\"Will you remain in the government if it agrees to the dismantling of settlements?\" So did Arutz-7\'s Uzi Baruch ask National Religious Party MK Sha\'ul Yahalom today. Yahalom had said earlier that his party position is that a national unity government between the Likud and Labor is of utmost importance, thus giving the question extra poignancy. His response:
\"I think there is absolutely no need to even address this question, as it is totally theoretical and has no practical ramifications. The NRP platform is clearly against the removal of even one settlement - but it could be that Sharon has to go to the world and say that he is willing to make \"painful concessions.\" Everyone now knows, however - and this could be the only good thing that came out of the Barak government - that Arafat was not even willing to accept 98% of Yesha, together with the division of Jerusalem and some form of sovereignty or control on the Temple Mount - Barak was pleading with him to accept all this, or at least just to write a letter to Clinton saying that they were on the right track - but no, Arafat would not do this and did not agree. So we now know that in this generation, for as long as we have a right-wing government and don\'t make stupid mistakes that bring the left back to power, there is no chance for an agreement - and this is in accordance with our position. So why do we have to deal with theoretical issues?\"
Baruch: \"But maybe it\'s not so theoretical. I ask you what will the NRP do if the Sharon government decides to evacuate isolated settlements? Will it resign?\"
Yahalom: \"Why should I answer this question? Why should we deal with questions that demoralize our public? I\'m telling you that such a thing could never happen - for we know that Barak already agreed to evacuate and dismantle 50 Yesha towns, and Arafat didn\'t agree; so you think he will agree to accept a handful of isolated settlements? So why should we, for no reason, answer these questions about things that can only end up in arguments?\"
Baruch, recalling similar situations in the past when the NRP was very hesitant to leave the government, insisted: \"Why can\'t you just declare here that if a decision is made to evacuate settlements, the NRP will leave?\"
Yahalom: \"Because I protest the very question. Because our job now is to form a government [headed by] Sharon, and I trust the Likud that they will not even come near the concessions that Ben-Ami and Beilin and Barak were willing to make. So let\'s say I give you the declaration that you want - what will be the headline? \"Split in the National Camp!\" or some such. Who needs this? Why not come with strength and unity? Let\'s not deal with theory, but rather with practicality, and I am confident that on the practical matters there is no difference between Sharon and us.\"
\"I think there is absolutely no need to even address this question, as it is totally theoretical and has no practical ramifications. The NRP platform is clearly against the removal of even one settlement - but it could be that Sharon has to go to the world and say that he is willing to make \"painful concessions.\" Everyone now knows, however - and this could be the only good thing that came out of the Barak government - that Arafat was not even willing to accept 98% of Yesha, together with the division of Jerusalem and some form of sovereignty or control on the Temple Mount - Barak was pleading with him to accept all this, or at least just to write a letter to Clinton saying that they were on the right track - but no, Arafat would not do this and did not agree. So we now know that in this generation, for as long as we have a right-wing government and don\'t make stupid mistakes that bring the left back to power, there is no chance for an agreement - and this is in accordance with our position. So why do we have to deal with theoretical issues?\"
Baruch: \"But maybe it\'s not so theoretical. I ask you what will the NRP do if the Sharon government decides to evacuate isolated settlements? Will it resign?\"
Yahalom: \"Why should I answer this question? Why should we deal with questions that demoralize our public? I\'m telling you that such a thing could never happen - for we know that Barak already agreed to evacuate and dismantle 50 Yesha towns, and Arafat didn\'t agree; so you think he will agree to accept a handful of isolated settlements? So why should we, for no reason, answer these questions about things that can only end up in arguments?\"
Baruch, recalling similar situations in the past when the NRP was very hesitant to leave the government, insisted: \"Why can\'t you just declare here that if a decision is made to evacuate settlements, the NRP will leave?\"
Yahalom: \"Because I protest the very question. Because our job now is to form a government [headed by] Sharon, and I trust the Likud that they will not even come near the concessions that Ben-Ami and Beilin and Barak were willing to make. So let\'s say I give you the declaration that you want - what will be the headline? \"Split in the National Camp!\" or some such. Who needs this? Why not come with strength and unity? Let\'s not deal with theory, but rather with practicality, and I am confident that on the practical matters there is no difference between Sharon and us.\"