Ariel Sharon -- fearless warrior leaves complicated political legacy

(Sharon’s stroke never gave him the opportunity to react to the devastating results of his decision but one thing is clear: The warrior-politician would have taken responsibility for his actions.)

You compromise G-d's position like King Saul and G-d doesn't give you that chance rabbi

Dov Wolpe, chairman of the Our Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael Shelanu) movement, commented on Sunday evening on the death of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Sharon will be remembered in Israel's history as the one who caused a Hamas takeover of Gaza and for rockets to be fired on central Israel,” he said. “He is the only leader who enlisted the Israel Defense Forces for his political needs and who destroyed the faith of soldiers in the righteousness of their war against the enemy. He is the man who will be remembered in our history as the one who destroyed the lives of thousands of families whom he expelled from their homes, removed dozens of dead from their graves and caused the burning of synagogues and yeshivot.”

An important reminder of right-wing betrayal from 2005

Caroline Glick reminds everyone of the "disengagement", how Ariel Sharon turned to committing sickening acts of anti-demoncratic behavior and how even the alleged supporters of Israel turned against them, leading to the very terrible fix we're in now:

After both the Oslo process and the withdrawal from Lebanon left Israel strategically and diplomatically weakened, with its politicians, generals and its very existence brought before international tribunals and targeted by diplomatic pogroms, there was no basis for the empty claim that by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel would gain international legitimacy to defend itself.
By leaving Gaza, Israel was saying - as it had in Lebanon - that it had no right to be there. And if it had no right to be there, it had no right to return.
To force this mad initiative through, Sharon had to explicitly disavow the platform he was elected to implement. Sharon won the 2003 elections by pledging never to surrender Gaza.
After he betrayed his voters, Sharon demonized and, when possible, fired everyone in positions of power and influence who opposed him.
He called a referendum of Likud members to vote on his plan, and when his opponents won the vote overwhelmingly, he ignored it. He fired Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, then IDF chief of General Staff. He fired his cabinet ministers. He castigated as "rebels" his party members who opposed his plan.
Moreover, with the active collusion of the legal system, Sharon violently repressed his political opponents. Young girls were thrown into jail without trial for months for participating in anti-withdrawal demonstrations. Privately chartered buses en route to lawful demonstrations were interdicted by police and prevented from traveling.
Protest organizers were arrested in their homes at 3 a.m. And with the active collusion of the media, all debate on the merits of the withdrawal plan was stifled.
As bad as it was in Israel, the situation in the US was arguably even more devastating. Since Oslo, Israeli opponents of the Left's strategic insanity were intellectually and politically buoyed by their conservative counterparts in America.
The latter helped legitimize political opposition and enabled the conceptualization and maintenance of alternative policies as viable options.
Despite government repression, some 45 percent of Israel's Jewish population actively participated in anti-withdrawal protests. In the US, virtually no one supported them. The absence of opposition owed to the fact that in America withdrawal opponents were boycotted, demonized and blacklisted by the American Jewish community and the previously supportive conservative media.
During the years of the fake peace process, conservative US Jewish groups and conservative publications led by Commentary, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal forcefully opposed it. But when Sharon joined the radical Left by adopting its plan to withdraw from Gaza, these formidable outlets and institutions enthusiastically followed him.
Leading voices like former Jerusalem Post editor and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Bret Stephens, Commentary editors Norman Podhoretz and Neal Kozodoy, commentator Charles Krauthammer and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol not only lined up to support the dangerous planned withdrawal. They barred all voices of opposition from the pages of their publications.
To greater and lesser degrees, their shunning of voices that warned against the Gaza withdrawal continues to this day.
So, too, with the exception of the Zionist Organization of America, every major American Jewish organization supported the withdrawal.
Like the editors of Commentary, the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, they barred voices of opposition from speaking to their groups.
All commentators who warned of the strategic calamity that would befall Israel in the aftermath of a withdrawal from Gaza were marginalized and demonized as extremists.
In a notable gesture, this week, Stephens along with Commentary's Max Boot, acknowledged their error in supporting the withdrawal from Gaza. Their recantations are noteworthy because most of their colleagues who joined them in pushing Israel down the garden path and cheered Sharon's "democracy" as 8,500 Israelis were thrown out of their homes and off their land in order to free it up for a terrorist takeover, continue to deny that they were wrong to do so.
But Stephens's and Boot's belated intellectual integrity on Gaza is not enough to make a difference for Israel today.

Of course not. For now, that these so-called defenders of democracy refused in any way, shape or form to speak out against a disgusting man who committed undemocratic behavior in his last days of living is shameful, and puts their support for democracy under a question mark. How are we really supposed to believe that they even want China to become a democracy if they're going to even remotely support totalitarian movements like the PLO, which has more or less run their own enclaves with sharia tactics? And supposing Sharon made racist statements against blacks? Would they have suppressed that info as well because this is Sharon who might've uttered blasphemy? If they did that, they'd be stooping to dark paganism.
If there's anybody Stephens, Podhoretz, Boot, Kozodoy, Kristol, Krauthammer and even Jonathan Tobin owe an apology to, it's the Jews once living in Gaza at whose expense they supported this whole sham, and contradicted their alleged belief in democracy as a result. How can they say they support freedom and then fully throw their weight behind the notion of turning Gaza over to an entity that's more than 99 percent the opposite of that? I'd say they have a lot of explaining to do, and one could reasonably argue that this is exactly why the GOP failed to win the election this year too. Just how do they expect to be truly successful if they cannot take a clear stand on what they believe in? Glick was absolutely correct to take them to task for their own shameful behavior, which is as disrespectful to Americans as it is to Israelis. They shouldn't even be working as columnists for major papers if they cannot or will not comprehend the real enemies and are willing to sacrifice their beliefs for the sake of dhimmitude. What they did is exactly what Benjamin Franklin considered abhorrent:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That's exactly what the so-called conservatives supporting the "disengagement" did, and in doing so betrayed even Arabs in Gaza with common sense.

via telchaination.blogspot.com

Ariel Sharon's Son Gilad Calls on Israel to 'Flatten Gaza'

(Libra Bunda)THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Gilad Sharon, the son of Ariel Sharon the former Israeli prime minister who was felled by a stoke in 2005, called on the country's armed forced to crush terrorism in Gaza by laying siege to the Palestinian territory.
Mr Sharon, an activist for the opposition Kadima party said that Israel's south would only be calm when Israel would be able to declare total victory over Hamas and other radical groups in the city.
Otherwise the alternative would be to reoccupy the territory that his father ordered a withdrawal from in 2005. To do so the army should unleash an all-out assault. "Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too," he wrote in the Jerusalem Post.
Mr Sharon, who is also a major in Israel's reserve forces, said the government should force the leadership of Gaza to capitulate by cutting off all supplies.
"There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they'd really call for a ceasefire," he wrote. » | Damien McElroy | Monday, November 19, 2012

Like his father he is wrong. Gaza will fight to the death... there will be no surrender. However this is no reason to risk Israeli lives. We have no choice but to bomb Gaza and Obama's silence on the issue doesn't help Gaza. The international community is criminal for not stepping in and occupying Gaza themselves and keeping the peace. It is very obvious Europe hates Jews more then they love the children of Gaza

The hidden divide between the Israeli Left and the Palestinian "moderates"

...972 MAGAZINE...

...MORE via Elder of Ziyon...

...The concept of "two states for two peoples" has been the mantra of the Israeli "peace camp" for decades.
In what can only be considered a triumph by the leftists, this idea, which was was considered anathema to Israeli governments of both the right and the left, became mainstream Israeli policy. Even Ariel Sharon used that exact phrase in May, 2004 when unveiling the disengagement plan from Gaza (placing him far to the left of Yitzchak Rabin, who never accepted the idea of a "Palestinian state.")
Similarly, that phrase has been highlighted by both George Bush and Barack Obama.
Yet the mainstream, supposedly moderate Palestinian Arab leadership has never accepted this key concept, and has been consistently and adamantly against it. To them, the idea of even accepting the existence of a Jewish people cannot be countenanced - even in private.
Any reasonable observer can see that this is a dealbreaker. The PLO's insistence on trampling the idea of a Jewish people and a Jewish homeland means that real peace can never be achieved. They are the ones who are the true obstacle to peace, far more than anything the Israeli government has ever done. The majority of Israelis have steadily moved to the stated positions of the "peace" movement in the past two decades, while the majority of Palestinian Arabs have remained as obstinate as ever.

The MYTH of the Israeli LEFT

the Leftist +972 online magazine explains why the 'return of the Israeli Left' isn't happening: It’s time to face facts: Rabin’s second government was a historical accident, no more. This was the only time in 35 years that the left won a Knesset majority – and even then, it wasn’t even close to a majority of the Jewish public. Liberalism, in the American sense, never took real hold in Israel.

The current social protest is a unique event with tremendous potential, but if it’s a return to the Jewish democracy dreamland that Americans hope for, you are up for a major disappointment. There won’t be a “return” – all we can and should hope for is something completely new.

Carl of Israel Matzav: I hadn't quite thought about it that way, but he's right. Both Rabin (1992) and Barak (1999) failed to get a majority of the Jewish vote. Sharon (2001 and 2004) won as the Likud candidate. Olmert 2006? Didn't get a majority of the Jewish vote and arguably wasn't running on a Left platform. Kadima is still not considered a party of the Left (although their platform is definitely more Left than Right).
Whatever support for the Left there was among Jewish Israelis was spooked by the terror sponsorship of the 'Palestinian Authority' and that started long before 2000. It's not likely to come back anytime soon. And nearly all Jewish Israelis have become capitalists, Even the ones demonstrating in the streets of Tel Aviv.

Isn't it funny the way opposition agrees against the New York Times? One wonders what planet the Times is on. I suppose their intent is to give the left some hope that they can dismantle Israel from within, but their leftist pals in smaller publications just don't hold that optimism. The fact of the matter is it isn't a matter of left and right. It is a matter of protecting people from killers... and if that is what the right is in Israel, then the left does not have a chance. Should the left decide they want to be a John F Kennedy style Left that protects the country from it's enemies and still considers the jobs and quality of life of it's people, then they have a chance, but the truth is the Left in Israel... what little there is of it ...is not about the people. They are haters that are funded from beyond Israel's borders.  Jobs and quality of life are merely bait... and not even good bait because Israel's economy is doing well.  Why do you think Israel's enemies are trying so hard to take part in BDS movements?  The haters know the one thing that keeps Israel going is success... and they certainly would not want that to happen.  As for the right, the fact remains that increasing wealth is better for the people... and in fact stealing wealth from the people to give to a government that hates it's people is not what Jews want. It isn't like as if the LEFT has created jobs in America.  I'm unemployed.

Palestinians may give up on bid for full UN membership to avoid U.S. veto, sources say

Wishing to avoid an American veto at the Security Council, the Palestinian Authority is considering turning directly to the United Nations General Assembly in September in order to gain international recognition of Palestinian statehood.

	Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas attends a meeting of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah AP

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
attends a meeting of the Palestinian leadership
in Ramallah AP

Palestinian sources and European diplomats say that the Palestinians will give up their effort to be accepted as a full member of the UN - a move that would require approval by the Security Council - and will seek instead recognition by the General Assembly of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, which will not be a full member of the organization. via haaretz.com

Following the failed meeting of the Quartet foreign ministers in Washington last week, the Palestinians recognized that the United States will veto any resolution that will be brought before the UN Security Council for unilateral Palestinian statehood. Moreover, the Palestinians have also concluded that turning to the Security Council with a request for full membership in the UN is a more complicated proposition, largely because of time constraints. Palestinian sources and European diplomats said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his aides are increasingly leaning toward a direct appeal to the General Assembly of the international organization. Even though the assembly lacks the authority to offer the Palestinians full UN membership, at the General Assembly the United States is unable to use its veto power against resolutions brought before the plenum for a vote. Also, the Palestinians would like the vote to take place during the General Assembly in the last week of September, and for this there is no need for a great deal of preparation. The vote at the General Assembly could be called with as little as 24 hours notice. A vote at the General Assembly is expected to end with a Palestinian victory and a large majority, as some 140 member states are expected to support recognition of a Palestinian state. Even though a General Assembly resolution is "weaker" than one by the Security Council, the Palestinians are comparing such a decision to Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, in which the General Assembly approved the plan to partition Palestine. Senior Palestinian officials say that without the decision on dividing Palestine in 1947, Israel would not have had the international legitimacy to declare independence in May 1948.

Except that Israel could have done whatever it wanted in 1948 because the Arabs (there were no 'Palestinians' in 1948) rejected the partition plan and determined to drive the Jews into the sea. Moreover, Israel was admitted by the Security Council in 1949. more via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

there was a whole lot of verbal attacks on the U.S. for this need for Palestine to settle for less.  Catherine Ashton who is the foreign policy head of the E.U. and a member of labor in the U.K. tried to put forward a version that was rejected by the Muslim Arabs for 6o years and would of ignored G W Bush's promises of facts on the ground to Ariel Sharon.

Obama berates Israel, embraces idea of terrorist-led state of Palestine, indefensible pre-1967 borders for Israel

......... ... ... ......... ... ... did any of my Jewish Brothers and Sisters vote for Obama because of what he said on TV?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Exasperated by stalled Middle East peace talks in a season of tumultuous change, President Barack Obama jolted close ally Israel Thursday by embracing the Palestinians' terms for drawing the borders of their new nation next door. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel rejected the idea as "indefensible" on the eve of his vital White House meeting with Obama.

The U.S. president said that an independent Palestine should be based on 1967 borders—before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza—as adjusted by possible land swaps agreed upon by both sides. He said Israel can never live in true peace as a Jewish state if it insists on "permanent occupation." More... via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Obama's #MESpeech -
the 1967 lines that NEVER was

Here is the full text of Obama's speech today. In it the President says:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Before I get to some of the reactions, I would first like to address the fact that Obama's call for a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines (1949 armistice lines) was not new for this administration. (h/t Jeffrey Goldberg)

"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." - Hillary Clinton 2009

Now for the responses.

CHALLAH @ Israel

Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.
That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. 
Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.
Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.
Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.
Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.

Mahmoud Abbas has called an emergency meeting to discuss Obama's speech. Hamas has rejected the speech and has said that the Arab nation does not need advice about democracy. 
The ADL has welcomed Obama's speech.
Jackson Diehl says Obama's speech is filled with the soaring rhetoric.
Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Allen West are all upset as they believe Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.  Roy Blunt says Obama is dreaming if he thinks unilateral concessions will bring peace.

John Bolton is upset that there was not enough of a focus on Iran. 
Danny Danon thinks Netanyahu should tell Obama to forget about it. 
ElderofZiyon has written a great piece that you should all check out.  In it Elder writes: I expected much worse. But I think that the Palestinian Arabs expected much, much more. Their tweets so far are reflecting sheer anger. Given that they regard everything as a zero-sum game, then at least from their perspective this is a huge win for Israel and Netanyahu.
Obama's speech may be fundamental shift in U.S. Policy - Josh Rogin
Michael Rubin says we should not rush the aid, wait and see how things play out. 
The AP makes shit up about Obama's speech - Charles Johnson

Jonathan Tobin writes: The problem with this strategy is that even this unprecedented move won’t convince those who hate Israel to love America. And by damaging Israel’s diplomatic position and making its isolation more likely, he has also undermined U.S. interests. In another post Jonathan says that Obama's call regarding the 1967 lines is a radical policy shift. 
Yaacov Lozowick says that Obama has clearly learned something as President.
Yisrael Medad says it could have been worse.
Jeffrey Goldberg says the big deal of the entire speech was "Obama's forthright denunciation of the unilateral Palestinian plan to seek the General Assembly's endorsement this September."
Max Boot says that Obama has been mugged by the events in the Middle East.
Senator Kirk says that "Palestinian calls for ‘1967 borders' should be outweighed by Israel's need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally."
Walter Russell Mead says Obama has embraced his inner Bush. 
Alana Goodman is confused by all the bashing as she thought Obama's speech was "excellent."

Danielle Pletka asks what was major about today's speech?
Senator Mike Lee to not happy. 

Omri Ceren says that decades of American policy have just been abandoned. 

The Republican Jewish Coalition is concerned with some of Obama's statements. 

Obama's speech may worry some in American Jewry.
JStreet tries to take credit for Obama's speech. 

Obama gave the most pro-Israel speech of his life, or at least he thought so. 

Obama's misstep, oh boy says Robert Satloff.

Eli Lake says speech was good for Palestinians and Israel.
Noah Pollak thinks the 2004 Bush-Sharon Letter referenced by Netanyahu will become bigger issue in coming days.
Jeffrey Goldberg doesn't see where Obama threw Israel under the bus, rather says same view on border as George W. Bush.  Hussein Ibish says not exactly the same, a little better.
“No American president has ever used this formulation before,” said former State Department official Aaron David Miller.

Elliot Abrams says Obama's words will have no real effect.

Marco Rubio is not happy with the Israel portion of Obama's speech. Neither is Pat Toomey.

via challahhuakbar.blogspot.com

The Plot to Destroy the US Military

The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", completely ignore military realities for political objectives. A political military is also a useless military. Stalin's purges of the Russian Army's commanders left the Soviet Union completely unprepared for the Nazi attack. And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve.
A congressional report now says that the US military has too many white males at the top. Women are being kept out of the highest ranks because they lack combat experience. The report calls on the military leadership to "better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of American society". Which is code for affirmative action. If we didn't have enough incompetents at the top, we can look forward to an affirmative action military in which the generals will be there because of the color of their skin or their gender, not because they're the best at what they do.
...Such dramatic overhauls of the military usually take place because it is culturally out of step with the government. Would be tyrants, such as Turkey's Erdogan, go after the military because it represents a barrier to absolute power. Others because the military is a barrier to their agenda. Sharon destroyed the once great IDF, purging its commanders and replacing them with political generals in order to push through his ethnic cleansing of the Jewish communities in Gaza, leading to the disastrous performance in the Second Lebanon War. The Democrats may not have anything as ambitious in mind, but they are determined to bring it culturally into line with their agenda. And that will destroy the military as anything other than a politically correct corps that will occasionally show up for UN peacekeeping missions. This did not begin yesterday. The left has hated the American military because it is a vehicle of national exceptional-ism. A strong military gives the country a sense of independence and confidence that many European countries have lost. During the Vietnam War, the Anti-War movement targeted the military as an institution and the soldier as an individual, in order to destroy America's ability to take independent military action. Despite the abolition of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the left has continued its vocal opposition to an ROTC presence on campus. When a wounded Iraq War veteran spoke at Columbia, he was booed and jeered. Their excuse is that the military "discriminates" against transsexuals. And when that barrier too is dismantled, then there will be something else. It's not about gays or transsexuals, it's about a deep rooted ideological hostility to the military. Not because of any specific policy, but because of what it represents as the defenders of a country and an order that the left would like to see destroyed.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Sharon was Kahane killer's target

The man who killed Meir Kahane in 1990 claims he did not carry out the shooting alone, as previously thought, but was part of a three-man terrorist cell with links to al-Qaida. Its original target was future prime minister Ariel Sharon, according to a newly-leaked US government document.
During his investigation for an article into alleged counter- terrorism blunders published in Playboy magazine on Friday, freelance journalist Peter Lance uncovered official FBI memos which bring new information to light about the murder of the Israeli politician in New York.
According to the documents, Kahane’s killer, El-Sayyid Nosair, told detectives in 2005 that he had planned to assassinate Sharon, who was then Israel’s minister of housing and construction.

via jpost.com

I loved Sharon, but there is no doubt he blundered by withdrawing from Gaza. I wish he was the one who got the bullet... not the man who pointed out the hypocrisy of tolerating those who believe their religion should kill Jews.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

One Makes Peace with a Former Enemy not an Enemy

Pipes makes some observations that are very good:

Rabin's mistake was simple and profound: One cannot "make peace with one's enemy," as he imagined. Rather, one makes peace with one's former enemy. Peace nearly always requires one side in a conflict to be defeated and thus give up its goals.

Wars end not through goodwill but through victory. "Let your great object [in war] be victory" observed Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist. "War is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfill our will," wrote his nineteenth-century Prussian successor, Karl von Clausewitz in 1832. Douglas MacArthur observed in 1951 that in "war, there is no substitute for victory."

Technological advancement has not altered this insight. Fighting either continues or potentially can resume so long as both sides hope to achieve their war goals. Victory consists of imposing one's will on the enemy, compelling him to give up his war ambitions. Wars typically end when one side gives up hope, when its will to fight has been crushed.

Defeat, one might think, usually follows on devastating battlefield losses, as was the case of the Axis in 1945. But that has rarely occurred during the past sixty years. Battlefield losses by the Arab states to Israel in 1948-82, by North Korea in 1953, by Saddam Hussein in 1991, and by Iraqi Sunnis in 2003 did not translate into despair and surrender. Morale and will matter more these days. Although they out-manned and out-gunned their foes, the French gave up in Algeria, the Americans in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Cold War ended, notably, with barely a fatality. Crushing the enemy's will to fight, then, does not necessarily mean crushing the enemy.

via danielpipes.org

but then I question this aspect of what he is saying:

In place of victory, Israelis developed an imaginative array of approaches to manage the conflict:

• Territorial compromise: Yitzhak Rabin (and the Oslo process).
• Develop the Palestinian economy: Shimon Peres (and the Oslo process).
• Unilateralism (build a wall, withdraw from Gaza): Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima party.
• Lease the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank for 99 years: Amir Peretz and the Labor Party.
• Encourage the Palestinians to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and George W. Bush).
• Territorial retreat: Israel's Left.
• Exclude disloyal Palestinians from Israeli citizenship: Avigdor Lieberman.
• Offer Jordan as Palestine: elements of Israel's Right.
• Expel Palestinians from lands controlled by Israel: Meir Kahane.

Contradictory in spirit and mutually exclusive as they are, these approaches all aim to finesse war rather than win it. Not one of them addresses the need to break the Palestinian will to fight. Just as the Oslo negotiations failed, I predict that so too will every Israeli scheme that avoids the hard work of winning.

via danielpipes.org

I would argue that "Exclude disloyal Palestinians from Israeli citizenship: Avigdor Lieberman." and "Expel Palestinians from lands controlled by Israel: Meir Kahane." would break the wills of Palestine very well. but Daniel Pipes is right that we need to break their will. I don't think we will break wills by allowing people who kill Jews hiding behind Gharqad trees to live with us.

as a clear policy in my opinion all governments around the world with Islamic populations should ask these citizens what they believe. If there is evidence that they believe that they can kill Jews behind trees or murder converts, then the easy solution would be to deport them. If Israel would do this very Democratic practice of protecting it’s citizens from hate all of this would be conjecture. If they mean to kill others because of what they believe then they do not belong as citizens. of course we understand that part of Islamic law allows these people to lie. For this reason you just find evidence like any other murder plot. If Israel had been applying this law from the start then there would be no more conflict. What country would deny a people the right to not be murdered? Perhaps Europe and the West should also take note that there is a very fair way to deal with hate.