A couple of years later, in late 2002, Sharon outmaneuvered Bibi again to keep him away from the Likud leadership. Then, finally, just when Bibi could taste victory, Sharon went off and formed Kadima and remained PM. Basically, from 1998 on, Sharon made sure that he would not only retain power at the Likud, but that he would prevent Netanyahu from getting in the way. And he succeeded.

But Bibi was not outmaneuvered in 2001. He quit after losing in 1999, and Sharon was nominated as “temporary” chair which turned permanent upon the primaries, in which he beat Olmert, and in which Bibi did not even run.

How was that outmaneuvering?

Bibi didn’t run in 2001 because Sharon outmaneuvered him.

It is fair to say that Dayan and Dado ran a piss poor war and he over-rode them to be able to push through. I have a relative who was close to this at the time.

As for Gaza, Israel has saved enormous amounts in money and lives by not being in there. If it weren’t for the Hamas election and the reluctance of the Israeli government to fight fire with fire, Gaza would be very different today. The mishandling of Gaza took place AFTER they left, not in the leaving.

Either way, we are going to disagree on these topics and I am very busy today….

I’ll start from the end:

Gaza – The “crazy” rightwingers all said that Gaza will become a base for the Palestinians to launch missiles at Israel. They were laughed at, and told that was ridiculous. Sharon was clearly wrong. Further, Israel has fought TWO (Summer Rains and Cast Lead) major campaigns in Gaza since 2005 – both would not have been necessary if we were still there.

In the Yom Kippur he was most certainly not right. He was asked to hold the line on the east coast of the canal, and he kept pushing for his brigade to cross early. He was continually yelled at by Dado and Dayan – and it is fair argument to say that Israel would have been in a far better position had he used the week or so leading up to the ceasefire to actuall secure the east coast of the canal – instead the Egyptian 5th army gained a foothold in Sinai – that it kept after the war.

In 2001 he most certainly did just happen to win. Barak resigned, but under the law at the time, the Knesset did not disband and the new prime minister (eventually – Sharon) took over, with the makeup of the Knesset intact. Bibi was the chair of the Likud, but decided not to run for Likud chairmanship in the primaries because he did not feel that he could be effective with the Knesset as it was (left bloc – 41, right – 32, center – 18, haredi – 22, arabs (sans hadash) – 7).

One more thing – Olmert and Barak, with access to intel (and Barak’s experience) thought one thing. But plenty of other (more, in fact) decorated generals and high ranking members of the security estabslishment think otherwise – so saying if they think so it must be true – is not an argument. (See: Aluf Effi Eitam, Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, Tat-Aluf Arye Eldad, Tat-Aluf Avigdor Kahalani, Aluf Yair Naveh, current Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, not to mention Aluf Rehav’am Ze’evi).

As for defending Israel with a limited width across, I believe Israel is safer in the long run with a narrow width than with the West Bank. I also don’t see why I can’t bring up the fact that one of Israel’s most celebrated soldiers and a former COS of the IDF envisions this as a safe plan for Israel. Olmert may not have been a general, but as PM he had access to every piece of intelligence and military assessments that you and I will never see. He felt proposing the deal that resembled Barak’s was the right thing to do.

The question of whether the Palestinians will agree to be demilitarized is critical and whether the mechanisms to enforce the demilitarization are enforceable and enforced is also critical.

The alternative is no peace, a growing Palestinian population that may overtake the Jewish one, growing pressure not only from the international community but from the USA, eventual isolation as a pariah state and continued wars and attacks by the Palestinians for decades to come.

Why do you think they would be satisfied with having a different bunch of infidels instead of the Jews in charge of their “Noble Sanctuary”? The fact that you actually seem to believe what the Pseudostinians say just shows how credulous you are. Earth to Middle: they’re LYING.

Any “final solution” to the “Pseudostinian problem” that leaves Israel intact in any size, shape, or form will never be accepted by the Pseudostinians. It doesn’t matter how much land Israel gives up. That is why the only reason for Israel giving up land is if it puts Israel in a beeer position to be able to fight. You have not convinced me that your “plan” will do that, so I reject it and I think you’re a fool for proposing it.

Last time I checked I still have my Lego set, so we’re good there.

“Ask Olmert and Barak that question. Wasn’t Barak Chief of Staff of the IDF and he thought it was doable and desirable.”

That’s not a fair answer. That’s not even an answer – if you support a policy, and if there’s a question about it – you can’t evade it by saying ask politicians – people who clearly have political motives for their actions (and Olmert isn’t an authority on anything anymore, except for how to be corrupt).

“Sorry, this was a Sharon plan. And Sharon was one of the best strategists of the 20th Century.”

G-d no. Sharon was a brilliant tactician. As a strategist, he was a horrendous failure. 1. War – read Rabinovich’s The Yom Kippur War, he nearly cost Israel a good chunk of the southern front, in his rush to try and invade African Egypt prematurely. And when it comes to Lebanon in 1982 do I really have to elaborate? (when it came to battle – no one was better than Sharon – I’m talking about the big picture) 2. Politics – despite his experience on the battlefield he was unable to make nice long enough to make Chief of Staff. He was considered a joke for most of his political career – until Bibi decided not to run in 2001. 3. Regional issues and foresight – Gaza. Need I say more?

I’m proposing a way out of the impasse. They do not have to be angry that Jews control any part of it and Jews don’t have to be angry that they are denied respect, historical connection or especially the right to worship. Both sides get what they want without fighting over it and without the issue obstructing all the other gains that have been made.

With the Old City taken care of, they can come to terms on everything else. I truly believe that. I also believe this is a desirable outcome for Israel. I realize you think it’s naive to believe there could be peace, but there are risks and there are controlled risks. I believe this is a controlled risk and the possible outcome is too important to simply reject it because you assume it won’t work.

The idea that concessions have harmed Israel is a fair point. However, Israel has not conceded its desire to grow in the West Bank and that has been the key concession sought by the other side. This leads us back to the discussion about whether lording over another people is desirable or safe for Israel. I contend that it is neither. Look at the way you’re talking to me. It is a microcosm of a much deeper debate that divides Israel and also diaspora Jewry. The division is caused by the fact that the presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria is complicated and complicates matters in many ways. I would say the harm that the West Bank has brought Israel is far greater than its contribution.

Finally, regarding extreme views and warmongering, I will note that many “settlers” live where they do because the land was cheap and the view was great. Most are not ideologues and most will leave quietly if asked to leave by the Israeli government. I suspect that Josh is more doctrinaire than the people I’m describing, but I’m not sure. You, however, have been very explicit with what you think Josh, his children and his government should do. If it leads to war, you understand perfectly. It’s also no skin off your nose. Josh may live there, but at least he lives there with the consequences of his decisions. For all I know, he may live there because he can’t sell his house at a fair price that would permit him to move west of the Green Line. These things do make a difference. You are not a warmonger but your ideas could easily lead to war but the risk isn’t placed upon you. It is placed upon Josh and any boys he might have.

Now you may go back to not taking me seriously or calling me an idiot or whatever else you feel like calling me today. I feel like I’m in kindergarten and I took away your Lego set.

I have to conclude that 1) you don’t read very well either, 2) you are deliberately missing my point, or (and this is probably the real answer) 3) are just too dumb to see it.

You have basically accused me of being a warmonger who puts other people’s children’s lives in danger because I think your plan for Israel is dangerous. Yet you say that the next war “may or may not” be caused bt people like Josh. As I have said, his views are at least as “extreme” as mine. Yet after telling me that the next war will pretty much be on my head, you can’t make up your mind about Josh. Pretty hypocritical, it seems to me. I assume that it is because I live in galut and Josh lives in Israel. You don’t know me personally either, BTW, although why that has anything to do with anything escapes me. We exchange views on this blog. We don’t need to know each other personally to do that.

Do you really, truly, and honestly think that you can just turn back the clock to the 1947 partition plan? That since the Yishuv reluctantly agreed to an internationalized Jerusalem in 1947 that Israel should agree to it now? And that this would magically take all of the pressure on Israel?

On what do you base this insane idea? When have Israeli concessions lessened the pressure? They have done nothing but increase it. Don’t you remember how the Arabs rejected the whole idea and that even though Israel agreed to it the UN and the rest of the world did not do a single thing to stop the Arab attack? Why not just suggest that the original UN plan, with its borders, be implemented? After all, if you’re basing yourself on the partition plan, why should Israel get to keep any land beyond those borders? After all, the Yishuv agreed to it, didn’t they? Why are the 1949 “borders” sacrosanct? On what basis?

Enough. Anybody who really thinks that since the Yishuv agreed in 1947 to an internationalized Jerusalem that magically going back to that will bring peace just cannot be taken seriously.

Middle,

You write like the typical Israeli left wing extremist.
You seem to think that the truth is all on your side.

Yo Galit, I am a centrist and dislike equally both the right and the left extremists. I assume from the silly remarks and your rant that has nothing to do with what I’ve written that you are one of the extreme rightists I view with sympathetic disdain.

Please answer this one question “O’Great One”.

Flattery pleases me.

How can Israel defend itself if it is only 10 miles wide as you desire?

Ask Olmert and Barak that question. Wasn’t Barak Chief of Staff of the IDF and he thought it was doable and desirable.

Please don’t give us another dose of your “World Peace” left wing extremist drivel.

Never mentioned world peace, just peace between Arabs and Israelis. Sorry you think that’s drivel.

Also, the President Barak Hussein Obama will “come to Israel’s rescue” line is kind of stale here in Israel.

I never said or even thought Obama would come to Israel’s rescue.

My guess as to what is really happening here is the following:
Sharon and Bush agreed that Israel will evacuate Gaza in exchange for the US dealing with the Iran Nuke Threat.

Wrong, but interesting,

Sharon kept his end of the deal but Bush and President Barak Hussein Obama did not.

Why are you including a President who has been in office a few months in the same attack on a President who who had years to do the job?

Israel now finds itself in less defensible borders because of the US mandated Mass Deportation of 10,000 Jews from their homes. It also finds itself alone in pursuit of a solution to the Islamic nuke.

Sorry, this was a Sharon plan. And Sharon was one of the best strategists of the 20th Century.

The US screwed Israel again and is now attempting to prevent Israel from defending itself.

Possibly true. They did screw Israel by forcing Hamas into the elections.

6 million Jews’ lives are on the line. Obama wants Bibi to trust Iran.

Best case scenario for Obama is Bibi capitulates and doesn’t attack Iran. Bibi also withdraws from the Liberated Territories of Judea and Samaria.

Worst case scenario for Israel: Iran shoots its nukes and kills millions of Israelis. Arabs attack Israel from Gazza, Judea and Samaria easily cutting the country in 2 at the 10 mile wide mid section of the country.

I would like to point out that despite my non leftist leanings I do not support any sort of attack on Iran.

If Obama wants to promote nuclear non-proliferation, the time has arrived for him to act in North Korea and Iran.President Barak Hussein Obama despite his brave pop star image strikes me as a Chamberlain and not a Churchill

Possibly true. But Israel will be stronger if it can push aside the responsibilities that accompany the burden of maintaining Judea and Samaria and their Palestinian population. At the very least you will have to admit that your analysis did not explain why you need Jewish civilians there. I can understand if you say the military needs to be there to prevent this 10 mile weak spot, but why do you need civilians? They are a liability.