Replies

The Palis don't need anything to support their "argument", their argument is "death to the Jews".

What you fail to see is that the Israelis aren't arguing with the Palistinians. At any point in the last 40 years Israel could have quickly and efficiently driven all of the Palis into the sea. Israel's argument has always been with the few allies that believe in its right ot exist (forget Europe... think Britain and the US). It is an argument based on how Israel should respond to the Palis. The weak-kneed liberals in the State Dept have always asserted that Pali violence is a product of Israeli expansion, and they have used the plausibility of this to sway government and public opinion. What Sharon's actions do is remove the plausibility. When Cindy Sheehan says that the Iraq war is for oil and Haliburton, no one believes her, because simply observable facts contradict her points. Now the State Dept finds itself in the same place: they won't stop claiming that Israeli expansion is what "causes" Pali violence, but it will be as unbelievable as Cindy Sheehan.

You're mistake is in assuming that the Palis matter. They don't, and never have. No sensible Israeli gov't would take a moment to consider whether Israel's actions will reduce Pali terrorism, because nothing will. They must focus on what will give them a free hand to deal with it. That's the argument that matters, and it is the one that is being won with this move...

" They must focus on what will give them a free hand to deal with it. That's the argument that matters, and it is the one that is being won with this move..."

- I agree 100% with your assessment. The argument that the Palestinians don't matter and never did (militarily at least) is correct. However, their "cause" has been a rallying cry for Islamofascists in every mosque worldwide for years now and their anti Jewish closet supporters in Europe have been onside with them every step of the way.
In a pinch, Israel could reoccupy the Gaza in a day if they ever wanted to.
In the meantime, terrorist attacks against Israel can no longer be justified as a "liberation movement" and those who continue to support them can now be seen for what they truly are - racists.
Just as an aside, although the US is keeping very quiet about the whole Gaza situation, I wonder just how big a role the Bush Administration played in convincing Sharon to take the actions he did? I bet it was a hell of a lot more than Clinton did when he brought his daughter Chelsea in to Camp David to help iron out the details of his failed peace negotiations with Arafat.
Throughout 8 years in office, Clinton's foreign policy adventures are now seen to be just delaying actions for matters that Bush is now trying to clear up. I'm convinced that the reason for this is that Clinton governed by polls. Unable to take international polls, he was paralyzed by indecision and opted instead for world apology tours which were highly popular but useless.

The state department is simply reflecting the wishes of the Arab state and European left pressure brought to bear upon them. Israel does not need the approval of Saudis to deal with the Palis any way they choose. Nor does our president need the approval of the European left to instruct his secretary of state to take whatever position he chooses. They are not in fact taking sensible positions, and the reason they aren't is pure pressure for appeasement, nothing else. You can wriggle into pretzels all you want. None of the actors opposed to Israel's existence are appeasable. None of the rhetoric matters. When you surrender, you are asked to surrender more, that is all. We are paying the murderers hundreds of millions a year, it is ridiculous to claim we are cleverly manipulating the situation. Transparently, we are the ones being manipulated.