"A second disengagement would have to be a plan coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, with a political dimension and an economic depth that would strengthen the moderates, Palestinians as well as Israelis, and that would have to be part of an overall strategic outlook that pushes both peoples toward peace." In short, everything Sharon's disengagement was not. But then, why don't you, Ari Shavit, have the guts and honesty to tell us straight as it really was: A well-calculated deceptive ploy to further weakening the man his people had elected with a clear majority for Chairman, only six months earlier? What sense does it make to lament over the fact that "no Palestinian had the power to implement peace" ? A strong Palestinian leader with the power to do just that, strong from having a solid majority of his people behind him, would also have had the power to confront any Israeli PM and force him to evacuate all the West Bank settlements. And THAT was the last thing Sharon was interested in. And you know it, Ari Shavit, as much as I do.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Syrian opposition says Russian strikes must stop before peace talks (Reuters)
from the article: Netanyahu is positioning himself left of Rabin