You are correct in pointing out that the Ha’aretz “teaser”, if reported accurately by you, lacks context, insofar as it makes no mention of the “formula that asserts that the eradication of terrorism precedes the start of the political process”. However, after reading the full article, I think “L” is correct in asserting that “Israel withdrew [from Gaza] as part of an attempt to freeze the ‘peace process’ ”.

I would add only that the Israeli intention was to freeze it indefinitely. As Weisglass says: “I found a device, in cooperation with the management of the world, to ensure that there will be no stopwatch here. That there will be no timetable to implement the [West Bank] settlers’ nightmare. I have postponed that nightmare indefinitely. Because what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [the main ones] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns.”

Now we all know that the Palestinians are not going to “turn into Finns”, who are presumably people who, even if subjected to appalling oppression, will not take up arms against their oppressor – which is the legal right of any occupied people, by the way. In reality, in any such oppressive situation, in any part of the world, there will always be acts of retaliation, which means that the Israeli precondition for a “peace process” will never be met.

This is just another example of the Zionist modus operandi, which we have seen in operation since 1947-48: Seize Palestinian land; drive out the Palestinians; come up with a contrivance that convinces the world (though fewer and fewer people these days) that the Palestinians as the architects of their own plight.

But are the Palestinians really suffering? Well, not according to Weisglass. In a statement that can only be described as surreal, when one considers the actual conditions in Gaza, he says: “There are no more Israeli soldiers spoiling their day. And for the first time thay have a slice of land with total continuity on which they can race from one end to the other in their Ferrari.”

I’m also puzzled by Weisglass’ assertion that “We reached that conclusion [that there is no negotiating partner on the Palestinian side] after years of thinking otherwise. After years of attempts at dialogue.” If my memory serves me correctly, I first heard this line in 1986. Anyway, it ignores the obvious point, made by innumerable commentators, that you negotiate peace with an enemy, not with an unctuous collaborator.

I found the article interesting only because of its descriptions of the relationship between Weisglass and Sharon, and of the relationship between Weisglass and the Secretary of State of “the management of the world” – now deservedly bankrupt as a result of its military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But returning to the “giant theater piece” of the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, I’m struck by the number of commentators who use this or similar terms to describe the pullout.

The following is from the Habitat International Coalition site at http://www.hicnet.org/articles.php?pid=1774 :

…Jewish Israeli society and the international media remain transfixed by the pornography of the disengagement. Attention is focused on the alleged trauma of the government’s decision to sponsor the relocation of approximately 8,000 Jewish Israelis from the Gaza Strip and a few hundred others from four West Bank colonies to homes within their state. Such is the absurdist theatre of the disengagement that the histrionic settlers even have the audacity to compare their protests to the civil rights campaign led by Martin Luther King Jnr.

These theatrics serve Mr Sharon’s agenda well, adding drama to the staged representation of a Jewish nation on the brink of civil war. Far from its portrayal as a traumatic operation of historic significance, the disengagement is in reality a superficial, cosmetic operation…

Given the date of the Z-Mag interview, the people close to Sharon that Avnery is probably referring to is the same Weisglass, as he is/ was close to Sharon at the time!

However, this does not provide any further illumination!

Mr Sharon is very silent on the matter…for obvious reasons!

Uri Avnery has some relevant comments at http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5424 , in an interview with Tikkun:

UA: Sharon does have an interest in making this evacuation appear to be nearly impossible in order to demonstrate that if removing eight thousand settlers is such an immense and dangerous job, how could anyone consider moving two hundred and fifty thousand settlers from the West Bank? I think the Palestinians are right if they suspect this, because I suspect the same

TIKKUN: In order to show support for Sharon’s disengagement plan, Labor and Meretz have backed the withdrawal without demanding that it be the first step in withdrawing from the West Bank. Do you think that this was a smart tactic on the part of people who actually want to end the Occupation in its entirety?

UA: All of us in the peace movement have been faced with this dilemma. According to people who are close to Sharon, after Gaza we shall not retreat from any place whatsoever. There shall be no peace agreement, no final status negotiations, nothing…

However, I would affirm that your doubts and acceptance on differing sites, which affirm differing positions, does underscore your presuppositions on this matter!

My Thoughts on Where I Would Like to See Matt Flanagan Used in a New Zealand Context… not forgetting “the Glenn of the Peoples.”

The comment previous to your’s gave the context of how these incorrect details got into the mainstream media, and the link with which to peruse it for yourself.

I can only encourage you to read this for yourself, and for those, such as the site you have linked to, who are not fans of the nation of Israel, such details are grist for their presuppositional mill, and what actually Weisglass said becomes sadly inconsequential, and the mis-information and damage is compounded, which says more about the attitude of those who sites that continue to do so!

Anti-Abortion Quotations for You to Ponder On!

Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s adviser and confidant …in an interview with Ha’aretz … stated: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process… And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda… The disengagement is actually formaldehyde… It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

If my memory serves me correctly, as I posted this some 6 months ago, I did not give any reason or motivation for why Israel pulled out, just that they did!

Nevertheless, you have claimed that “my claims about the Gaza withdrawal are inaccurate,” as it is an “attempt to freeze the peace process.”

I am assuming you have heard this through a given media source, but as the following article will make clear, the media picked up on a story that was in Ha’aretz a day before it was broken fully, and got it all wrong…

Here is an initial quote from a piece you can go to through the link…

“In his interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, Dov Weissglas, a close advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was asked about Israel’s decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. According to American media coverage of this interview, Weissglas suggested that Ariel Sharon’s true intention in planning the Gaza disengagement is to freeze the peace process and prevent a Palestinian state. However, this was not his message at all; his words were taken out of context.

The misleading account of the interview stems from an Oct. 6 Haaretz article, a “teaser” promoting the publication of the full interview on Oct. 8. The “teaser” revealed a few selected quotes, and carried the sensational headline, “Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process.” Though the article made clear that the full interview would appear on Friday, Oct. 8, American newspapers on Oct. 7 followed Haaretz’s lead, proclaiming that Sharon’s advisor had finally admitted the Gaza disengagement was aimed at sidestepping negotiations and obstructing formation of a Palestinian state. Weissglas protested that his words had been taken out of context, and some newspapers did make note of this – but they left it as a matter of doubt.”

You can read the rest here

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=31&x_article=783

It may interest you to hear how the Palestinian side viewed the Israel pull out

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2005/08/palestinian_lea_2.html

Toda Raba

I hope to get back to you later “L”… but I have an assignment to focus on, let alone finish!

Brian Tamaki: Man of God, Man of doG… or a Protestant Pope?

My Thoughts on Where I Would Like to See Matt Flanagan Used in a New Zealand Context… not forgetting “the Glenn of the Peoples.”