The Saudi 'Deus ex Machiavelli' (Washington, D.C.): On occasion, theatrical productions of the ancient Greeks would end with a god being lowered onto the stage via a crane, a device that became known as a "deus ex machina." Websters' offers a contemporary definition of the term as "a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty." Enter Abdullah Such a "thing" was recently lowered by the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Abdullah, onto the stage on which the increasingly bloody Mideast passion play is being performed. It has taken the form of a so-called Saudi peace initiative and has been seized upon by everyone from President Bush and the European Union to Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon as a device that may allow resolution of the apparently insoluble Arab-Israeli conflict. The only problem is that, given the true nature of this Saudi "initiative," it would be more accurate to describe it as a "deus ex Machiavelli" -- a stratagem worthy of the great and devious Italian Renaissance-era schemer who authored The Prince, a tutorial on the art of effective, if often unethical, statecraft. The Abdullah gambit is far more likely to propel the parties towards new regional war than produce a real and durable peace. Consider its attributes: - Saudi Arabia gets to change the subject. The fact that 15 out of 19 of the terrorists that executed the deadly attacks of September 11 were Saudi nationals was a wake-up call for many Americans -- including some Bush Administration officials -- about the true character of a regime long portrayed as one of the United States' most reliable allies in the Middle East. Now, the Saudi Arabian government apparently was not directly responsible for the actions of these al Qaeda operatives. The Saudis do bear responsibility, however, for the world-wide -- and ongoing -- promotion of the teachings of the radical and virulently anti-American Islamist sect known as Wahabbism that is spawning new recruits for such terrorist operations. This practice makes all the more troubling the kingdom's continuing refusal to make a full and public expression of regret over the attacks perpetrated by its citizens. And, under Abdullah (a member of the royal family long known for his hostility towards the United States), Saudi Arabia has constrained our ability to use American assets in the region as part of the war on terrorism's Phase I (Afghanistan), to say nothing of Phase II (Iraq). The hints about a Saudi peace initiative (there is, at this writing, no actual proposal, only hype, speculation and undeserved plaudits) have had the effect of giving its Prince an overnight diplomatic makeover worthy of Machiavelli. No more talk about a Saudi Arabia that actually spends more time in the "against us" category rather than the "with us" one. Today, the hope that the kingdom will finally play a constructive role in the Arab-Israeli conflict is giving it vital cover, even as Abdullah undermines U.S. efforts to mobilize international support for ending Saddam Hussein's malevolence in Iraq. - Saudi intervention helps its friends, hurts its foes. The Abdullah plan, such as it is, appears to call for Israel to relinquish all the territory it captured in 1967. That would mean all of the West Bank, not just the roughly 95% that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had on offer at Camp David. Its logic would also compel the return to Syria of the strategic Golan Heights. In other words, if this deus ex machina actually came to pass, the Arabs will be rewarded for launching the last year-and-a-half's violence. - With the same stroke, Abdullah has reinvigorated the otherwise prostrate "peace camp" in Israel and its advocates elsewhere. Suddenly, if Saudi Arabia will participate, the "peace processors" insist, there are grounds for ignoring the abundant evidence that the previous process begun in Oslo a decade ago has only served to empower, arm and provide safe haven for terrorists aimed at liberating all of what Arafat calls "Palestine" (including the territory controlled by the Jewish State prior to the 1967 Six-Day War). If the Bush and Sharon governments are not careful, they will prompt Israelis who are understandably discouraged at the prospect of open-ended warfare to embrace a dangerous course of action in the belief that doing something, even if it is counterproductive, is better than doing nothing. - The Abdullah "plan" will reopen the Arabs' "war option." Just how counterproductive the surrender of all the territory Israel captured in defensive wars since June 1967 would be can be adduced from an obvious fact: The Jewish State is simply indefensible without the strategic depth and high ground along the West Bank's Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights adjacent to Syria. It is instructive to recall, moreover, Israel's earlier decision to abandon a security zone it had created in Lebanon. This action was taken in the vain hope that such a step would end a legitimate grievance about Israel's occupation of Arab land. Instead, it has only intensified Arab perceptions that further bloodletting and pressure will force the Jews to give up more land. Unlike the relatively small stakes associated with the Lebanon buffer, the surrender of the "occupied territories" will both 1) encourage Israel's enemies to realize their historic and oft- stated goal of "driving the Jews into the sea" and 2) give them the avenues of attack by which to do so. The very unreliability that prompted growing American concerns about Saudi Arabia -- to say nothing of the unrelenting hostility of the rulers of Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq -- make such a prospect a formula for the destruction of the State of Israel, not its assured security thanks to a prince's undeliverable promise of normalized relations with the entire Arab world. The Bottom Line In due course, the Abdullah deus ex Machiavelli will be seen for what it is -- a Saudi scam that makes the Middle East far more dangerous, not less, for American interests and those of its ally, Israel. The question is, how much damage will be done before that reality is recognized for what it is? http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?topic=mideast§ion=papers&code=02-D_11
Treeman, you and Sharon: always "for Peace" hehehehe, but not now for whatever reason. Don't worry, Sharon won't find it hard to kill this proposal. For pr purposes he is only pretending to be considering it for awhile. Funny thing, if Israel has any intention of ever trading land for peace, why do they keep building settlements and spending billions on roads and other infrastructure in these areas? Is this just a way of making reparations to the Palestinians and providing them with modern infrastructure so that the Palisitinian State can get off to a good start? I doubt it. Often it pays to follow the money and not what is said. I read a good aticle from an Israeli source that stated how they spend more per capita in the occupied territories for new roads etc. then they do in Israel proper. A famous Israeli Peace Activist Explains the Usual Steps Taken by Israel to Reject Peace Overtures March 4, 2002 How to Torpedo the Saudis Thirty five years of occupation and settlement have eroded Israel's abilty to reason, leaving instead a mixture of arrogance and folly By Uri Avnery If, in May 1967, an Arab prince had proposed that the whole Arab world would recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it, in return for Israel's recognition of the Green Line border, we would have believed that the days of the Messiah had arrived. Masses of people would have run into the street, singing and dancing, as they did on November 29, 1947, when the United Nations called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine. But then disaster struck: we conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Labor and Likud governments filled them up with settlements, and today this offer sounds to many like a malicious anti-Semitic plot. The leaders of Israel tell us: Don't worry. Just as we survived Pharaoh, so we shall survive Emir Abdallah.* This is an allusion to a famous Israeli song. So what will happen? In Israel, every international initiative designed to put an end to the conflict passes through three stages: (a) denial, (b) misrepresentation, (c) liquidation. That's how the Sharon-Peres government will deal with this one, too. It can draw on 53 years of experience, during which both Labor and Likud governments have succeeded in scuttling every peace plan put forward. (We must nor suspect, God forbid, that the successive Israeli governments were opposed to peace. Not at all. Every one of them wanted peace. They all longed for peace. "Provided peace gives us the whole country, at least up to the Jordan river, and lets us cover all of it with Jewish settlements." Until now, all peace plans have fallen short of that.) PHASE A is designed to belittle the offer. "There is nothing new there," the Political Sources would assert. "It is offered solely for tactical purposes. It is a political gimmick". If the offer comes from an Arab: "He says it to the international community, but not to his own people". I short, "It's not serious." One proven method is to concentrate on one word and argue that it shows the dishonesty of the whole offer. For example, before the October 1973 war, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt made a far-reaching peace offer. Golda Meir rejected it out of hand. Her Arabists (there are always intellectual whores around to do the dirty job) discovered that Sadat spoke of "salaam" but not of "sulh, which "proves" that he does not mean real peace. More than 2000 Israel soldiers and tens of thousand Egyptians paid with their lives for this word. After that, a salaam treaty was signed. Such methods are already being applied now to the Saudi offer. First it was said that Crown Prince Abdullah had spoken about his initiative only with an American journalist, but not addressed his own people. When it transpired that it was widely published in all Saudi papers, both at home and in London, another argument was put forward: the prince has made his offer only because Saudis had become unpopular in the United States after the Twin Towers outrage. (As if this matters.) In short, Abdullah has not become a real Zionist. This point was widely discussed in the Israeli media. Commentators commentated , scholars showed their scholarly prowess. But not one (not one!) of them discussed the actual content of the offer. PHASE B is designed to outsmart the offer. We do not reject the offer. Of course not! We a longing for peace! So we welcome the "positive trend" of the offer and kick the ball out of the field. The best method is to ask for a meeting with the Arab leader who proposed the offer, "to clarify the issues". That sounds logical. Americans think that, if two people have a quarrel, they should meet and discuss the matter, in order to end it. What can be more reasonable than that? But a conflict between nations does not resemble a quarrel between two people. Every Arab peace offer rests on a two-part premise: You give back the occupied territories, and you get recognition and "normalization". Normalization includes, of course, meetings of the leaders. When the Israeli government demands a meeting with Arab leaders "to clarify details", it actually tries to get the reward (normalization) without delivering the goods (withdrawal from the occupied territories). A beautiful trick, indeed. If the Arab leaders refuse to meet, well, it only shows that their peace offer is a sham, doesn't it? Many peace offers have fallen into this trap. Ben-Gurion offered to meet with Muhammad Naguib, the Egyptian ruler after the 1952 revolution. Several Prime Ministers asked to meet Hafez al-Assad. Only Sadat outsmarted the smart ones and turned the tables on them. He came to Jerusalem on his own initiative. When the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 242, the Israeli government did not accept it. Only much later, when there was no way out, it accepted it "according to the Israeli interpretation". This concentrated on the article "the" that is missing in the English version (which demands withdrawal from "occupied territories" instead of from "the occupied territories"), contrary to the French version, in which the article duly appears. (The Soviets were caught napping, because there is no article in the Russian language.) The preferred method is to kill the spirit of the offer slowly, to talk about it endlessly, to interpret it this way and that way, to drag negotiations on and on, to put forward condition which the other side cannot accept, until the initiative yields in silence. That's what happened to the Conciliation Committee in Lausanne, that is what happened to most of the European and American peace plans. PHASE C: If phases A and B have not worked, the liquidation stage arrives. Nowadays it is called "targeted prevention" or, simply, "ascertained killing" by the army. Against the original UN mediator, the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, "targeted prevention" was applied literally: he was shot and killed. The killers were "dissidents", but Ben-Gurion did not shed any tears. Usually, Israeli governments use two deadly torpedoes in their arsenal: the US Congress and the American media. William Rogers, President Nixon's secretary of state, for example, proposed a peace plan that included the withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 border, with "insubstantial changes". Israel released its torpedoes and sunk Rogers together with his plan. His job was taken over by the Jewish megalomaniac, Henry Kissinger, and that was the end of peace plans. Can the Saudi initiative be scuttled in the same way? If the Saudis stay their course, it will not be easy to intercept it. This time the target is not a small frigate, not even a destroyer, but a mighty aircraft carrier. A great effort will be needed to torpedo it. But Shimon Peres and his foreign office are experts at this kind of job; they have been at it for decades. Ariel Sharon will push them. The pitiful Labor party, under the leadership of a small-time copy of Sharon, will join the chorus. Faced with the terrible threat of having to end the occupation, the Israeli media will rally behind the government. Nobody revolts, nobody cries out. In Israel, real public discourse has died long ago. The national instinct of survival has become blunted. Thirty five years of occupation and settlement have eroded the nation's abilty to reason, leaving instead a mixture of arrogance and folly. A great, perhaps unique opportunity may be missed. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands may pay for it with their lives. They will not dance in the streets any more.
glynch: Nice job not rebutting the points of the article, and instead posting a pacifist/extremist article (and getting in another "treeman never met a war he didn't like" jab)... Good job letting someone else do the thinking for you. I have one request: please show me the text of the Saudi "peace" proposal? I just can't seem to find it anywhere, and if you could dig that up I'd really appreaciate it... The illogic behind the article you posted is highlighted in this statement, I think: Every Arab peace offer rests on a two-part premise: You give back the occupied territories, and you get recognition and "normalization". Normalization includes, of course, meetings of the leaders. When the Israeli government demands a meeting with Arab leaders "to clarify details", it actually tries to get the reward (normalization) without delivering the goods (withdrawal from the occupied territories). A beautiful trick, indeed. If the Arab leaders refuse to meet, well, it only shows that their peace offer is a sham, doesn't it? Funny thing, that the Israelis would want "clarification" of an Arab proposal that has no text? Gee, I wonder why they would want "clarification"??? I think this exposes your writer's bias nicely, in addition to his ignorance. Now, are you ready to debate about this "proposal"? Or are you just going to post more worthless Antiwar.com stories? (BTW, please provide links for your articles from now on, so we know that you didn't write them yourself - you seem to be in the habit of forgetting to post that)
It was kind of a joke, but that's okay. I don't think it's fair to just let them kill each other, but I don't think there's any fair thing we can do to end it.
Good article by Charles Krauthammer today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45867-2002Mar6.html
Also, could someone please provide evidence of something (anything) that the Palestinian Authority has done, since walking out of the Camp David negotiations in 2000, to bring about an end to the violence?
Treeman, many posts ago, you claimed to be in favor of a land for peace deal. Here's your chance. As pointed out repeatedly more and more people in Israel are in favor of following the UN resolutions and going back to the 1967 borders, partly for defensive purposes. Don't let your own article do your thinking. Explain how roughly 6 million people can indefinitely occupy a land with about 3.2 million other people, who they never intend to give citizenship to and do so with any semblance of democracy or decency. I believe there are about a million other Arabs in Israel proper whose sympathies are in favor of creating a Palestinian home lan, too. Also explain how they can do this militarily when the 4 million are willing to die to be free. Explain why Israel invests billions in infrastructure if theSharon types intend a land for peace deal. Quit following the Sharon, US media line and do some thinking, if you really are for a land for peace deal. You can also find much the same dribble in the Houston Chronicle nearly every day. Try yesterday's editorial.
Princess, don't cop out by saying we can't do anything. It is really not that hard. If the US would let Israel know that they can't count on the US to back them up unconditionally they would do a decent land for peace deal. It is only hard if you believe that we can't go against the Sharon types. A bully like Sharon will always feel he can back a US president down, but once he gets the message, progress will be made. Interesting that many of the same people who believe that we can intervene almost any where in the world and solve all the problems, act like we cannot do anything for the Israel/Palestinian problem. Unlike many of the other interventions proposed it will involve no loss of American lives and it just invloves cutting back on government aid to Israel and threatening to boycott them and not vetoing UN resolutions for them.
glynch: Actually, I - as well as most Israelis - am all for a land-for-peace deal. I - and most Israelis as well - am also not about to think that such a deal can work without security guarantees, i.e. the Palestinians actually cracking down on terrorists on their own turf. You constantly allude to the myth that Israelis are increasingly inclined to approve of a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal, and that is just flat false. They have always wanted to withdraw the IDF from the territories (with the exception of the settlers who are flat nuts, but that's another story), and have repeatedly tried to do so. But they keep getting sucked back in. Why? Because over and over again, time in and time out, the Palestinians have refused to hold up their end of the deal. They will not crack down on the terrorists, so the IDF must do it in their stead. For the hundredth time, if you actually expect tyhe Israelis to just turn tail and run - leave the tterritories - until their security is guaranteed, then you are deluded, and you don't know the Israelis too well. You are constantly trying to propagate a number of lies related to this topic: 1) The Israelis want to "indefinitely" occupy the territories. This is false. If they wanted to "indefinitely" occupy the territories, then why have they repeatedly pulled out of them? The settlers are of course nuts, and I agree that they must return to Israel, but you seem to be under the impression that they represent all of Israel. 2) Israelis now support an unilateral, unconditional withdrawal. This is also false. 1,200 of about 400,000 servicemen support that, as well as the very small ultraleftist peacenik minority. The vast majority of Israelis support whatever will end the violence, and are smart enough to realize that unconditional withdrawal will not achieve that goal. 3) The Israelis are the only bad guys here. That is so false, I don't even know where to begin... suffice it to say that the number of civilian casualties sustained weighs heavily against the Israelis (nearly all of their casualties are civilians). I will never understand how you can equate a suicide bomber with a freedom fighter... For some odd reason, you appear to have not understood the root failings of the Oslo process, which would explain why you continue to have so many misconceptions about this topic. You claim that the Israelis just want to grab their land, but fail to explain why under the Barak deal (the culmination of the Oslo process) they were willing to 1) give back 95% of the occupied territories to the Palestinians, 2) withdraw all military units from the occupied territories, and 3) recognize a Palestinian state. Why did Arafat refuse it? Don't whine to me about water rights, and especially not about the "right of return" (that will never happen). Arafat refused that deal because he will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel, and any fool can see it.
Here's a viewpoint that I can agree with, just to let you know where I'm coming from: Dear Palestinian People By Beth Kennedy March 5, 2002 Think of me as a typical American, because that's all I am - no more, and no less. Perhaps, once, I tended to be sympathetic to your cause... but no longer. My opinion of the Palestinian Authority is at an all-time low, and you need to know that. Every time you allow an attack to be launched into an Israeli community, it is as if it were coming straight into my home, or any other American's. Do you honestly think that my country could support the establishment of a Palestinian state when, under the present terms, you continuously murder Israelis? What further horrors would await us all once you have fully acquired your own autonomy? I seem to remember people dancing when they learned our towers fell... Israel is a sovereign state; you are not. Israel has a right to defend herself. No state can permit the slaughter of its citizens. When you repeatedly attack her, Israel must respond. When she does respond, you rail against what you term "Israeli aggression" and unleash more terror, not stopping to consider your own obligations. Yes, you do have obligations. You have the obligation to abide by the various agreements you have entered into with her. Doesn't the Oslo Accord require that you refrain from the use of terror and discontinue violence? Now, how does your "Intifada" fit into this commitment? Aren't you supposed to "prohibit all forms of incitement to violence or terror?" Then, why does Al-Hayat Al-Jadida publish death notices commemorating heroic martyrs? When the names of cold-blooded murderers are sung out in praise from minarets, how does this fulfill your commitment to not incite? Doesn't the Interim Agreement require you to have regular elections for government officials, including that of Party Chairman? When did Yasser Arafat's term expire, and how does his illegitimacy in that office help you keep this commitment? Furthermore, how do you explain the lack of peace demonstrations in areas you control? Are potential demonstrators too afraid to speak up because they fear what could happen? What did happen not too long ago at the end of a trial in the West Bank? So, you might as well be firing Kassam rockets into your own hopes and dreams. As a people, you do not deserve your own state because, as a people, you refuse to abide by legal standards of behavior as addressed by international law, and by treaties that Mr. Arafat has signed. I call upon decent Palestinians, who aren't afraid to recognize this truth and aren't afraid to make a difference, to correct the outrageous anarchy within your own community. You need leadership that actually leads. How much longer will you permit terrorists to destroy your people? http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0289.htm
I actually didn't cop out. My exact words were that I didn't think there was anything fair we could do to end it. The orgins of this conflict are so old and deep. Dividing up the land will only make one side resent the other side and their supporters more. There are some things we can't do though. The "governments" in the Middle East do not operate like ours does. That does not always mean it's bad, but it usually is. The people in the Middle East identify themselves with tribes and families (including clans, sects and such) over nations. They are totally obligated to one another. Everyone is out for their own survival and the survival of their group, no matter what the expenseis to the others. And there are no police or law enforcment to make things right. No 911 to call when you're in trouble. They also run strict authoritarian regimes. Some are good, like the Ottomans during the glory years between 1500 and World War I. Others are brutal. They rule and people let them out of fear. Many of these rulers have short terms, so fear is the only way they are legitimized. President Assad of Syria ordered the entire city of Hama to be destroyed. Somewhere between 7,000 and 38,000 were killed. The entire city is one concrete block essentially. Hussein ordered chemicals weapons to be dropped on Halabja because the Kurds in the area wanted independence. These men do not see the people they are attacking as part of their nation. They are of different groups and they did what they needed to to keep power. Now, neither group in Israel really has power over the other as long as this war goes on. A simple peace agreement will not solve the problems in that area of the world. The groups will keep fighting each other until a legitmate government is put in. They do not play by the same rules we do. It would take a whole new government, life, and way of thinking for the problem to be solved. All this information can be found in Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem.
Treeman, said: if you actually expect the Israelis to just turn tail and run Relax, this isn't a question of whose is mas macho or whose a coward. The Israelis have proven long ago they are tough guys who don't "turn tail and run" as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully this is more than just trying to prove that on their part. We're trying to arrive at an agreement here. I note. You still haven't explained how you can subdue 3.2 million people etc. Lame one sided statments by a so called average American. What can I say? Oh, now I'm convicned. Maybe you should send it to Arafat and the Saudis to clear up everything.
Uh... What the hell are you talking about? Is this another "treeman never met a war he didn't like" jab? I have repeatedly commented on that... The problem here is that you seem to think that A) the Israelis want to subdue the Palestinians, and B) are actually trying to do so. You are, as I have repeatedly pointed out, wrong on both counts. Why have the Israelis repeatedly pulled out of the occupied territories if their goal is to "subdue" the Palestinians? Wouldn't it make more sense to maintain a constant and total presence if that was the case? Instead of repeatedly pulling out? Why did the Israelis offer them their lands and statehood, as well as a complete military withdrawal, if their goal was to "subdue" the Palestinians? You simply do not understand the Israelis at all. This is really very simple: The Israelis don't want the Palestinians to continue attacking their civilians! They are not going to withdraw without security guarantees. And if the PNA/Arafat will either not give them guarantees or (more commonly) renege on their guarantees, then the Israelis will go in and do it (wipe out the terrorists) themselves. Oh wait - they're already doing that. I seem to remember hearing about them moving into the refugee camps recently... They wouldn't have had to do that if the Palestinian "police" would have lived up to the Oslo agreements and done it themselves like they were supposed to... No lamer than the deceitful garbage you continually post on the subject. And probably a bit more representative... I am still waiting for the day when you admit that Arafat is a terrorist, not a statesman. Until you do that, you cannot even begin to address the situation honestly.
In other happy news from the Arab world: http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,662104,00.html "Dozens of suspected Christians were detained and tortured in Saudi Arabia during the last 18 months," London's Guardian reports. "The men, mainly Filipinos working in low paid jobs in the capital, Riyadh, fell foul of the country's strict sharia code which bars the observance of any religion other than Islam." http://www.sana.org/english/reports/Assad-Saudi Arabia/President-SA-Visit.htm Hmmm...no mention of Arab recognition of the State of Israel http://memri.org/news.html#1015357070 "...We always see how human beings prey upon each other, how values are trampled, and how tragedies recur. This is exactly what happened, and is still happening, at the 'American Auschwitz' detention camp...excuse me, I meant the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay!! This is one of the worst deeds of the American era in which we live, and one of the most infamous of its crimes, and will go down in history if [history] is written by men of honor, not by traitors." http://memri.org/sr/SR00602.html The Jews did it!!! No, wait, it was the CIA!!! No No No, it was W. I tells ya!!! Yeah, that's the ticket.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/719753.asp?cp1=1 "...members of this shadowy group [the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade] said that if Arafat asked them to stop the violence, they would." Yeah, he's a statesman alright, doing all he can to reduce the wanton death & destruction in Israel/Palestine. Why the h*ll was this guy awarded the Nobel Peace Prize???
Treeman. I will admit that Sharon and Arafat can both be considered terrorists. They can also both be considered the current leaders of their peoples. Now what? Let's try to get beyond naked assertions like This is really very simple: The Israelis don't want the Palestinians to continue attacking their civilians! They are not going to withdraw without security guarantees. The Saudi proposal, which is supported by most of the world, would give them those guarantees. If you take the posiiton that the other side are liars and no guarantees will ever be possible with liars, . what alternative do you have, but subdue them? How is this really that different from declaring the other side non human? You are very naive if you don't realize that Sharon and his advisors know that by giving the last Hamas member or suicide bomber veto power over any peace deal it will never happen. I do believe that unlike your naive position, ( I assume you are not just being deceitful) Sharon takes this position knowingly because he has not given up on occupying more of the land. Talk is cheap. Follow the money; the billions being spent on infrastructure in the occupied territories show where the ruling politicians in Israel are at. Ultimately the strategy of you and Sharon has been tried and it is failing. As Haven said: I post on these threads not to convince you, but to not let your proaganda go uncontested.
