Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
You're just making things up now. Within the West Bank there are far more isolated settlements than there were in the Gaza Strip.
The disengagement plan was also not the result of public pressure. In fact, it actually took a lot of pressure to get the public (and the politicians) to agree. Also, do you really think having an islamist terrorist state is easier (either economically or militarily) for the Israelis?
The move to disengage was 100% a test case to see how the Palestinian people would react to removal of Israeli military presence.
|
My apologies if my assertion does not fit with your fictional narrative. Polls from Israel before the "disengagement" showed a majority of Israelis were in favour, with good reason: having your children conscripted to protect Israel is one thing, having them conscripted to protect the lunatic fringe quite another. Many on the Israeli Right were thoroughly against it - true - but Sharon managed to push it through.
As for this "Test Case" scenario - you are making this up completely. Your narrative here is completely fabricated. I'm not even sure why you are doing it, to tell you the truth. Sharon himself said of the disengagement that he wanted to consolidate Israeli resources around permanent West Bank settlements, and that it was for Israeli security. At the same time, four of the more remote settlements were removed in the West Bank that required disproportionate protection.
However, expansion of permanent settlements in the West Bank continued apace, and today there are approximately 75,000 more settlers in the West Bank than there were in 2006.