Then I agree. But if unilateral also means territorial concessions, forget it. I supported the Gaza disengagement - and I have no problem admitting I was wrong. It was a mistake. I let my admiration for Sharon cloud my judgement. In any case, in reality, there is no difference between unilateral & bilateral. We are always negotiating with ourselves because the Palestinians never keep any agreements anyway. Worse, we give away tangible assets while they give away empty promises. I would like to hear Netanyahu say openly that Jordan is Palestine. He's not likely to say it. As long as Israeli leaders maintain the fiction that a second Palestinian state is an option, we will remain a nation of losers.

I could not agree more with what you wrote Terry. I did not agree with Sharon although I had voted for him and love and admire the man to this day. I disagreed because I feared what could happen did in fact happen. I also believe had Sharon not been struck with a stroke he would have gone back in eventually and cleaned up in ways only Sharon knew how. I doubt we would be in such a mess as we are in now had he been around a little while longer, but we will never know for sure. What we do need is real leaders who care more for the people than world opinion or their personal enrichments through some corrupt bizz deals. I don't care if Olmert is half innocent or partially o.k. - he is no leader and a disgrace to this country. Sharon made a grave mistake, but he is no longer around to fix it. But in all his imperfection he was a leader. I wonder if true leaders are around anymore? I hope so.

Possibly this Sharon need a rest as well as his fat bro. He is NOT his old man and he is not the eminence gris that gave Israel any deterrence vis a vis her enemies. Do NOT teach Granny Beebster to suck eggs young man. It is not your skill set whatever those may be.

#1, why do you now regret supporting disengagement? Gilad Sharon wrote: "The rocket fire on Sderot began long before the Gaza pullout; but in all the meeting which preceded the pullout – when options of warning the residents, firing at the artillery sources and if all else fails, targeting neighborhoods used as firing hubs, were being explored – the legal advisers informed the powers at be that as long as we were in the Gaza Strip, we will not be able to declare it a hostile entity." Is the author wrong? #2, If you disagreed with Sharon on disengagement, why did you vote for Sharon in 2003? While campaigning for re-election, during 2002, Sharon made it clear to the voters, "a Palestinian state is inevitable" and "we must make painful concessions." Was there any doubt Sharon would forcibly uproot whole Jewish communities? No. Why then did you and many thousands of others on the right vote for Likud; Sharon being its head? Why did so many thousands of Jews then vote for Kadima and this traitorous government now in power? I'm perplexed about Israel's Jews. Why do you support these people? Didn't Sharon betray his own principles when he caved-in to immoral Bush administration pressure? Don't you remember Sharon's Czechoslovakia warning to Bush, early October 2001. He compared Bush to Neville Chamberlain; in his effort to court Arab favor -- just as Chamberlain sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler -- Bush was sacrificing Israel; Bush is willing to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense. Why then did you continue to support Sharon after he betrayed his own principles, as well as the principles of Likud as they once stood?

I don't think you were wrong in supporting the disengagement. The failure of the disengagement was the result of the weak leadership that took hold of the country after Sharon's stroke. To this day I believe that the disengagement would have been a success if Sharon had been able to stay at the helm. I don't think that Sharon would have tolerated consistent rocket fire from Gaza. In my opinion, Sharon knew that some territory had to be ceded for Israel's own benefit, but he was also willing to take appropriate military action to protect the country. I'm not trying to idealize Sharon, but I miss the days when Israel had a leader who could make decisions based on what he thought was good for Israel, and if the international community didn't like it then so be it.

The disengagement was completed in summer 2005, and Sharon remained PM for almost a half-year after that--till January 2006. In that period there were plenty of rocket firings from Gaza (albeit not at today's frequency). SHARON DID NOT RESPOND. Opponents of the disen. predicted that responding would be very difficult because of Israel's loss of its military presence on the ground and its associated intelligence assets, plus the related inevitable Pal. civilian casualties when Israel was forced to respond by firing artillery and from aircraft, instead of the on-the-ground search-and-arrest operations that were much more feasible while Israel had a military presence in Gaza. But let us get the facts straight. For half a year after leaving Gaza SHARON did not respond to rocket fire.

to your first question, Gilad Sharon is wrong. There is a huge difference between the few primitive rockets fired before the Ethnic Cleansing to the many advanced rockets fired now: 1 / week is irritation, 30 /week lead to an empty Sderot. The Ethnic Cleansing allowed Gaza to be filled with advanced anti aircraft and anti tank rockets and highly experienced Arab fighters. The Ethnic Cleansing allowed Hamas to take over Gaza giving it international legitimacy. The Ethnic Cleansing encouraged Hezbolla to fight, and defeat, an IDF weakened by its training to destroy synagogues.

We have all these so-called opinion writers, who come up with all kinds of mind games. But with all this intellect , we see one moron after another blundering through the PM's office, leaving behind a bigger chaos for the next moron in line. Sharon was a great warrior but turned out to be a similar moron leaving us with a mess. None of these great leaders have still not learned that one never gives up land not even an centimeter, to an enemy that openly states it wants our destruction.

follow. These people are crooks. Everybody knows. I suspect that this Sharon will go to jail soon. Crooks must be in jail not writing articles and rewriting history with lies.

It seems to me, so long as there are Palestinians that hate the Jews living in the land, there will be violence and terror. Sharon established the settlements in Gaza. Sharon is one of the leaders, the architechs of the settlement movement, on the mountains of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Settlements were largely established for security purposes, which they have provided. I do not remember this degree of violent rocket attacks prior to disengagement. Do you? I do not remember Ashkelon under attack by rockets from Gaza. Don't the settlements provide a bulwark against this sort of violence? Hamas did not rule Gaza when Israel had a military presence in Gaza. How can this well-armed Iranian proxy right at Israel's throat be a good thing? Didn't Sharon err?

we are in the middle east , surrounded by a people who have NEVER recognized our existence as a Jewish state. every unilateral move we make will always be followed by "unfortunately this,unfortunayely that..." maybe we have to just admit that unfortunately we have to show some strength and committment to a reality that means destroying for once and for all, any armed militia movements that exist for the purpose of our destruction. we unilaterally destroyed iraq's nuclear reactor, we unilaterally destroyed syria's, we unilaterally won all the wars in 48, 67 and 73--seems like we are good at offensive unilateral moves, but very poor at defensive ones. or, how about the peace now and other leftist organizations dressing up in white, ammassing thousands of woman and children and walking into ramalla and nablus and other major arab towns carrying sweets and singing goodwill songs-visiting schools, tv and radio stations and mosques with a message of who Jews really are --how about that for a unilateral measure-but giving up land to increase enemy hostility is unilaterally foolish.

Many like me supported Sharon and voted for him as head of Likud because he never said he would abandon Gaza. The talk of painful consessions is an old speech. Nobody knows what that really means and nobody expected it to be Gaza. Even the ones using this speech don't know what they mean, it sounds good, that's pretty much it. On the contrary, Sharon said he would NOT abandon Gaza when we voted for him! The Labor party with MItzna said they would consider this. Reason they lost! What happend later on was a betrayel, you are right about that. Problem with Israeli Democracy is , you can't out-vote a Prime Mnister when he changes direction and goes against what he was voted in for. One has to wait for re-elections. Sharon suffered a stroke before that could happen, and the rest is history. What you don't understand is the persona of Sharon - he was one of our most precious and unique leaders, with ALL of his mistakes! Even his enemies respected him immensly. He was a leader this country will not see again in a long time. He made One fatal mistake, we all agree on that. I don't expect a non-Israeli is to understand the love and admiration we have for this man, so just hold your peace Steve and give your political comments. Save us your personal ones, ok? We are still capable of voting in our own leaders, even if there are precious few of them around at the time. The U.S. is another matter. I agree with you 100% on Bush's willingness to sacrifice Israel for his own agenda. There's a saying that fits Bush well - "With friends like that who needs enemies?" We could go on and on. Point is, we need a solution for the rocket mess we are in, never mind who's fault it was. We need to act, and act fast!

You could have made your case against the "painful concession" speech even stronger. Sharon said "The fate of Tel Aviv is the fate of Netzarim" from which one understands that the painful concessions did not include destruction of Jewish villages. More importantly, Israeli is a representative democracy: no one voted for Sharon whatever speech he may have given. The voters voted for the Likud which was clearly against destroying Gush Katif. One of Sharon's greatest failures was damaging Israeli democracy by ignoring the Likud central committee vote against his plan.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I'm a conservative. I voted for Bush in 2000, sadly. I deeply regret voting of Bush now. I did not vote for him in 2004. I turned the page. I deeply regret not voting to fire Bush in 2004. I should have voted for the leftist, John Kerry. Likewise, I was stunned at all the people on the right in Israelis elections, 2003, saying, "Vote for Sharon! A vote for a small party like Herut / Kleiner is a wasted vote! It's a vote for Mitzna!" I was shocked. There was no question in my mind Bush turned traitor only days after the 911 Muslim terror atrocities when he announced he'd work to establish a Palestinian terror state. As I wrote, initially Sharon protested with his Czechoslovakia speech but then Colin Powell got on the phone and quickly brought Sharon to heel. Your mistake in my opinion, if I might be so blunt, is you make heroes, gods if you will, of these mortals. You speak of the "persona" and the love and admiration you have for Sharon. This borders on idolatry, doesn't it? Sharon is a man; not a god. Sure, Ariel Sharon was a war-hero; a very capable military strategist but he was a man, a mortal with flaws like the rest of us. He was a politician. I've got his auto-biography, "Warrior." Did you know young Ariel Sharon hunted down Irgun fighters for the British; for Haganah? He claims to have envied these Irgunist fighters -- their moral courage, etc. -- but he hunted them nonetheless. It's all in there in his autobiography. Why didn't you understand that this war hero turned traitor when he caved into Bush's immoral demands to establish a Palestinian jihadist state? Right in the middle of a war against the global jihad Bush did this! Why didn't you realize Sharon betrayed his principles and betrayed every Jew when he said, well before the elections, "a Palestinian state is inevitable." (?) I'm not condemning you. It's just that you seem to have learned nothing from this mistake. You speak of the "persona" and the love and admiration you have for Sharon. This is the same thing I hear from our ostensibly pro-Israel conservatives about Bush. Bush became my enemy when he set his sights on dismantling Israel's "settlement" community; when he set his sights on the destruction of Israel. Sharon became Israel's enemy when he turned against the Jews in bowing to this immoral little man, George W. Bush. There was no doubt in my mind post 911 that Sharon would expel thousands of Jews from their homes. He made this abundantly clear well before the 2003 elections. Why do you talk about being betrayed? How can you say Sharon betrayed you? I will not vote for John McCain either. He's made it clear, he will follow Bush's immoral policies. Let's learn from our mistakes. Is that too much to ask of you?

Gilad Sharon wrote: "Netanyahu voted in favor on the unilateral Gaza pullout four times." This is what I do not understand. How could Likud party faithful vote for Netanyahu over Moshe Feiglin? I don't know Mr. Feiglin. Isn't he worth a try over Netanyhu whom we know will betray us? Benjamin Netanyahu has a proven record of betrayals going back to Wye and Hebron. Furthermore, were rockets falling here in the states and Bush behaved like Mr. Olmert, there would be protests in the streets throughout the country, in the newspapers, on talk radio, etc., all over America. Why are the Jews in Israel so complacent? I go on conservative talk radio here blasting Bush and the Republicans (my party for now) pretty regularly. They get tired of hearing from me. Last week I went on the radio about Bush's Middle East policies. I said "He is a disaster!" And he is. A couple of angry callers followed me condemning me, Bush is so popular here on the right. Why would anyone vote for Likud with Sharon or Netanyahu at its head when you've got a small, principled party like Herut to vote for? Why isn't there more outrage in Israel? Why the silence?

White Europeans came over here and they overspread the entire continent. It was called Manifest Destiny. American's believe they were God-ordained to possess this land. Still do. White Europeans made settlements on Indian lands. They squatted on Indian lands promised to them by in perpetuity by treaty. White Europeans, murdered, despoliated, stole Native American lands. They forcibly expelled the Indians west of the Mississippi river by Congressional fiat -- see President Andrew Jackson's 1830 Indian Removal Act -- killing thousands in these forced marches west. If that weren't enough, White Europeans expanded westward across the Mississippi into Oklahoma, Arkansas and beyond; killing, despoliating and plundering as they went. Today, Americans do not bat an eye over this rape, murder and plunder. Nor does the rest of the world. Why can't Israel's Jews be like the Americans?

Moses had a sister Miriam who was made leprous and put outside the camp for slandering and murmuring about Moses' wife who was not a Hebrew. Eli the Prophet had two sons who were not righteous and Eli's fault was in not correcting them which cost him is physical life. Yeshua had half brothers who were such swine, Yeshua gave his mother into the care of a disciple when he was dying rather than to let his half brothers care for his mother, Mary. King David had a sons Absalom and Adonijah who turned on him, but he also had sons Nathan and Solomon God approved of. Solomon was selected King by David and the Lord. Nathan was in the line of Yeshua genetically through Yeshua's mother Mary and adopted father Joseph of Arimathea who adopted his nephew after the death of Joseph the Carpenter, Mary's husband. Benjamin Netanyahu's brother died at the raid on Entibe Airport. Was he a hero or a criminal? Depends on how you look at it and from what country you are from. Gilad Sharon's brother Omri was charged and convicted of a minor offense while others who did the same sort of accounting were not prosecuted. Would that have cleared out the Knesset if the law was applied equally? You are very cruel to people who have devoted their lives to Israel. The Lord has prospered them in their ranch and farm. I think that is what you are jealous of. Many other politicians (Bibi, Peres, Olmert, Rabin, Sharon, etc.) have traded land for peace only to be disappointed in finding that does not lead to peace. That is not Gilad Sharon's fault. Maybe he will do better. Bibi's brother died in a successful rescue of hostages in Uganda which was a crime in Uganda. Why don't you try to look past your jealousy and hate and see someone who is concerned about Israel's survival?

asked them what they wanted for peace with ancient Israel. They wanted revenge for King Saul's attacks on them, so David executed the five son's of his wife Michael's maid that Michael raised and loved. Michael was King Saul's daughter. That brought peace with the Gibeonites. But the Palestinians in Israel cannot be appeased. The Israeli leaders go to them again and again and ask what they want in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. The Palestinians lie and lie and fail to abide by agreements. So guess what? They will be judged by God. Put them all in Gaza and Ashkelon and Ekron and Ashdod since that is what they will get eventually. Then the Lord is going to kill all of the Philistines on the Coasts of Canaan, the Prophet Zephaniah says. After that, the Israelis will have their land back as sheep pastures and sheep folds. The Palestinians think there will be no judgment to lying and not abiding by promises. God knows otherwise. They will learn what the consequences are since Philistine is an ancient name for Palestinian.

Disengagement was a disaster. The only reason it went through was because Sharon put his prestige and credibitlity behind it and convinced people who believed in him but who otherwise would have opposed it that it would work. PM Sharon in 2004, however, was not the old tough Sharon but a pale imitation of his former self. He opened the door for Hamas to take power over Gaza & the PA and for Hezballah to complete its build-up in Lebanon. Under Sharon, the enemies of the state were the residents of Gush Katif- not the Arabs. Olmert is just continuing Sharon's policies.

Jews before the withdrawal or wasn't the murder of four children and an infant in the womb of a Gaza Jewish mother sickening enough for you? The mother then died at the hospital. Israelis were sick of the violence and wanted an answer that General Sharon gave them. They could have objected and gotten the policy changed before it was enacted by mass public demonstrations to influence the government. But no, it is easier to complain and to blame.

It's possible that the utter futility and weakness of the current leadership, combined with my youth and inexperience, sometimes leads me to idealize former Israeli leaders. I don't remember there being as many rocket attacks during the months after the disengagement and prior to Sharon's stroke, but that's probably just because they weren't reported over here. Canadian media doesn't care when Israelis are attacked. I agree that the security situation in and around Gaza was a lot better before the disengagement, but I still believe that the reason lies in the failed application of a good concept. Maintaining small Jewish communities in Gaza was not feasible. It was an unnecessary risk to IDF soldiers. Removing Israel's civilian and military presence from Gaza opened up a new set of options to fight the terrorist organizations (as mentioned in the article). Isolating Gaza as a separate entity should have allowed Israel to be more fierce and thorough in it's retaliation to rocket fire and other forms of terrorism. I believe that the true failure lies in the mishandling of post-disengagement terrorism emanating from Gaza and not the removal of the Gaza settlements.

You all believe that Sharon was very stupid and did not know what he was doing, and his sons are absolute idiots. NOT TRUE. They are criminals, from our point of view but not stupid ($$). Legendary IDF fighter Meir Har Tzion has lent his voice in support of the planned march to the ruins of Homesh in Samaria Monday. "If an Arab country is created in the heart of Israel it will be a terrible catastrophe," says Har Tzion, who is 71. "I call upon anyone who can to go to Homesh because this is the beginning of the reversal of the wheel." "It won't just be Homesh," Har Tzion told Maariv-NRG. "There will be additional communities afterwards. I believe it will prevent the creation of an Arab state in the heart of Israel, which will be the beginning of our end. G-d forbid that it happens." Meir Har-Tzion has been called "the best soldier the IDF has ever had." He was a member of the revered 101st Unit commanded by Ariel Sharon in the 1950s, and his exploits are legendary. He publicly opposed the Disengagement, but rarely gives interviews.

Some of us have entirely different perspectives. From a purely military / tactical point of view, retreating in the face of the jihad -- which Israel is facing -- is never defensible, no matter the cost of maintaining "small Jewish communities in Gaza," as you say. Americans would have expelled these jihadists or wiped them out years back, had they a foothold on the N. American continent as they have in Israel. Can you imagine American or Canadian cities being shelled by Muslim jihadists?! Beyond that, the thousands of Jews who are were forcibly expelled by Bush / Sharon from their beautiful Gaza communities, from their homes, are now languishing in caravillas. Theu do not and did not think they were 'small Jewish communities in Gaza'. More importantly, for those of us that look at these things from a spiritual perspective, withdrawing from Gaza is indefensible and immoral. I am not a very religious Jew. I do however believe in God. I believe our ancient prophets in our Bible. In no way will God bless this betrayal. Gaza is part and parcel of our covenanted land. It was given to the Jews in perpetuity by God to our forefathers. For me, the Muslim-Arabs are the illegal occupiers. They are the illegal squatters on our land. They live in our land at the good pleasure of the Jews. I think the Jews' good pleasure is wearing thin. From this point of view, disengagement was immoral and will not be blessed. I am guessing, you do not believe in God? The God of Israel?

This page gives you the facts: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/rocket_threat_e.htm "In August 2005 during the disengagement there was a decrease so as not to hamper the Israelis from leaving. ii. In September 2005, after the disengagement, there was a significant increase." Etc. Also Sharon TURNED OVER THE PHILADELPHI ROUTE to the Palestinians, Egyptians, and Europeans. This is now universally regarded as a STRATEGIC BLUNDER OF THE FIRST ORDER. It ensured that even when things were relatively quiet, terrorists and lethal weapons would keep flowing IINTO Gaza.

In trying to vindicate his father, Gilad Sharon conveniently omits the fact that Ehud Olmert, "the amateur tambourine player" is PM of Israel today because Ariel Sharon appointed him as his Number 2. Dear Gilad: Responsible orchestra conductors do not promote amateur tambourine players to concertmaster (first violin) positions.

It is good to see that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and that idiots beget idiots. Gilad Sharon explains that it wasn't his father's stupid idea of disengagement that failed, it was those guys who took over after Ariel's stroke who didn't know what to do. How arrogant and self serving! Ariel Sharon puts a terrorist army in charge of the Gaza Strip, lets it arm and equip itself, and then his son blames everybody else for the Kassam rockets. Is Gilad an imbecile, or just a simpleton, or worse an irresponsible and impulsive crook like his old man?

I agree with you. Yet when one voted for Likud one automatically also voted for Sharon, and he got a clear mandate NOT to abandon Gaza, Judea or Samaria as well as East Jerusalem. I agree with what you say, but we culd not change a thing once he was Prime Minister and changed around completly. The same problem we face with Olmert today. Can we vote him out of office before general electons? No! Could we all go into the streets and start doing something, like demonstrating for weeks and months in the thousands for a change, instead of compalining all the time? Hell Yes we could! Are we doing anythig to change the current political picture? No we are not! And THAT is our real problem! We all have the democratic right to demand change. We have the democratic right to veto a government that is not representing us, the people, anymore! We are all responsible for the mess we are in now, every single one of us, whether right or left - it really does not matter anymore.

You know, I even agree with you. I don't idolize Sharon. I knew the man and he was a good man who made some very grave mistakes. He was one in a few who served this land in ways that belong to history. He did betray his nation and he paid a very high price for his betrayel. I see that very clearly. Today we face a problem with Olmert, a corrupted government from the inside out. Nothing new I guess, still a problem we all have to deal with. If I may ask, if you can't vote for McCain who is better? Obama the rooky with nice words but nothing else? Hillary the who knows what she really is or stands for? I honestly don't envy you for having to choose a President this time around. I don't envy myself for having to elect a new Prime Minister soon - I honestly have no clue who could do the job! The only one I am happy with is Gaby Ashkenasi. At least a Golani as Chief of Staff - that is a big improvment, and he has proven himself already.

Rivkah dear, you are so full of it sometimes it amazes me that you still have breath left in you to write such utter nonsense! The Palestinians are NOT the ancient Philistines!!! Get it already, they were extinguished a long time ago! The Pals are a mixture of every Arab nation around us. They were foreign workers who came her to work. If you say they are the Philistines, you are actually giving them a legitimacy no one here is wiling to give them. And you know why? Because they are NOT the Philistines! Stop being such a disgrace to the faith you claim to have and maybe start reading the BOOK you claim to believe in! It is pretty clear - just read and understand what you read for a change, before you make public staments that embarass you.