In a series of pre-holiday interviews to Army Radio, Ynet, and major Israeli newspapers, Prime Minister Sharon said he "hopes" there will be a decline in terrorism after his planned withdrawal from Gaza.
One of the Likud's leading opponents to the withdrawal plan, Minister Uzi Landau, criticized the media yesterday for not having asked Sharon strong questions about his retreat plan - but the answers Sharon gave to some of the questions he was asked were also not particularly strong. Haaretz, for instance, queried if he thought that the terrorists "are correct in viewing an Israeli exit from Gaza as a victory," to which the Prime Minister responded,
"Let's say we had reached a peace agreement and we had to get out of much larger areas than now. Would that not be seen as a victory over Israel? It would be seen in exactly the same way." However, his Vice Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has already said that the government plans to withdraw from "much larger areas" in the future, thus that the benefits of the present plan are not quite clear.
Haaretz: "Your critics argue that unilateral withdrawal is a reward for the terrorists."
Prime Minister Sharon: "And today, when we are there, is there no terror?"
Haaretz: "Do you think that terror will continue after the withdrawal?"
Sharon: "I don't see the terror stopping. I hope there will be a decline in terror..."
Asked how it was that only a year ago he objected to unilateral Israeli measures, saying this would be a "retreat in the face of continuing terrorism," Sharon responded,
"There are developments and situations, and as the one who shoulders the responsibility for the fate of this nation and its future, I have to weigh all the considerations and choose the thing that contains the least danger to Israel... [I chose this plan after it became] clear to me that the chance of finding a Palestinian partner had disappeared."
The Ynet internet site, in its pre-holiday interview, did not even ask Sharon whether he expects terrorism to stop, but merely questioned why he chose the current timing for his plan. Sharon responded,
"One of the things that the Americans will take upon themselves is that there will be no pressure at all upon Israel for as long as there is no other Palestinian leadership, and for as long as they do not fulfill their obligations such as governmental reform and the liquidation of terrorism."
Prime Minister Sharon thus feels that the "purpose of the withdrawal is to ensure that the Palestinian Authority fulfill its most basic Oslo Accord obligations of over ten years ago," noted Arutz-7's correspondent. "After having lost well over 1,000 terror victims, the price Israel must now pay to ensure that the world insist that the PA keeps its end of the bargain is to: withdraw from all of Gaza and part of northern Samaria, expel 8,000 Jews from their homes, and continue to 'hope' that terrorism will stop."
Maariv's interviewer challenged Sharon by noting that many senior IDF officers disagree with him on the disengagement:
"They hesitate to say it 'on the record,' but believe the disengagement plan is a reward for terrorism. The fact is that Hamas decided to resume attacks within [pre-1967 Israel] after it found out about the plan. We are withdrawing under fire, just as we did in southern Lebanon, and by doing so we are allowing them to feel as if they expelled us -- and you, the great believer in 'no negotiation under fire' and 'no succumbing to terror,' are leading this rout."
The Prime Minister did not respond to the gist of the argument, but rather said,
"I would be very happy to hear their opinion. After all, I meet with them: With the Defense Minister, the Chief of Staff, the IDF regional commands' major-generals, the heads of military intelligence, Mossad and Security Services. These people have their chance to state their opinions in the clearest fashion. No one prevents them from doing so. On the contrary - I always press officials to voice their thoughts. So I advise them to state their opinion if they have something to say."
Ynet asked Sharon about Ron Arad, but did not ask about Jonathan Pollard; neither did Haaretz or Maariv.
One of the Likud's leading opponents to the withdrawal plan, Minister Uzi Landau, criticized the media yesterday for not having asked Sharon strong questions about his retreat plan - but the answers Sharon gave to some of the questions he was asked were also not particularly strong. Haaretz, for instance, queried if he thought that the terrorists "are correct in viewing an Israeli exit from Gaza as a victory," to which the Prime Minister responded,
"Let's say we had reached a peace agreement and we had to get out of much larger areas than now. Would that not be seen as a victory over Israel? It would be seen in exactly the same way." However, his Vice Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has already said that the government plans to withdraw from "much larger areas" in the future, thus that the benefits of the present plan are not quite clear.
Haaretz: "Your critics argue that unilateral withdrawal is a reward for the terrorists."
Prime Minister Sharon: "And today, when we are there, is there no terror?"
Haaretz: "Do you think that terror will continue after the withdrawal?"
Sharon: "I don't see the terror stopping. I hope there will be a decline in terror..."
Asked how it was that only a year ago he objected to unilateral Israeli measures, saying this would be a "retreat in the face of continuing terrorism," Sharon responded,
"There are developments and situations, and as the one who shoulders the responsibility for the fate of this nation and its future, I have to weigh all the considerations and choose the thing that contains the least danger to Israel... [I chose this plan after it became] clear to me that the chance of finding a Palestinian partner had disappeared."
The Ynet internet site, in its pre-holiday interview, did not even ask Sharon whether he expects terrorism to stop, but merely questioned why he chose the current timing for his plan. Sharon responded,
"One of the things that the Americans will take upon themselves is that there will be no pressure at all upon Israel for as long as there is no other Palestinian leadership, and for as long as they do not fulfill their obligations such as governmental reform and the liquidation of terrorism."
Prime Minister Sharon thus feels that the "purpose of the withdrawal is to ensure that the Palestinian Authority fulfill its most basic Oslo Accord obligations of over ten years ago," noted Arutz-7's correspondent. "After having lost well over 1,000 terror victims, the price Israel must now pay to ensure that the world insist that the PA keeps its end of the bargain is to: withdraw from all of Gaza and part of northern Samaria, expel 8,000 Jews from their homes, and continue to 'hope' that terrorism will stop."
Maariv's interviewer challenged Sharon by noting that many senior IDF officers disagree with him on the disengagement:
"They hesitate to say it 'on the record,' but believe the disengagement plan is a reward for terrorism. The fact is that Hamas decided to resume attacks within [pre-1967 Israel] after it found out about the plan. We are withdrawing under fire, just as we did in southern Lebanon, and by doing so we are allowing them to feel as if they expelled us -- and you, the great believer in 'no negotiation under fire' and 'no succumbing to terror,' are leading this rout."
The Prime Minister did not respond to the gist of the argument, but rather said,
"I would be very happy to hear their opinion. After all, I meet with them: With the Defense Minister, the Chief of Staff, the IDF regional commands' major-generals, the heads of military intelligence, Mossad and Security Services. These people have their chance to state their opinions in the clearest fashion. No one prevents them from doing so. On the contrary - I always press officials to voice their thoughts. So I advise them to state their opinion if they have something to say."
Ynet asked Sharon about Ron Arad, but did not ask about Jonathan Pollard; neither did Haaretz or Maariv.