I wasn’t disagreeing with you, though I don’t think 242 is the reason for the withdrawal. IMO it’s the first stage of an essentially unilateral solution to the conflict, in the event that a “peace partner” doesn’t emerge. Presuming the Palestinians refuse to disarm the terror groups, I’d expect to see the delineation of defacto borders in the West Bank as well, accompanied by a similar withdrawal. As to the US, I don’t think we’re pressuring Israel in Gaza, that’s essentially an Israeli initiative, though I’m sure GWB is pleased. My point was that the fact that the new state must be Judenrein argues against the probability that a successful “democratic” state will emerge, defining “democratic” as preferably pro-Western but at least non-expansionist, rather than the terrorists get to elect a terrorist government.
To Carton253...Resolution 242, and all other resolutions, became null and void from the moment the Palestinians began strapping on bomb belts and blowing up Israelis four years ago. Through this terror war against Israel, which has taken 1,500 Jewish lives, plus thousands more permanently wounded, the Arabs have forfeited any rights to 242 and other such legalisms. The author, Jack Engelhard, makes his point swiftly and brilliantly, as usual. What did you have for breakfast?