More Signs Of Panic

Now that public support for disengagement is slip-sliding away, the supporters of disengagement are trying to explain why they support it. Needless to say, it is difficult to defend the indefensible.

Today in Maariv, Shlomo Gazit does a lousy job trying to defend the disengagement plan. His argument: It was a mistake to settle in an area heavily populated by Arabs. The readers responded quickly to this argument and brought up, among other things, the following points:

1) Gush Katif and Gush Erez are not in heavily populated areas.

2) According to this logic creating the State of Israel in the midst of hundreds of millions of Arabs was also a mistake. (Many Europeans would agree with this.)

3) Evacuating the settlements will only make the situation worse.

In short, Gazit is very unconvincing.

Zvi Bar'el in Ha'aretz reveals what everyone knows: The disengagement plan will not bring peace. Bar'el supports the retreat from the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria as a first step towards further retreats:

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians will go on, and all means will continue to be used in the conflict - unless the government succeeds in explaining, first to itself and then to the public, that this withdrawal will be followed by additional withdrawals, concessions and installments.

What Bar'el doesn't mention is that only the complete liquidation of Israel as a Jewish State will placate our enemies. But then again, destroying the Jewish character of the State of Israel is consistent with Ha'aretz's editorial policy.