Deputy PM: More Withdrawals After Disengagement

"The four Jewish towns in northern Samaria which the government will dismantle as part of the disengagement plan are not going to be the only ones,” Deputy PM Ehud Olmert declared today.

Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whom many consider to be Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s ‘trial-balloon dispatcher,’ told Army Radio today that Israel will retreat from many more Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria than those included in the Prime Minister’s disengagement plan.

Olmert made the comments while touring the separation fence in the area near Modiin. He assured reporters that, despite the fierce opposition to the Prime Ministers disengagement plan, the withdrawals from Gaza and parts of the northern Samaria would indeed take place, and be but a prelude of things to come.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s words are sure to rattle some supporters of the disengagement plan who believed previous claims that a withdrawal from Gaza would strengthen Israel’s diplomatic position, ensuring that Jews could remain in Judea and Samaria.

Olmert implied that if the Prime Minister succeeded in carrying out the Gaza withdrawal, it would actually speed up the withdrawal process in Judea and Samaria. "The government is going to get rid of many settlements, and not just those willing to leave, in order to combat the daily disagreements with the nations of the world." Olmert was apparently referring to widely publicized statements by some members of the four northern Samaria communities (Homesh, Sa-Nur, Ganim and Kadim) expressing their desire to leave willingly and receive compensation.

Later, while touring the Samaria Jewish communities of Nili and Naaleh, Olmert assured reporters that changes would be made in the route of the separation fence to improve its effect on the P.A. Arab population.

Olmert also stressed that PM Sharon would succeed in garnering the approval of the Likud Central Committee this Wednesday for bringing the Labor party into the coalition, in order to attain approval for the withdrawal plan. Many in the central committee, even those supporting the Prime Minister’s policies, virulently oppose Labor joining the government. Sharon has already announced that the opinion of the committee does not bind him to any particular course of action.

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) responded to Olmert’s revelations saying he knew all along that Prime Minister Sharon was merely tricking people into supporting a limited withdrawal, while preparing to foist the next one upon them. “This is only the first course in the poisoned meal Sharon and Olmert intend on feeding the residents of Israel,” Eldad said.

The rabbit comes out of the hat. It is just that the real rightwing opposes the moves of Sharon and his government. Let us hope the rightwing in Israel succeed in stopping this.

2 posted on 08/12/2004 10:38:32 PM PDT by yonif ("So perish all Thine enemies, O the Lord" - Judges 5:31)

why are you so hostile to Sharon ? ("real right wing") I think you are forgetting that many supporters of likud aren't orthodox but secular people who detest Islamic terror but have zero sympathy for most of the settlers. I think you are confusing fighting Islamic terror with supporting the radical settlers.

In case you don't know, the Likud's ideological base supports the "settlers" and there are religious people in it. In fact the center of the party voted against Sharon's plan, though he ignored it.

4 posted on 08/12/2004 11:14:21 PM PDT by yonif ("So perish all Thine enemies, O the Lord" - Judges 5:31)

I don't see your logic where you say you support fighting Islamic terror, but on the other hand want the land of those "radical settlers" given to islamic terror as a futher expansion of their base...

I'm 100% opposed to Islamic terror . I just don't think every outpost should be defended at all costs. I also support most settlers. However they do place enormous demands on the limited military resources. I agree with you in the bigger picture( fighting Islamic terrorists) just differ on the specifics

I'm 100% opposed to Islamic terror . I just don't think every outpost should be defended at all costs. I also support most settlers. However they do place enormous demands on the limited military resources. I agree with you in the bigger picture( fighting Islamic terrorists) just differ on the specifics

Most of the "settlements" are not outposts but cities and towns. They are defended as if they were Tel-Aviv, Ashdod, Sderot and Ashkelon.

6 posted on 08/12/2004 11:55:13 PM PDT by yonif ("So perish all Thine enemies, O the Lord" - Judges 5:31)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.