Firstly, I want to commend you for 'laying it in' to Mark and all the other armchair zionists and critics who are safely in the diaspora, even though my thinking might be closer to his. Simon, the question is not holding on to Gaza. We agreed not to hold on to Gaza with the signing of the second Oslo Agreement in Cairo in May 1994. How do you think Arafat came to Gaza in July of the same year? The question is the unilateral dismanteling o settlements which was a subject that was supposed to be negotiated. If Sharon had the same committment to 'ard' (land) that the Palestinians have, he would never have relinquished the settlements. That isthe name of the game here , who flinches first? This in the Palestinian mind is weakness and a cofirmation of our 'colonialist nature', that we don't have a real committment to he land. Because of the western mindset of the Ashkenazi establishment these minor points don't cross their mind. We had bargaining chips, but Sharon flinched first. One has great forboding for the precedent set here, with regard to territories that have more historical significance for us.
Saudis warns U.S. that 9/11 responsibility law would erode investor confidence in America (Reuters)
from the article: IDF: Demolition of settlement houses may start at end of next week
For all those suffering from voluntary amnesia here are just a few of the Irgun's highlights of Hamas-worthy violence.20:47 02.05.16 | 2 comments