But you said withdrawl to halt terror attacks was "a good thing".
So if a withdrawl from gaza and the west bank is a "good thing", in that it will reduce some terror attacks, why not follow the logic further and withdraw all Jews from Israel?
Think of how we could reduce terrorism if we would just end the state of Israel?
And as for Iraq, Bush's statements on standing up to the terrorist in Iraq are diametrically opposed to his statements on Israel's reaction to repeated attacks. Following Sept. 11, and Afarat's wave of terrorism, Bush & Co. seemed to have taken a hands off approach.
Today, I think they've reassesed the usefulness of Isreal as a state. For many in the West, Isreal is a loadstone that the Western nations must carry around when dealing with the middle east, and some are coming to the opinion that the continued existance of a Jewish state in the middle east is more trouble than it is worth.
Israeli "peacemakers" are making the gradual dissolution of Israel more palatable.
And one should keep in mind that the term "occupied territoties" has differing meanings.
To the Israeli's and their western benefactors, the OT are Gaza and the West bank.
But for the Palestinians, the OT are Gaza, West Bank, and of course, Israel itself.
Thus, It is hard to "accomodate and negotiate to an agreed peace" with terrorist who deny your very right to exist.....
"But you said withdrawl to halt terror attacks was "a good thing".
President Bush in a quote up above said that. I was merely paraphrasing what he had said.
"And as for Iraq, Bush's statements on standing up to the terrorist in Iraq are diametrically opposed to his statements on Israel's reaction to repeated attacks."
Bush and his administration have been good friends of Israel.