A bit simplistic, perhaps a bit hysterical as well?

Yes, Israel is quitting Gaza. They were hardly going to be there forever. Israel’s habit of capturing and settling territory which does not belong to them has created a festering sore in the Middle East. It must eventually be resolved, and this will undoubtedly involve ceding more territory to Arabs.

However, the vision of a greater Israel remains. I see Sharon’s endgame as being a unilateral two-state settlement in which Israel gifts the Palestinians the land it is willing to sacrifice, and the Palestinians must finally tackle their own problems without the old excuses.

Appeals to western guilt complexes regarding the holocaust may play to some in the US and Australia, but are increasingly wearing thin in Europe, and are utterly irrelevant on the bloodied ground of Palestine.

Likewise, pontifications about terrorism don’t erase the political problem which Israel has created for itself. Ultimately, the Jewish state must resolve these issues if it wishes to move forward.

The Gaza withdrawal is a small step, but at least it is in the right direction.

Can I recommend the following webpage as a voice of sanity and reason in this debate.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14624

Its a review of a work by Amos Elon- author of "The Pity of It All: German Jews Before Hitler"

I think it shows that this is a complex issue and that a statesman who can break the mould (whilst not getting assasinated)is what is needed for that part of the world.

Im not yet sure that Mr Sharon is that man.

For those who believe the Palestinians will view the Gaza withdrawal as a 'contribution to peace' and a 'reason to cease atrocities' ....

did you all note the suicide bombing yesterday ?

I maintain, and affirm, that no amount of Israeli withdrawal from 'legitimately conquered lands' (i.e. reclaiming from an ATTACKING force) will satisfy the hard core of the Palestinian group.

The root core of their motivation is as much (if not more) 'Islamic'/religious as it is territorital.

Anyone who thinks the status of Jerusalem and the Temple mount are NOT at the absolute core of this, are bewilderingly ignorant, and untutored in things Judaistic/Islamic.
Even the fact that most Israeli's are secular has no bearing on this state of affairs.

The idea that the Orthodox Jews would EVER (perhaps when hell freezes over) allow Jerusalem and the site of the Holy of Holy's to be in Muslim hands, is beyond comprehension. Such people should start from Genesis, and read through to the end of the old testament, you might gain some appreciation of the issue.

Day of 'infamy'? More along the lines of a day of 'atonement' in my opinion. We are talking several decades of illegal occupation under international law, as Israel has for many years been one of the few countries insisting that it is entitled to acquire land by means of invasion.

Also rather than assuming all terrorists are inherently evil or illogical one must stop and think about what drives this action. People turn to terrorism when they see that there are no legitimate political avenues for them to express dissatisfaction with the state, when they see the state itself as unjust and unreasonable. Any state that bypasses rule of law with 'targeted killings', elects a war criminal as its president and then refuses to acknowledge an illegal occupation of land is clearly contorting itself into a breeding ground for terrorism. The withdrawal is a momentous step - every concession and adherence to rule of law sends the signals that legitimate channels can guarantee the palestinians safety and certainty and so reduces the chances that the next generations will become 'radicalized.' Every attempt to crush with an iron fist disillusions the next generation and sows the seeds of terrorism.

In my opinion this development is a sign that the state of israel has finally matured and is willing to take the steps to make amends to the palestinians and secure true legitimacy in todays interational socio-political landscape, based on an acknowledgement of plural needs rather than blind adherence to scripture.

Also David - this is not reclaiming from an attacking force - this was invasion beyond the original lands - there is no such thing as legitimately claiming someone ele's territory because you need a buffer zone.

Have you read the UN Charter or any of the case law on acquiring territory? Are you just making this up?

Monika. On a whole two very intelligent posts. But i do feel the need to pick you up on two points.
Firstly I think the key to this dispute (and most others) are the moderates. Both Israelis and Palestinians. Objectively neither side is free from criticism. Having said this Sharon could just be the man that increases the size of the moderate political grouping in Israel despite the attrocities he resided over in the eighties. The fewer ultra orthodox nut cases there are to get in the way the better. I can't see much of a difference morally between Sharon and the late Arafat.
Secondly despite what the UN charter says it was this body (more accurately the league of nations) that conspired with Zionism to found the state of Israel. I'm sure God never sanctioned the dirty politics behind this-chosen people or not. However the UN has done very little to protect Israel subsequent to this and I don't think Israelis had much of a choice but to create buffers.
What I do know is that if this is ever to be resolved the moderates on both sides have to forgive the past and get on with a workable compromise.Even if the radicals do all they can to impede this.