Replies

Talk about misinterpretation. Not you, BG. But President Bush was not for Gaza withdrawal thinking it would stop or even reduce terror attacks.

So to say to TA, don't have such faith in what any one man might tell you, is not a bad standard, it just is not tied to this action in Gaza in the sense TA seems to have understood.

Yet it is in a sense Bush's support of Sharon's decision to withdraw, to give the Palestinian Authority a chance to govern that area, instead of Israel having to occupy and govern it. To see if physical seperation by Israel from the Palis can improve security; to see if the PA can do anything right, if given a chance.

If Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda run wild in Gaza, then it is an obvious failure of that effort.

So instead of Bush promising fewer attacks if Israel withdrew, it would be more accurate to say that Bush took a risk on behalf of trying to get the PA to step up and do something right for a change, unlike what it did all the years of Arafart.

Bush knows there is no guarantee of anything, fewer attacks by terrorists, or anything else for that matter. Knowing that, he would never promise fewer or no attacks in return for Israel leaving the Gaza.

Sharon has his own policy, of physical disengagement from the Palestinians. That was why the Wall was built, and that is why they are making the settlers leave the Gaza. Whether it will be for the good, as opposed to continuing the status quo which was so bad for so long, remains to be seen.

Incidentally, I am not watching the tv about the withdrawal. I only have time to post to this thread, after reading a little.