Sharon's Hypocrisy

How sad, but true.

This is why Sharon's end as an Israeli political leader is on the horizon - he has fallen into the same trap as Rabin, the other "Mr. Security", that Israelis followed blindly into today's oslo war.

A good read....

Look who’s Talking about Defeating Terror
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/475593.html

By Israel Harel

Haaretz 09/09/2004

"You cannot make compromises with terror," Ariel Sharon told the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. "It must be fought and defeated."

And the sorrowing guest - this revolutionary lesson being taught to him at a time when most of the victims had not yet been laid to rest - did not respond, at least according to the communique that reported the above lesson, "Look who's talking about defeating terrorism." But if not publicly, than at least during their private conversation, it would nevertheless have been proper for the guest to put his host in his place."If one cannot make compromises with terror," Lavrov might have asked (though he apparently did not), "why did you declare, at the height of the terrorist war against Israel, that Israel recognizes the Palestinians' right to a state? No prime minister before you ever said that, and so from the Palestinians' point of view, that statement was not merely a compromise - it was capitulation. And from the standpoint of those who are fighting Islamic terror worldwide, Israel, who gave the terrorists a state before defeating them militarily, thereby encouraged terrorism against us, however unintentionally."And even when the terrorists continued their atrocities, thereby proving that they were not fighting only for a state - since if they had been, they would have stopped blowing up buses and started establishing their state - you compromised, in defiance of the lesson you just taught me, with the ongoing terror."Fact: Instead of defeating them, as per your own doctrine, you began to build a fence. And even before the fence had been completed, you hastened to announce an additional compromise: the `unilateral disengagement.' And the disengagement, in addition to being a compromise with terror, is also causing an internal rift in your nation and your party the likes of which have never been seen before."In the past, Israel acquired a reputation - in Operation Jonathan in Entebbe, for instance - as a country that does not give in to terrorism. And in a world in which countries many times larger than Israel, such as Germany and France, did give in to terror and even paid it protection money in various forms, your uncompromising stance aroused admiration and constituted a strategic asset."No longer. And, though it pains me to say so, this process of Israel losing its deterrent power in the face of terror has occurred precisely at a time when someone like you, who contributed perhaps more than any other Israeli to your country's deterrent image, is at its helm. The fact that you, of all people, are the one who decided to grant the Palestinians a state in response to terrorism, and to hide from terrorism by means of a fence, and who afterward chose the already tested option known as `unilateral disengagement,' has caused a vast erosion - whose negative ramifications are hard to exaggerate - in your country's deterrent power vis-a-vis other, `conventional' enemies as well.Moreover, instead of waging the offensive war that previously characterized your army, and particularly your own military leadership, you are putting your people and your army into a narrow ghetto, both mental and territorial, and turning the Arabs, the originators of suicide terrorism, into the victors and heroes of the Muslim world. And that fact also impacts on us: We assume that the Palestinians' impressive achievements - yes, impressive - will also encourage our terrorists and increase their motivation."You know that we oppose the settlements. But tell me: What is the rationale behind packing them up now, before you have defeated the terror? If that is the conclusion you draw from the rule you advised us to adopt - that `one cannot make compromises with terror' - then I must say, with all due respect, that this capitulation is a negative contribution to the war that we and the rest of the world are waging against terror. And don't be impressed by the compliments you receive - including, publicly, from us - for uprooting settlements: That is part of the verbal protection money that we also pay to buy a little quiet. But, as was proven in Beslan, to no avail."Despite the flattering articles in favor of disengagement that have appeared both in Israel and the rest of the world - articles whose purpose is to push you into additional concessions - you will never achieve the rehabilitation for which you long so greatly. Even now, they are saying that the fence is an act of apartheid and that you should be put on trial, along with the defense minister and senior Israeli officers, on charges of crimes against humanity. And such things were never said before, even when you controlled all the territory, when you built settlements on it, when you declared that it was the inheritance of your forefathers and that a Palestinian state would never arise upon it."Your excessive concessions have led the Palestinians, and all Muslims, to reach one clear conclusion: Terrorism pays. And that is what worries us. Just as international public opinion justifies terror against you, it is liable to justify terror against us, even though we are a great power. And we are liable to lose all the autonomous Muslim republics, not just Chechnya."Presumably, these things were not said. But there is no doubt that Russians, Americans, Britons and even Frenchmen who are engaged in the war on terror are indeed astonished by what has happened to Israel, which has lost its self-confidence - a development that, as noted, also impacts negatively on the entire world's ability to fight Islamic terrorism.