--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On the other hand, does anyone doubt that Ariel Sharon hopes his > policy of creeping annexation of the West Bank will somehow, someday, > end with all the Palestinians on the other side of the Jordan River? > > I think the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel should be > absolute. I don't think the U.S. should be favoring the Israeli > annexation of large chunks of the West Bank. > > Brad DeLong > > Me: > Yes, I do. I don't think Sharon has any interest in the West Bank as > anything but a security zone. For God's sake, it's _the West Bank_. > Having control of it is what should happen to you if you _lose_ a war. > With the exception of a very small fraction of the extreme right in Israel, > as far as I can tell no one there wants the West Bank. Pretty much > everyone on the Israeli side is willing to accept a two-state solution - > they may differ on the boundaries of that stte, on what assurances they > would accept, and so on. But they are willing to accept two states, and > Sharon has publicly stated his belief that there must be a two-state > solution aswell. I agree with you precisely. I think that the US > commitment to the security of Israel should be absolute. The security of > Israel should be America's _first_ priority in the Middle East. I also > agree that the US should not favor the annexation of large chunks of the > West Bank. We differ in that I see no evidence that Sharon - or anyone > else of significance in Israeli politics - wants to do that. > > Gautam > What about Sharon's commitment to settlements? He's opposed to abandoning any of them, and Israel has built 30 more in the last year. You could say that they're meant to be bargaining chips, but it seems to me that the more people who benefit from settlements, the harder it will be to cut back in the future.
Ronnie N. Carpio __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com
