YAHOO/"Reuters" (hat tip JJ at POLIPUNDIT) - The resignation of Netanyahu, Sharon's main rival in the right-wing Likud party, sent local markets reeling and showed the depth of division in the cabinet over the plan for "disengagement" from conflict with the Palestinians. But the departure of the highest-ranking minister yet to go over the pullout was too late to prevent approval for the forced evacuations of settlers, due to start after Aug. 15.
JPOD at NRO's THE CORNER thinks Bibi is a crass opportunist positioning himself for a run at Likuyd Party copntrol IFF the withdrawal fails to leads toward more security and a better chance at a two-state settlement. CLIFF MAY (scroll down at NRO) intimates he agrees with Carloine Glick of the JPOST and Bibi. WARREN BELL (scroll down at NRo, again) is hopeful that the withdrawal is a good PR move for Israel - regardless of the outcome in the Gaza: if it leads to more terrro than israel's hardline position is vindicated. If it leads to greater security, then a two-state solution and peace are more likley. WIN-WIN, according to WB.
ROGER L. SIMON thinks Bibi is taking a moral stand based on deeply held belief that the unilateral withdrawal sends the wrong signal and will lead to more terror, (and Roger has MORE LINKS!).
JJ at POLIPUNDIT believes that this is a power-play for copntrol of the Likud.
Here's my "gut-read":
I will never understand why Sharon didn’t INSTEAD announce that he would withdraw from Gaza ONLY CONDITIONALLY (and in six months time) AFTER - and only 6 months after - the “militants” in Gaza disarmed. It seems to me that Barak’s unconditonal withdrawal from Lebanon encouraged more terror, and that this withdrawal from Gaza will too.
The only plausible explanation (as far as I can surmise) is that perhaps Sharon (who must know how Barak’s actions strengthened Hiz b’Allah) felt he needed to redeploy the troops to more important positions (where they could more readily/powerfully defend larger population blocs in Israel proper) in advance of some impending major event or operation which might foment a huge violent anti-Israel response by Arabs within and without Israel (and by the anti-Semitic weasels of Old Europe) - as in the case of a preemptive strike against Iran -- one which which would annihilate their nuclear program and their offensive military assets (air force, air-strips, and navy).
As for Bibi: I think he is motivated by high morals (and NOT “crass opportunism” as JPOD at NOR’s THE CORNER belives) - as was Sharansky andeven the late Robin Cook (who each also resigned cabinet positions toprotest their government’s decisions).
No comments:
Post a Comment