Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sharon Tells NY: Most of Yesha Up For Grabs
Arutz 7 ^ | May 24, '05 | staff

Posted on 05/23/2005 9:53:18 PM PDT by Nachum

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told American Jewish leaders that Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel will stay in the hands of Israel forever but the rest of Yesha is negotiable.

After guards evicted hecklers who interrupted his speech to 1,500 fund-raisers, Sharon said that the status of other areas of Judea and Samaria are subject to the "final phase of the permanent agreement negotiations and talks."

Most media reports on his speech ignored Sharon's implication that leaves in doubt the future of communities of about 1,000 families, such as Beit El, Ginot Shomron, and Kedumim. Sharon added that disarming terrorists is a condition for the talks on a land-for-peace accord."

"It should be completely quiet [with] an end of terror, dismantling of terrorist organizations, collecting their weapons, stopping the smuggling…that will enable us to enter the road map," the Prime Minister stated.

Sharon won strong backing from American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spoke Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which Sharon is to address Tuesday.

She criticized Palestinian Authority (PA) chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) for not destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Abu Mazen, successor to Yasser Arafat, is to meet with President George W. Bush on Thursday.

Rice also insisted that the PA accept western democracy, "a goal that is unassailable and incontrovertible." The PA has promised to stage democratic legislative elections July 17, but its election committee announced Monday that they must be postponed because it cannot complete administrative work in time. Hamas terrorists have charged that PA officials are afraid to hold elections as planned because of the growing strength of Hamas.

Rice has stated she welcomes Hamas' accepting the idea of democratic elections because they will encourage the terrorist organization to use politics and not violence for its objectives. Both Hamas and Abu Mazen's Fatah party have a common goal of making Jerusalem the capital of a new Arab state along with an Israeli withdrawal from all of Yesha, including the three areas which Sharon said he will not surrender.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: for; grabs; most; ny; of; sharon; tells; up; yesha
The predictions of R. Meir Kahane finally are coming to fruition:

In his books he predicts:

1) Negotiations with the Arabs will necessitate land concessions

2)The conservatives of Israel will give the land away (Likud)

3) Jerusalem will eventually be negotiated and split

4) A greater war will come from these concessions

1 posted on 05/23/2005 9:53:19 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

More than likely Sharon will end up also giving up the areas he says are off limits. Why would anyone believe otherwise? He once said he would never give up Gaza.


2 posted on 05/23/2005 9:56:00 PM PDT by Honestfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Kahane was right. ....as usual.


3 posted on 05/23/2005 9:58:35 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Its times like this that make me believe that space aliens have replaced all "conservative" politicians throughout the world. Its the only logical explanation for the stupidity.


4 posted on 05/23/2005 9:58:55 PM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Don't be so pessimistic.

Sharon is a realist. Gaza is not defensible at the present time. It will become an Egyptian problem. The Palestinians of the West Bank cannot govern themselves and will soon find it impossible to feed themselves. The whole place will collapse into anarchy. Israel will look for chances to take advantage of the situation...perhaps they'll finally be able to implement transfer (expulsion), something that should have been done in '67.

5 posted on 05/23/2005 10:14:30 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Nachum
4) A greater war will come from these concessions

Bring it on, then. The only way the Arabs will be finally dealt with is by beating them into submission.

7 posted on 05/23/2005 10:29:54 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda; Jeremiah Jr; dennisw; Nachum; Alouette; Quix; Lijahsbubbe
Once Israel has handed over even more territory and a new terror state actually gets formed...

Then somebody is going to be held accountable for dividing the land. What was Laura Bush doing up on Mount Nebo... surveying the land? It should have been Sharon up there, taking a memory refresher tour.


8 posted on 05/24/2005 2:31:54 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told American Jewish leaders that Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel will stay in the hands of Israel forever but the rest of Yesha is negotiable.

It's not negotiable any more, the palestinians know they have it. Presuming they can complete "negotiations" before the next election, of course.

9 posted on 05/24/2005 5:18:23 AM PDT by SJackson (I don't think the red-tiled roofs are as sturdy as my asbestos one, Palestinian refugee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal

Joel 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I [am] strong.

Joe 3:11 Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.

Joe 3:12 Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.

Joe 3:13 Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness [is] great.

Joe 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD [is] near in the valley of decision.

Joe 3:15 The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.

Joe 3:16 The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD [will be] the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Joe 3:17 So shall ye know that I [am] the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.

Joe 3:18 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim.

Joe 3:19 Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence [against] the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

Joe 3:20 But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.

Joe 3:21 For I will cleanse their blood [that] I have not cleansed: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.


10 posted on 05/24/2005 5:43:16 AM PDT by Esther Ruth (Leaning, leaning, SAFE & SECURE from all alarms, Leaning on the Everlasting Arms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
no one will even entertain the notion

Oh, so you're the smart one? The ONLY smart one?

Has it occured to you that expulsion (transfer) is seriously opposed by the Bush administration (to say nothing of the rest of the world) and that Sharon might - correctly - feel that making an enemy of the U.S. is not in the best interests of his country?

No. Probably it hasn't.

11 posted on 05/24/2005 5:46:06 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
arab squatters

Characterizing them in this way tells me that you're a complete ignoramus, a moron, a self-righteous fool. Try reading Zhabotinsky instead of comic books and propaganda.

12 posted on 05/24/2005 5:49:49 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: liberallarry
Try reading Zhabotinsky

The mods deleted all his posts from the server when they ZOTTED him.

14 posted on 05/24/2005 8:48:14 AM PDT by Alouette (Muslims bite the hand that feeds them, and kiss the boot that kicks them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Alouette

Nonetheless, among the founders his vision was the clearest.


16 posted on 05/24/2005 8:53:30 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
So when you write it as a future possibility it's a viable construct, but when anyone else writes about it they are morons standing against the world.

In war timing is all important...and noone wins every battle. Sometimes you must retreat and fight again in more favorable circumstances. Sharon has proved himself over half a century as a great warrior and great leader in both war and peace. I trust his judgement. I wouldn't trust you to help me cross the street.

Yes, expulsion of Arabs is opposed but expulsion of Jews is supported. And because Pres. Bush and the rest of the world feel this way than it must be correct?

This is a complete misstatement of the President's position. But - in case you hadn't noticed - Bush is an American, not an Israeli, President. It's his job to promote American interests. The strategy he's decided upon is to take on Muslim countries one at a time, not all at once. Sharon has to adjust his strategy to ours because of the huge difference in strengths.

WHERE DO THE ARABS COME FROM THAT SIT ON JEWISH LAND?

For an answer to this read Jabotinsky. He understood, better than most and certainly better than you'll ever do, that homelands are obtained by conquest and held by force. European Jews, mostly eastern european, decided to take Palestine from the Muslims who had held it for more than a thousand years. They, in turn, had taken it by force from others, who had done the same for as far back as we can trace it.

17 posted on 05/24/2005 9:04:03 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
But it is an accurate explanation of THE FACTS. JEWS ARE BEING MOVED OUT AND ARABS MOVED IN.

It is an accurate measure of SOME facts...but a complete distortion of events since it lacks context. The Jews moved in after '67. They couldn't hold their conquests...or so it seems at present.

So you are still in favor of Arab expulsion,not just right now?

Yes. The two peoples cannot coexist in the same land. Zhabotinsky was wrong about that...although I suspect he said what he said for political reasons, not because he believed it.

Are you dreaming of the Canannites? WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

They're around. So are the Romans. The questions are irrelevant.

RAPED IT AND DID NOTHING WITH IT ON AND OFF for more than a thousand years."

That's your view and it's also mostly irrelevant. As a justification for conquest it stinks.

Go trust the arabs,I am sure they will be grateful for your support.

You think far too highly of yourself if you think those are the only choices available to a reasonable man. In fact, "think" is inappropriate when referring to your arguments.

19 posted on 05/24/2005 9:47:35 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: liberallarry; Yehuda; Thinkin' Gal
Oh, so you're the smart one? The ONLY smart one?

Well, I think he's pretty smart.

Arguing that one should give up land because later it supposedly will be easier to take back is well....dumb.

22 posted on 05/24/2005 10:25:08 AM PDT by Lijahsbubbe (Remember, once you're over the hill, you pick up speed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
(THE DECISION YOU SAID ABOVE THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE)

They were in a stronger position then. It would have been hard in any case...I don't mean to second guess them.

The Canaanites are still around? get that from the PLO fact book?

They were not extirminated. You don't think they stopped breeding because they lost political power and cultural cohesion, do you? The latest archeological findings are that the ancient Jews were themselves Canaanites.

Where and who are the Canaanites and tell us of their glorious past and the wonderful present society they have developed that we should move Jews out for them.

You mean only the glorious have any rights, deserve any consideration? Certainly you don't mean that. But if you do then there are no injustices. Historically, peoples get what they deserve.

That's all you got? LOL!

That's all I need. That's all your worth.

What's irrelevant is some wannabe revisionist making land control/possession important when he wants to, and then deciding it's inappropriate when it doesn't if his weak argument.

Why don't you elaborate? I don't remember doing that. Let's see your argument layed out.

23 posted on 05/24/2005 10:31:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe
Well, I think he's pretty smart.

No need for me to be rude to two people.

Arguing that one should give up land because later it supposedly will be easier to take back is well....dumb

L'Audace! Toujours, l'audace! No retreat. Stand your ground. Sometimes that's the right strategy...and sometimes it isn't. It's a question of judgement. I trust Sharon's, you trust Yehuda's.

Oh, well.

24 posted on 05/24/2005 10:38:24 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda

And?


27 posted on 05/24/2005 10:43:48 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

Where do I say land possession/control is inappropriate? You do understand that reality is complicated and messy and that generalizations are difficult at best and require some mentality to apply correctly?


28 posted on 05/24/2005 10:48:09 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
You say

What's irrelevant is some wannabe revisionist making land control/possession important when he wants to, and then deciding it's inappropriate when it doesn't if his weak argument.

I reply

Where do I say land possession/control is inappropriate?

You respond

you're a complete ignoramus, a moron, a self-righteous fool.

You're answer says far more about you than about me.

30 posted on 05/24/2005 11:08:59 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
When multiple people tell you it's PRETTY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH MORE BRAINS THAN SCOTCH BESOTTED DIARHREEA OF THE MOUTH THAT once you give up land ITS HARDEDR TO GO BACK AND TAKE IT AGAIN, then you say Israel can't' expel arabs but should expel Jews because America shouldn't piss off the arabs

How you can conclude from any of this - even if it were accurate - that I think land possession/control is inappropriate is beyond me.

But it isn't accurate.

I said the two peoples can't coexist in one land.
I said the Arabs should have been expelled in '67 because - with hindsight - that seems to be the only time it could have been done.
Sharon is pulling back because he thinks the present borders can't be defended. I said I think that in the future Israel may be able to reconquer - because I don't think the Palestinians will be able to govern, or feed, themselves. When the place collapses into anarchy Israel may be able to take advantage of the situation. There's no way to determine whether it will be harder or easier. Too much depends on the assumptions being made.
The number of morons disagreeing with my analysis doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the arguments.
I said Israel must pay very close attention to America's strategy. It cannot afford to alienate America - except in extremis...and in this I trust Sharon.

Make up your mind, pinhead

It's a matter of judgement...and in this I trust Sharon. Apparently that too is beyond your grasp.

32 posted on 05/24/2005 11:50:58 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
No,Sharon is pulling back (AFTER HE WON THE ELECTION SAYING HE WOULDN"T PULL BACK) because: the left has his and his son's balls in their hands.

Sorry. I don't buy that. Sharon would not sell out Israel to avoid indictment. He's changed his mind because he believes circumstances warrant it. That often happens.

the left in Israel and Europe and the left and the paleomorons in the CIA and in State still cling to pre 9/11 idiocy and think appeasing arabs is to Americas benefit.

This is true but it has nothing to do with Bush's or Sharon's policy...except insofar as they are forced to consider opposition opinion.

If it was truly a military "defensible" issue, Israel could WIPE OUT GAZA IN 36 HOURS.

Boy, you're a real military and political genius. A perfect example of your truly hopeless stupidity.

Give us ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE SURRENDER OF LAND BY REASONABLE REPUBLICS TO TYRANICAL SCUM REGIMES LED TO: less future demands buy the scum; easier defeat of and regaining of the territory by the good guys.

Military history is full of examples of tactical retreats which led to ultimate victories. Look at WWII, for starters.

"Easier" is a straw man you set up. I never said it would be easier. I said it would be possible. But I can defend easier as well. Sharon thinks that trying to hang on to everything will fatally weaken the Israeli military and society with police work, bankrupt the economy, and isolate Israel diplomatically. I think that granting the Palestinians independence in a very shrunken West Bank and Gaza will result in civil war and anarchy, isolating them and bankrupting them. Depending on what else is happening in the world it may be possible for Israeli to simply march in and transfer the population.

Thank you for making my argument above on America's short-sighted vision on forcing an ally to surrender land to terrorists

I said you were a hopeless moron. You continue to prove it.

34 posted on 05/24/2005 1:14:32 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
So your theory is that Sharon - in order to avoid indictment - embarked upon a very controversial and unpopular course of action. Brilliant.

"However, two of Sharon’s predecessors as prime minister, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu both survived the threats of indictments, which never materialized in the end. The 76 year old Sharon has said he will serve “at least until 2007,” when the next elections are scheduled."

From one of your posted links.

Not only can you not think, you can't even read.

36 posted on 05/24/2005 4:21:51 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
See if you can annoy someone else with your drivel. I'm done with your psychocrapola.

Why should I...when you're so easy to annoy? And I'm having such a good time.

You selctively pulled this quote from of about 27,800 for "sharon indictment withdrawal".

You, of course, have read all 27,800 entries and can thus say with complete confidence that my quote was selective and unrepresentative.

"Moron" is too kind a descriptor for you.

38 posted on 05/24/2005 5:13:59 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
In this whole long thread you've only proposed one argument which has any merit: the idea that there's no historical precedent for ceding land to the enemy in the hope that either he will change his agressive approach or you will gain time to fight him under more favorable circumstances.

First, let's be clear about this. None of the players believes that giving up Gaza and parts of the West Bank is going to result in less Palestinian agression - despite what they say for public consumption.

Second, Sharon's motive is not primarily to gain time although that certainly is a consideration.

Third, exact historical parallels are hard to come by and I'm not so conversant with history that I can find one without considerable research. But I do have something pretty close. In 1956 the British, French, and Israelis were forced by the superpowers to relinquish their conquests. In 1967 the Israelis not only returned but were far more successful.

39 posted on 05/24/2005 5:44:32 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda

Mr. Paranoia speaks.


41 posted on 05/25/2005 5:54:16 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Nachum
The PA has promised to stage democratic legislative elections July 17, but its election committee announced Monday that they must be postponed because it cannot complete administrative work in time. Hamas terrorists have charged that PA officials are afraid to hold elections as planned because of the growing strength of Hamas.

The Soviet Union had 'elections'. Saddam had 'elections'. He was such a succesful politician, in fact, he got 100% of the vote!

The fact is, the PA is a dictatorship. One that was once a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Father of Modern Terrorism, Yasser Arafat, and which is now run exclusively by his minion for fifty years, Abu Mazen.

Sharon and Bush and Rice and Co. should be ashamed negotiating with these people and their Hamas foot soldiers.

Nowhere else in the world is it acceptable to negotiate with terrorists.

43 posted on 05/25/2005 7:41:47 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("We, the people, are the...masters of...the courts..." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
So, SFB, exactly what is the benefit to Israel and America of the gaza withdrawal?

America gets to say it is successfully promoting legitimate Muslim and Arab interests. Hopefully, this will buy enough time in the short term for us to conclude most of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without having to fight elsewhere at the same time. The Left, of course, sees this as this first step in the peace process. The Right - the realists - don't. Or rather they consider that outcome to be only a remote possibility.

Israel is trading Gaza and the northern West Bank for Jerusalem and the settlement blocks around it. The Arabs certainly don't like that...but that's what they're going to get. That and the Wall. The rest of the world will agree to the trade...which is crucial. The fighting will then be over the remainder of the West Bank. In the short term it will become a Palestinian state...but, as I've said, it will not be viable and there's a good chance the Israelis will get it back, evicting the Arabs in the process.

44 posted on 05/25/2005 9:10:18 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
The Gaza withdrawal is a strategy, not a picture of the future. It can be criticized just as your strategy can be...or any strategy can be. It can be wrong...just as any human plan for the future can be. I like it because it seems better than the alternatives.

As to the specifics:

Nobody's leaving Al Queda in control anywhere. Hamas will try to control Gaza but it will fail. Have you looked at Gaza? It's a giant slum without resources of any kind, filled with furious, bitter, emotional outcasts breeding like vermin. Israel is dumping it on Egypt...which has neither the resources or the will to deal with it. But they do have the political freedom to slaughter the Palestinians. Nobody will complain just as nobody complained when the Jordanians did it.

We'll be in Iraq for more than a year or two but the Iraqi government may have stabilized somewhat by then, our bases will be fully operational, and we'll be ready to deal with either Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The Arabs will call the Gaza withdrawal a victory. That's one of the reasons why I think the strategy will work.

The agreement isn't written down. But governments are loath to try to undo facts on the ground. Israel is not going to be forced to move 200,000 settlers, the Wall will soon be in place and it is to include the major settlement blocks, the American government - and Bush in particular - has several times indicated that it would approve of the situation, nobody is going to be able to stop Israel from completing the encirclement of Jerusalem with settlements.

The Arabs will escalate their attacks. I'm counting on it. That's part of the genius of the strategy. But their position is not improved. Gaza will prove to be ungovernable and possessing it will be a curse rather than a blessing. The Wall has already proved it's worth. And lessening the burden of policing is a blessing.

There is no place called Eurabia. It's not worth replying to someone who thinks there is.

Ditto to someone who thinks he knows about the real homeland of the Arabs while saying nothing about the real homeland of European Jews...and even more so about some moron who calls Sharon and Barak traitors while claiming to know "Israelis in the know".

46 posted on 05/25/2005 10:30:22 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson