Historic precedents are of limited importance...

Submitted by Avner Reggev (United States), Apr 13, 2005 at 16:04

The problem is the message that the Sharon disengagement sends to terrorists around the world in general and their Palestinian brethern in particular. To them the "disengagement" message is clear it is a sign of weakness and surrender. To them it is further proof that terrism works. Just like it did before the Oslo fiasco, and the Lebanon retreat.

Sharon disappointing visit to Crawford made it clear that he is getting nothing in return for the "disengagement" concessions, except demands for more of the same. Bush, who to my personal dismay has embraced the disengagement, seem to be telling the Arabs that the Bush Doctrine about which some neo-cons wrote extenssively and glowingly stops at the Israeli border.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".