israel should destroy the PLO.

" I'm surprised you think that's a new idea. "

You're right. It isnt a new idea. The Chinese figured it out thousands of years ago and built one of the most successful defensive innovations in history. A big assed wall.

"Political dividends? This isn't a popularity contest, and note that as soon as Israel acts like it is, more Israelis die."

Everything in life is politics. Dont confuse it with popularity. Israel has its own internal politics to deal with. As dose the US. If Israel goes pell mell steam rolling through the territories, apparantly intending to do so until the end of time, they will lose US support, which means losing US money and influence, which Israel cant abide.

"Moral dividends from whom? The people of no consequence? There's not an inconsistency there?"

No. As I said, if what you are suggesting is physically occupying the territories indefinately (ie forever) the moral consequences will be the breakdown of the professionalism and in some cases sanity of the IDF resulting in its eventual retreat. Its absolutely not a new concept. Read Martin Van Creveld's books (the Pentagon does, and he works for the Israeli military).

Look at it this way, could the US military maintain its status in Iraq if the Iraqis absolutely and completely rejected the occupation, and the insurgency was truly universal? Especially with zero Iraqi cooperation militarilly, police wise, and politically? For how long? How long could we run even the Sunni Triangle if every single individual wanted us out and preferably dead? A year? 5 years? How would the American people respond in such a case if the answer was we will be there indefinately, probably forever? How would our military hold up?
The way it works is that the longer and more violent the situation lasts, the professionalism of our troops breaks down. Its happening even in Iraq to some degree, but it is mitigated by being well recieved by a large portion of Iraqis, being an incredibly professional force, and having a definite goal in sight. But it is happening (recall the bloggers cousin pushed into a river and drowned by US forces). It would happen to the Israelis much faster. You cant be a soldier when your job constantly required you to fear everyone and everything around you. You end up shooting women and children, accidently at first. Maybe not later. In your own mind you stop being a soldier and start being a brigand. Its happened to every occupying army on earth. It would be worse for the Israelis with every hand turned against them and no support from any nation on earth. And for what? What goal? What hope for change? Thats what would break the IDF, where no Arab army ever could. Make no mistake, it would be inevitable. If that is what you are suggesting, it will never happen, because the Israelis of all people (particularly after Lebanon) know that as well.

"I don't think you understand what I mean when I say the Israel should destroy the PLO."

I guess I dont. Who will replace them?

Here's an interview Van Creveld did on just this subject. Mark you he is Israel's formost military theorist.

(regarding the IDF)"Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal."
...
(Interviewer)"to build a gigantic wall.... what.... on the old green line, basically – there’s Gaza – there’s the West Bank – and there’s Israel proper, and they shall never be combined?

Van Creveld: “Never” is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever. But history proves that walls work. The Roman wall – the Limus(?) – worked for hundreds of years... the Great Chinese Wall worked, not forever, but for hundreds of years... the wall in Korea has been working for fity years... the wall between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus is working.... the Berlin Wall worked beautifully.... Unfortunately, the Israeli army insists against all military logic on being present on both sides of the wall. We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall. And then of course, if anybody tries to climb over the wall we kill him.
"

Everything in life is politics. Dont confuse it with popularity. Israel has its own internal politics to deal with.

Who in Israel gets a political dividend for this plan?

As dose the US. If Israel goes pell mell steam rolling through the territories, apparantly intending to do so until the end of time, they will lose US support, which means losing US money and influence, which Israel cant abide.

Americans would oppose Israel destroying the PLO? The administration sure would, but Americans?

No. As I said, if what you are suggesting is physically occupying the territories indefinately (ie forever) the moral consequences will be the breakdown of the professionalism and in some cases sanity of the IDF resulting in its eventual retreat.

They don't need to 'occupy' Yesha forever. I'd prefer 'transfer', but that's beyond all likelihood. So reforming the Arabs is the best way to go. And by that, I don't mean giving more money and guns to Mahmoud Abbas. So long as the kids are taught murder, no wall will be sufficient, and there will be no peace. Until the PLO is destroyed, the kids will be taught to want to be martyrs. The situation now is not due to 'provocations'. It is the result of a concerted campaign of indoctrination and control of the palestinians by the PLO.

Look at it this way, could the US military maintain its status in Iraq if the Iraqis absolutely and completely rejected the occupation, and the insurgency was truly universal? Especially with zero Iraqi cooperation militarilly, police wise, and politically? For how long? How long could we run even the Sunni Triangle if every single individual wanted us out and preferably dead? A year? 5 years?

Pre-Oslo, there was political co-operation with local Arabs, there was economic growth, and there was not the absolute hate demonstrated by the palestinians today. It might have been there, but it wasn't able to manifest itself in anything beyond talk - until the PLO was brought back.

I guess I dont. Who will replace them?

Replace them?

For how long? How long could we run even the Sunni Triangle if every single individual wanted us out and preferably dead? A year? 5 years? How would the American people respond in such a case if the answer was we will be there indefinately, probably forever? How would our military hold up?

The answer is more than a year cause you have been there more than a year and the military isn't holding up, but that is part a training and number problem.

_It is the result of a concerted campaign of indoctrination and control of the palestinians by the PLO. _

Pictures are worth a thousand words. One action are worth a thousand pictures.
It is foolish to believe that the reason why somebody hates you is indoctrination when you just destroyed his house.

The answer is more than a year cause you have been there more than a year and the military isn't holding up

More of that fake leftist "reality" ?

Nope, his point was, if the regime had any support our losses would have been 100 times, what they are, if it wasnt the support we have there our losses would be 100 times what they are.

The elected people that the high turnout voted for say they want us to stay, untill they can go it alone.

Or I suppose you are clinging to some fake reality that the election was a fraud and the words from the elected wasnt said.

Your position is untennable.

It is foolish to believe that the reason why somebody hates you is indoctrination when you just destroyed his house.

It had nothing to do with the arms tunnel comming up thru it right ?

Certainly not, the Joows did it because they are nazis, yeah thats the ticket.. Joows nazis ... Kill the evil Joows !

Tunnel ? what Tunnel ? .. Hey A ... you could always go there and do the Rachel Corrie dive to stop dem evil nazi Joows.

Perhaps you have a different idea what to so with a house covering the end of an arms smuggling tunnel?

Such lies of omission that covers (ineffectually) leftist Jew Hatered gets tiresome.

Mark: Israel simply cannot rule the territories.

Can the PA rule them? Now? Ever?

Sharon seems to be gambling that they can rule Gaza. We'll see, we'll see.

Colt, cant contest that.

As long as they brainwash the young with hate and dreams of blowing themselves up, nothing will change.

The left and the Marxo-Islamist left given birth by the nazis and the KGB, really need to get a new shtick other than hating the jews.

Perhaps Iraq will show them a better way.
Success there is far from certain, but their chances are sure lots better than the lefts beloved palistinian hate factory.

Mark, Colt, interesting discussion.

Mark, in fact, I've been over many of these same points with Colt before. I think it's fair to concede that in the short term, at least, the ability to build up and maintain a terror infrastructure in Gaza is going to be enhanced, and certainly not degraded, by the IDF pulling out from Gaza. I'm not persuaded that the ultimate material military impact of this enhanced terror capacity will be negligable, wall or no wall. The fear of this inevitable new wave of terror is already developing in Israel I'm told. It's certainly fair for Colt to demand some concrete accounting for what the dividends for disengagement might be.

Colt, I think the dividends are these:

• the morale of the IDF itself. I think Mark has made a good case here. Recalling the situation pre-Oslo is I think somewhat misleading. The whole situation was permanently changed by the first intifadah, and yes, I believe the IDF was demoralized by that episode. At least in the initial stages, the first intifadah wasn't led by the PLO. After that, the status quo ante was never a realistic option in the territories. And the complete destruction of the PLO, presumably consisting of the liquidation of the itransigent and the deporation or incarceration of the balance, is not a realistical political possibility, regardless of the ultimate justice such a solution would provide. IMHO Basically there is close to nothing that Israel can realistically do about the level of incitement and hatred in the territories, and so for the IDF to shorten the lines and errect a barrier is ultimately to the benefit of the IDF itself.
• political dividends among "those who matter": Again, regardless of the arguments for the validity of continued Israeli occupation of the territories, I think that there are a substantial number of people in the US and Israel who consider themselves supporters of Israel and still believe disengagement is the right thing to do. I don't want to argue if this is right or wrong, I'm just making the point to Colt that yes, disengagement has support in the US, and Israel too. What this dividend has to amount to must be something more than "more Israelis have to risk death from a Gaza terror state so people will like us better". What the payoff has to be robust and unflinching support for Israeli actions taken in self defense, ultimately resulting in greater safety for the Israeli public. Reasonable people may disagree about the necessity and eventuality of such a payoff, but this is currently my assesment.

The problem is the scope of the political dividend is necessarily limited. I think Mark dismisses the political reality and cost of anti-Israeli intransigence in the EU a bit too readily. I doubt that even complete evacuation to a scrupulously surveyed green line vintage '67 will not quiet the anti-zionist agitators and boycotters one bit, if anything it will excite them further. There are costs to political, economic and academic isolation which a nuclear second strike capability cannot remedy. This may have real consequences down the road. Nonetheless, I feel that while this dividend may not be sufficient, it is necessary to obtain.

Finally, with respect to the idea of a referendum, I've been persuaded that Sharon is wrong not to hold one; his imperious political style is not winning him friends even among those who support his ideas.

"Replace them?"

How and with whom. What are you suggesting? Liquidate Abbas? Ok, then what? Install a puppet regime? Which Palestinian walking corpse volunteers for that job? Leave them to their own devices? Hamas takes over, leading inevitably to all the fears you yourself have outlined. Liquidate Hamas? Jihad takes over. Repeat ad nauseum.

Here are the choices then:
1.Disengage and defend Israel via the wall, knowing that terrorist infastructure will be somewhat enhanced but expecting that enhancement will at the end of the day fail to compensate for the loss of access to Israel enjoyed by the status quo. This option also allows some (perhaps small i grant) measure of control over the Abbas government via the US and international community. If the Pals want US dollars, they will have to make some kind of effort to limit terrorism. Palestinians lose the incitement of seeing Israeli soldiers in the street day by day, which is something.

2.Maintain the status quo, hunting terrorists where possible, completing sections of the wall, and without question enduring the continued level of attacks if not greater. The Palestinian government does nothing to even pretend to erode the terrorist groups, and the US does little to motivate them to. No hope for a future change.

3.Liquidate the current legitimately elected Pal leadership.

Worst case:
It is replaced by chaos led by Hamas. Fight against Hamas, which is interminable. Palestinian civilian casualties are heavy in the fighting. Many in the US are unhappy and domestic US support drops somewhat. Level of money pumped from the ME to terrorist groups skyrockets. Quite possibly previously ambivalent Egypt and Jordan go from looking the other way to actively supporting terrorist groups with weapons and funds. Terrorist capabilities increase.

Best case:
It is replaced by a similar clone, actively pissed off at Israels actions and with world support. Back to status quo but with Hamas riding high and increasing attacks. Liquidate this regime too? How many can you liquidate? So either you are left with shrugging and letting the Pals go their own way (which will be Hamas), or you are back to Israel trying to actively govern the territories, which is suicide.

So whats wrong with this analysis?

"Can the PA rule them? Now? Ever?

Sharon seems to be gambling that they can rule Gaza. We'll see, we'll see."

If they cant the whole point becomes academic. Israel is stuck with a terrorist neighbor across the wall from them, end of story. If they cant rule themselves Israel certainly cant rule them.

Look, if Israel pulls back to the Green Line and minds their own business, as far as im concerned they are more than entitled to shoot anybody trying to cross it, and for that matter i wouldnt blame them for replying to missile and mortar attacks by leveling the city block it came from with artillery. Thats how nations work. Thats soveriegnty. This being on both sides of the border business just screws up that whole dynamic. Militarilly its idiotic. Politically its stupid and counterproductive.

The claim that by providing strategic and tactical advantage to an enemy that has sworn to destroy it---and believes it can do so---Israel is not only doing the moral thing but the smart thing, might seem, to some at least, to exude more than a hint of the absurd.

Then again, perhaps not, since this is, after all, the middle east, with its ever-shifting dunes, its mirages and jinns; and where it is not at all ethical, let alone realistic, to demand that a government show consideration to its own people, let alone its enemy (especially if the demand is poorly worded, questionably phrased, or awkwardly written). Certainly, the Palestinians have their priorities, and who are we to judge?

Ah well, it won't have been the first time that the popular wisdom has laid the groundwork for a bloodbath.

"The claim that by providing strategic and tactical advantage to an enemy"

Only in the most Orwellian of worlds is trying to hold parts of Gaza and the WB strategically and tactically sound. Its the equivalent of dropping paratroopers behind enemy lines, does it have its uses? Yes. Is it sound to expect them to hold out indefinately? NO. Even an amateur should be able to see that falling back to hold a sound, contiguous line is superior to spreading your forces all over the place on missions with unclear objectives.

Let me clarify that last post as well as apologize if the tone inadvertently seemed superior. I admit that pulling back to the wall or preferably the Green Line gives certain advantages to the terrorist groups. Mainly they are a few miles closer to Israel proper. The point is that the advantages the IDF gains by utterly nullifying the sniper and bomber threat (which have far and away done the most damage and inflicted the most casualties) is much greater, giving the Israelis a relative tactical advantage.
To suggest terrorists will suddenly have new havens is true but unimportant. They have havens now, there are no new facilities or anything else they gain that they dont already have deeper in the West Bank and Gaza. The only legitimate advantage gained is getting a few miles closer to Israel itself to launch mortar and missile attacks. As has been pointed out, that advantage is inevitable as their technology slowly improves. Moreover that is an issue that Israel has been rapidly addressing with their anti-missile systems. Tactically Israel ends up in a much stronger position than they started in. Strategically they end up in a tenable position which is the main problem now.

Sharon is first of all a general.

He promised a win in Stupidfada II when no one thought that possible (remember nearly daily bombing?). All he would say then is he had a plan and the people must trust him. And the people screamed back "what is the plan?" and Sharon was silent. Well he had a plan and it worked. Why should this be any different?

I think he is planning to give Gaza back in August with an eye towards retaking it sans Palestinians after September/November when the Palis start Stupidfada III.

The fence is a mobile barrier. It can be moved. He can take a little back after every attack.

I think he likes the Pali slogan: "From the River to the Sea". He just has a different concept of who will be in control and where the current Arab residents might prefer to live.

I have been sayingthis since he announced the withdrawal a year or so ago.

Sharon will change means. Not objectives.

#19,

The settlements are not illegal. They were built on land formerly owned by the states of Jordan and Egypt which have renounced their claim. So far there is no soverign government over the area where the towns were built. It is officially occupied territory. However since the former owners (who owned it in contravention to the UN resolution creating Israel) no longer claim it and because Israel won it in what they claim was a defensive war (well closing the Straights of Tirana was officially the first overt act of war even though it was only the threat of force since as I recall Israel did not try to run the blockade) they can dispose of the territories as they please. Spoils of war and all that. Now they are kind enough to offer the territory they don't want to its current and former inhabitants. Quite an unusual move historically (except for America)

Now there is no doubt that the Palis want their territory Jew free. It does make the settlements part of a dispute. That is not the same as illegal.

So far the quartet is still operating on the principle that attacks on Israel must cease before a Palestinian State can be recognized oficially.

The longer the Palis prolong the war the worse deal they will get. Which is only fair.

BTW,

MAW I read the situation the same as you do.

The land is a tactical tool.

I think our only point of difference is the ultimate outcome. And of course once the fighting resumes the outlines will become clearer after a few months.

The Iraqi suicide squads have killed 150 in the last few days.

How many Jews will the PLO have to kill to draw attention from Iraq?

I think the D-9 CAT is the weapon of choice in the coming struggle. The longer the range of the rockets the bigger the fire lanes.

ISM and the CAT investors vote were not accidents. They were strategic moves.

#7 Barry Meislin,

You are entirely correct and for the reasons you state. Peace is not on the table.

Thus to get peace Sharon must drive the Palis out of Gaza and out of the territories.

It will be interesting to see how he does this.

"The settlements are not illegal. They were built on land formerly owned by the states of Jordan and Egypt which have renounced their claim. "

Im not going to argue the point. The term 'illegal' points to some legal authority, internationally only the UN has such authority, there are numerous UN resolutions condemning the settlements as illegal. If international law doesnt matter to you whether its legal or not is pointless to argue. Pragmatically they are a bad idea and morally they are repugnant.

"Thus to get peace Sharon must drive the Palis out of Gaza and out of the territories."

The only way to do this is ethnic cleansing which will be resisted with human shields, and hence the only way to do this is essentially via genocide. I suspect the IDF would balk at being asked to grab Palestinian school kids by the hair and toss them into the Jordan. Beyond causing a political civil war with the still strong liberal Israeli wing, such an act would end the current relations with Egypt and Jordan, cause every other Arab nation to kick Hamas and Hezbollah funding into highest gear, almost certainly cause a worldwide embargo of Israel that the US might well join, and create a strong drive in the US to end military funding of Israel. There would be a strong international push for peacekeepers, and should the US kill the initiative ethnic cleansing would never be stood up to by the international community again. The natient Lebanese democracy would likely be taken over by Hezbollah, and the repurcussions would be felt in Iraq. Madness.

sorry, folks, when you start advocating "transfer," you lose all moral standing.

If you were not going to argue the point, Mark, then why did you argue the point? The reality is that the arab states and the PLO have never negotiated with Israel to formally recognize its borders - and until they do, claims that settlements are or are not within Israel's soverignty are specious.

praktike, oddly enough your little "rule" doesn't seem to apply to the Palestinians who often advocate "transfer". And then toss in the implication of moral equivalence and I find that your "rule" doesn't impress me.

"If you were not going to argue the point, Mark, then why did you argue the point?"

Because i cant resist. By your logic the Israelis could simply annex the entire territory, which it sounds like some folks are advocating. Look, im pro-Israel, but that doesnt mean I want to see millions of Palestinians either living under the IDFs thumb or cast out into the wilderness. We might as well push all the Sunnis into Syria if we think we're so high and mighty we can start laying judgement down on who deserves what and to hell with what is fair.

"praktike, oddly enough your little "rule" doesn't seem to apply to the Palestinians who often advocate "transfer"."

Thats probably because the Palestinians have no possible mechanism for affecting such a thing, while the Israelis have the ability to at least try it (it would be a bloody debacle). I have to assume the stuff im hearing is emotionalism, which I sympathize with. Because realistically its horrific and nothing short of group punishment, if not a death sentance for thousands of Palestinians, many of them completely innocent.

Mark, you write:

The term 'illegal' points to some legal authority, internationally only the UN has such authority

So, before the UN, there was no such thing as international law? Interesting. And international law is whatever UN resolutions say? Also interesting.

These are very novel interpretations of the term "international law". I can see why you don't want to discuss it.

As for Praktike's comment about transfer advocates losing all moral standing, population transfer is actually a well-established option for resolving problems of this type. Its modern day use in Greece-Turkey, Pakistan-India, and recently Kosovo (essentially, "transfer" of the Serbs out under NATO's aegis) makes one wonder what makes Israel so unique. Other than being inhabited by Jews.

By the way, whatever happened to all those Germans in Czechesolvakia? I seem to recall quite a fuss over that issue a few decades ago. There do seem to be fewer of them now, though.

Even more recently, most of the Palestinians in Kuwait were deported after they supported that country's enemies in wartime.

I guess I'm waiting for the moral outcry.

[sound of crickets chirping]

Hmmm....

Now, whether transfer is practical or preferred in Israel's situation are different questions. At the present time and for the forseeable near future, they are neither. And moral considerations are definitely part of that case.

But there are extreme circumstances that could - legitimately - change Israel's assessment of the strategic and moral imperatives around transfer. A sober and fair analysis needs to acknowledge that reality.

Which means it's a fair topic for discussion and disagreement.

In the end, however, the Palestinians will make their own future through their own choices. They can have a better one, and it can involve their own state and a geunine peace that a large majority of Israelis are happy to give... if they want a better future enough to give up the current war of officially-fostered hate and blood cult idolatry in Allah's name.

There are still some complications, of course. After all, there are all kinds of Arab potentates who find the Palestinians far too convenient as a distraction - peace is a price they can't afford, which is why it will never happen if they can help it. That's why I suspect the Israeli/Palestinian problem will be solved as a byproduct broader changes in the region, rather than as a catalyst for them.

But even in that scenario, democracy and liberty among the Palestinians do work in a number of positive ways. They'll help the Palestinians realize that they and not others can control their future, make their representatives accountable for the costs of their chosen path, and thus make good faith dialogue possible. All of which improve their odds of a better future.

Just as continued tyranny will lower those odds to near the vanishing point, and keep the Palestinians trapped in their externally-designated role as the Arabs' captive cannon fodder.

"So, before the UN, there was no such thing as international law? Interesting."

No. I dont believe the term existed before the 20th century. There were various treaties and alliances, balances of power, but certainly there was no thought that 'we as a nation cant do such and such because its illegal'. Impractical, unwise, immoral perhaps, but certainly not illegal in any sense that we think about it. No one thought twice when British ships turned their guns on Chinese ports or American fleets sailed into Toyko harbor. You can get away with it, you can do it. I would think the history of colonialism should make that quite clear.

"And international law is whatever UN resolutions say? Also interesting."

What else is there? Are you suggesting there is some sort of nebulous law outside the UN? I dont hold much stock in international law either, but I certainly dont pretend that if it doesnt exist inside the UN it exists anywhere else. Who dictates it? Who enforces it? By what authority?

"These are very novel interpretations of the term "international law". I can see why you don't want to discuss it."

Novel? I find them practically universally accepted. Dont mistake treaty and custom with law.

"As for Praktike's comment about transfer advocates losing all moral standing, population transfer is actually a well-established option for resolving problems of this type."

I could also add Kosovo, Rhwanda, and the Sudan to the list. If you dont take the International laws and treaties against ethnic cleansing seriously, i should hope you might find some sliver of a moral problem with setting millions of women and children adrift and homeless. Do the Palestinian kiddies get to keep their teddy bears when you set them into the Sinai?

"By the way, whatever happened to all those Germans in Czechesolvakia? I seem to recall quite a fuss over that issue a few decades ago. There do seem to be fewer of them now, though."

I pray you arent equating Nazi conquest with Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. I might ask you if the French had a good idea with their export scheme of Jews the Germans helped them out with during the period. 'Transfer' indeed has a full history.

"Even more recently, most of the Palestinians in Kuwait were deported after they supported that country's enemies in wartime."

Two wrongs make a right? Funny, I doubt you are so glib about the jews cast adrift from so many nations over the centuries.

"I guess I'm waiting for the moral outcry."

Outcry.

"But there are extreme circumstances that could - legitimately - change Israel's assessment of the strategic and moral imperatives around transfer. A sober and fair analysis needs to acknowledge that reality."

I might suggest defining exactly what such an act would entail before going any further in leaving such an option open. Are there any amount of Palestinian bodies that might turn your nose from such an event? I'd just like to set a baseline, because it should be plainly obvious that this sort of ethnic cleansing would result in a bloodbath. I dont care what the justification, if Canadian troops tried to toss my family including my baby sister out of Chicago and into Mexico the streets would run Maple. Whatever the justification.

"Which means it's a fair topic for discussion and disagreement."

Again, I have my doubts about how fair you would find it if we were having the same conversation about European jews at practically any point in history.

On the upside, everything else you said I agree with.

And by the way, i want to see which one of you crusaders will be the first to kick in the Palestinian families door, put your rifle to the fathers head, flex cuff the wife, and throw the toddler over your shoulder before loading them into the flatbed for their trip to the border. I advise you to think damn carefully the practical implications of what is being suggested here. I dont know to feel worse for the family or the poor teenage IDF soldier you want to order to do this thing. Maybe ponying up sunscreen for the Palestinians and a lifetime worth of psychological counseling for the soldier would assuage some of the guilt.

What else is there?

Agreements that sovereign nations enter into, either bilaterally or in a multilateral framework.

"Agreements that sovereign nations enter into, either bilaterally or in a multilateral framework."

Agreements are not law, by definition. If I agree to help my neighbor move and dont show up, i havent broken the law.

Mark, there's no nice way to put this... you're talking out of your hat, with zero knowledge of the subject. Actually, it's below zero - because you have reality precisely inverted.

Formal agreements between states do indeed have the force of law when adopted by those states. These laws have limits (for example, a treaty or international agreement cannot supersede the US constitution in the USA or with respect to its official agents), but THEY make up the vast majority of what we mean by "International Law." There are also rules and decisions built up over hundreds of years in some narrow areas, such as Maritime Law re: international waters.

The UN General Assembly has NO power of law.

Read that again. None. Zip. Nada. Its resolutions are non-binding.

Which, if you look at its resolutions over the years, is a good thing. The Soviet Union did not get to define "international law" duering the Cold War when the UN largely danced to its tune, and the present collection of third-world thugs and kleptocrats currently ensconced there do not get to do so now.

The Security Council also does not make law, though it can carry out military operations to enforce its decisions.

That's reality. Before you respond, if you respond, I'd strongly recommend going beyond your prejudices and doing some serious research.

"Mark, there's no nice way to put this... you're talking out of your hat, with zero knowledge of the subject. Actually, it's below zero - because you have reality precisely inverted.

That's reality. Before you respond, if you respond, I'd strongly recommend going beyond your prejudices and doing some serious research."

Joe, out of respect for you, im going to ignore that pointless provocation based entirely on semantics. Please refrain from telling me what I dont know.

Moreover I dont intend to take lecture on international law from someone with a straightface giving ethnic cleansing serious consideration.

There, thats twice today i claimed not to do something and proceeded immediately to do it.

I'm not going to comment one way or the other in this thread re: population transfers.

But to follow up on the question of international law, it is the case that insofar as there is such a thing, it is embodied in and takes it authority from multilateral treaties and related agreements entered into by sovereign states.

Whether that is good or not good might be the subject of a debate. But that is what is in place today.

States may choose to bind themselves and may set up coordinating mechanisms for that purpose. But a careful look at such agreements shows that states seldom bind themselves in ways that leave no options, i.e. that abrogate fundamental sovreignty.

Mark,

OK ethnic cleansing is a dirty word.

Let us call it relocation and give bonuses.

Irreconsilable differences.

Even under the corrupt Arafat the Israeli and Pali economies were integrating in 4 years unemplyment in the Pali areas went from about 35% to about 15%. Very bad if you need a war.

So where are the first Pali attacks? Check points. Arafat needed to strangle the Pali economy to increase his power and get willing recruits for his jihad army on the cheap.

When dealing with folks like that who may manage to stay in power for another 15 to 25 years with all the mayhem that implies I think relocation bonuses are a swell idea.

The King of Jordan can deal more harshly with the Palistinians than the Israelis can. Move them to Jordan for house training. Lessons in civilization. Its not just for Moslems any more.

#57,

I want to thank you for pointing out that some truly evil shit gets done during war.

Moving people is less evil than killing them.

Nobody is going to like it.

Sadly it is not an unusual solution for people who have trouble living together.

My personal prefrence would be for an integrated Israeli - Pali economy. A lot of talent there. But the Palis don't seem to want to go in that direction. There will be consequences. Most unfortunate.

In any case I don't see most of the moving being done by men with guns. I expect buldozers to be the weapon of choice.

Several points for clarification (or obfuscation, depending on one's predilections):

1. The Palestinians have decided that the strategy to achieve Israel's eradication, which officially begun with the PLO's inception in 1964 (or 1965), but which, by necessity, evolved into its current, more sophisticated, phase, inaugurated by Arafat's acceptance of the Oslo accords (though the strategy underpinning this latest phase was formulated quite a bit prior to 1993), is a battle to the finish.

(Understandably, there are many who do not wish to believe that this is so. One may sympathize; but I would contend that the longer the conflict continues without resolution, the more such observers will conclude, perhaps sadly, perhaps reluctantly, that Israel, unable to make peace with the Palestinians, has lost its right to exist. Keeping in mind that winning hearts and minds is just another element factored into this war of attrition.)

2. The Palestinians have further concluded that they cannot possibly lose this war, no matter how long it may take, simply because while they have every intention of destroying Israel, it will not be possible for Israel to destroy them (or rather, Israel will be prevented from doing so) because, as the late and much lamented Dr. Rantisi stated before his demise, "Israelis love life too much" (all things being relative, of course), and/or because Israel will not be ALLOWED to do so even if it wanted to or felt it had to.

(If this phenomenon is a bit hard to grasp, one possible, if imperfect, way to explain it is to cite the political battle for Quebec independence, whereby Quebec can hold a referendum for independence every so often, and lose; though in losing, instead of suffering---i.e., suffering more than grim disappointment, grief or outrage---reap significant political and economic benefits; until, after judging that the time is ripe to hold another referendum, it ultimately wins one. And all Quebec has to do is win just once. No, not exactly a perfect analogy.)

3. Keeping this in mind (though there are all kinds of reasons why all kinds of people might not want to), one might begin to see the advantage, from the point of view of (certain?) Palestinians, of perpetuating the conflict, and especially perpetuating the view of Palestinian suffering as a result of Israel's inability to achieve peace (rather than as a result of Palestinian refusal to agree to Israel's existence. Or rather than the result of Palestinian refusal to found a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. Or rather a refusal to agree to a state that does not threaten Israel's existence.)

Certainly, while the conflict continues, Israel suffers morale-wise, economically, militarily, diplomatically, her citizens are killed and maimed, tensions are exacerbated to the breaking point, tourism is battered, people leave for, hopefully, quieter pastures. And Israel continues to be savaged by progressive, humane people worldwide, led by a pious media, on a mission to make life better for all forms of life on this planet (even to the extent of having to, alas, bend the truth, on occasion to achieve this noble aim).

The best of all possible worlds. Keeping in mind, that we are in this for the long haul. That we are willing to wait as long as we have to. That we are willing to suffer as long as it is necessary to reach the goal.

(Why, given the goals, should the Palestinians in their right mind want to end this state of affairs?)

4. It might seem rather curious that the same people who are outraged by the idea of transferring Palestinians do not seem to be too concerned about Palestinian designs on Israel---or to give much credence to other horrors around the world for that matter (but to be fair, Israel-Palestine is THE conflict of world-destroying dimensions, isn't it? And it would be so easily
resolved if all Israel would do---or be forced to do---is give the Palestinians what they, justifiedly, want.)

One reason for this, I imagine, is that they don't believe that Israel is vulnerable---or ever could be---to Palestinian designs (though of course, it's better policy to deny such designs in the first place). That Israel is the aggressor, that Palestinians are the underdog. Of course, this is a view that Palestinians would certainly want to perpetuate. But why would Israelis? (Unless, of course, they're merely a perverse race.)

And one would tend to agree that the idea of transfer is a horrifying one, particularly when no context is provided regarding Palestinians designs vis a vis Israel and especially when the potential alternative of mass slaughter of
Palestinians---and Israelis (though Israeli blood would be far less bemoaned, generally speaking)---is so avidly ignored. (Might wish that hundreds of millions march to protest Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which it has already pledged to destroy Israel, even if it also means destroying Palestine? Thought not. Foolish me.)

5. To this end, one might begin to understand Sharansky's (partisan?) efforts to enable Israel's continued existence by attempting to promote a responsible Palestinian political fabric, one that would actively engage in helping Palestinians improve their lives and their lot, and provide them with opportunities for doing so. To give them a certain control over their destinies (all things being equal), instead of offering them the cul-de-sac of endless conflict, endless victimization, endless poverty.

At the same time, how dare Sharansky even try this obstructionist shtick, this transparent piece of slick political, neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist, and needless to say, orientalist posturing? One can understand the outrage. For why try to absolve Israel of its responsibility for this continuing human catastrophe (even allowing that West Bank Arabs, until the latest intifada, were on the whole, better educated---with more access to universities---better fed, often more affluent, healthier, and politically more free than many of their brethren throughout the Arab world---but yes, I realize that this point is totally irrelevant, and the mere making of it unspeakably vile).

6. So that while one may have certain sympathy with the view that Israel should, for its own good as well as to move things forward (though one might be tempted to ask, "which things?"), withdraw from Gaza and (most of? much of? all of?) the West Bank, even without any guarantee that this will satisfy Palestinian demands (in fact, the opposite) and then see how things develop, being ever vigilant, and prepared to meet force with force, "should" it be necessary, it is, in fact, the exact opposite of prudence to do so, given the certitude of points 1 and 2, above---or at least to do so without knowing beforehand, clearly, that a great many Israelis and more, perhaps, Palestinians, will die as a result.

And perhaps even plunge the region into another bloodier round (though should this happen, it would appear that Iran will be even more justified than ever in putting an end to the Zionist Entity.)

Which should, perhaps, prompt the question: Why are so many so absolutely eager that such a scenario materialize. (Though I suppose one could counter that no one, certainly no one in their right mind, expected Germany to attack Poland once it was satiated with Czechoslovakia.)

But then, even Abba Eban (he of "Auschwitz border" fame)---letting his humanism, optimism and wit get in the way of his tremendous intelligence---was unable to grasp that the Palestinians, in fact, could not be said to have ever missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity simply because (contrary to his projection) for them, the possibility of living in a state side by side with Israel was never regarded as an "opportunity" in the first. Actually, the idea was anathema---to be utterly and forever rejected (unless, pace Oslo, it could be used to enable the ultimate goal).

7. To conclude, it does appear, therefore, that Israel will, for a variety of reasons, all of them rational ones, good ones, understandable ones, pro-active ones, withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. As a result, a certain level of Israeli internecine obstruction will occur (though one hopes it is not too incendiary). At the same time, this action, this gesture, this tactic will not, ultimately, reduce Palestinian appetites. The noose will continue to tighten.

Still, some will say that by breaking the logjam, even at the result of more death and destruction, it is a worthy attempt and that those warning against the pitfalls need to be brought back down to earth. I don't doubt it.

Robin: "it is embodied in and takes it authority from multilateral treaties and related agreements entered into by sovereign states."

Like I said, this has devolved into a semantic argument. What you just described is in many ways the opposite of a law. Laws are imposed upon entire groups, not only those who choose to sign up for them. Laws require some sort of arbiter, theoretically neutral.
Lets make this real simple, leaving aside the UN charter, someone please cite me the legal document in question entitling Israel to the territories. Being 'international law' I assume it's written down somewhere?

M Simon: "OK ethnic cleansing is a dirty word.

Let us call it relocation and give bonuses."

No. I dont think i'll give you that option. Call a spade a spade. The mental gymnastics you guys are going through to try justifying all these things doesnt change the bottom line. Let me make this crystal clear, most every atrocity ever committed was justified in exactly the way you folks are trying to justify this suggestion. The 'oh, lets just call it something else' game is hardly new. I assure you, the Soviets starving millions in the Ukraine had all kinds of sound arguments and fancy terminology attached to why in this particular instance, what every decent human being knows to be horrific is in fact just, indeed humane! Does anyone doubt Andrew Jackson had every argument in the world for why the Trail of Tears was for the best interest of all involved?

Again, I urge you all to actually think about the reality of what you are arguing. The level of brutality required to uproot millions of civilians from their homes and set them adrift is not something to be shrugged off as a logistics puzzle. Do you really want to be the one holding the rifle to the old womans head as she stumbles to the truck, trying to grab whatever tiny remainder of her life she can