A Calamity for Israel

Washington Post ^ | January 6, 2006 | Charles Krauthammer

[fish hawk]

I'm just projecting on what he has already given away. And I am not suggesting that Sharon didn't do good with the "wall" and other things in the past. But the reason I mentioned Murtha is that he once too was a good Marine, but not now. Things change and so do people. And by the way, does it make you feel superior to keep questioning my intelligence on each of your replies? Because you disagree with my point of view does not make me an idiot. I'm sure there are quite a few Freepers that would agree with my point and not yours. Does that make all of them intellectually challenged?

[Sabramerican]

For the same reason that while you, I, and others here in early 2000, and prior, were writing here about the calamity that OSLO will bring upon Israel, Israelis were still deluding themselves with hope. Even Rightists who should have known better. Even in my Right wing family.

They are desperate for peace and clutching at straws. Even as the straw ignites.

Plus add the Arab vote. The nominal Jews. The Leftists. The significant percentage of any population that is just plain ignorant and stupid. Many voting don't have Israel's best interests at heart.

[American in Israel]

The same way Labor was on track to win 70% of the election by polls, but lost by about the same margin.

[American in Israel]

Very well said. Now the question we will never know, is did Sharon have help in destroying both Israel and his health?

[Sabramerican]

Ironically this medical event will cement his legacy as a great man. He will not be blamed for the consequence of his recent actions.

Like Kennedy and Viet Nam.

Like Rabin and OSLO.

When the inevitable bad consequences occur it will be said that had Sharon been able to continue on his path, all would have worked out well.

He won't be blamed. Lucky him.

[SevenMinusOne]

Your first post was to compare a man of Sharon class to that of Murtha's (and then to suggest I must also think Murtha is currently a good man to since I believe Sharon is).

Both points are completely wrong. And anyone trying to make such comparisons simply is not thinking straight. That is where this began.

Regards,

[KingofZion]

This is 100% correct. Anybody who believes that Israel gave Gaza to the PLO as a land-for-peace swap lacks a fundamental understanding of the situation.

Sharon did not sign any agreements. He didn't really negotiate with anyone (pretended maybe to appease the US). He simply decided that Israel was better off leaving occupied territory that was indefensible and not part of original Israel (c. 1948) and letting the Pals kill each other (which they are doing so well now).

To say he traded land for peace is false and ridiculous. Rather, he vacated enemy territory (just as Israel did in Lebanon) to increase the security of his country. And it will be proven that this bold move was a positive contribution to Israel's security, just as building the wall has been successful.