Robert, so interesting. Thank you for doing this series...I find it mesmerizing.

Randi:

You're welcome. I'm honored that you, so allergic to my previous political posts, find this series worthy of your comments.

I see where you are going with this. Interesting perspective, though heartbreaking. I apreciate your honest attempt at clarifying how he came to do what he did. Though I'm still left with a bleak feeling about these decisions, and the process of how they were made.

Yael:

I'm with you on that bleak feeling. With you all the way. Honesty is sometimes not all that it's cracked up to be. Thanks for writing.

Robert, I am unclear as to how this series makes you feel so uncomfortable. I don't mean to put more work on you, but perhaps you could further explain.
The way you use the example of the Seven Samarai, so beautifully illustrates the thinking of Sharon. It seems like a brilliant strategy to me, in pulling together what really matters. (I hope I make sense)

Randi:

If you followed strict military doctrine at the birth of the State of Israel, you would not have even bothered to fight the Arabs, you would have surrendered.

G-d's unseen hand is more powerful than any grand strategy.

Thanks for asking.

And what was Sharon thinking when he supported and advanced the settler project for so many years?

Kishke:

I'm not sure about that one.

If pressed, I would guess that Sharon was hoping that the Soviet and Ethiopian immigrants would flood Gaza, Judea and Samaria with olim, immigrants, and signifigantly transform those areas demographically.

But that's only a wild guess.

In answer to your question, the need in Israel is to difuse terrorism, the suicide bomber crowd. Because of instability brought as a by product of a terror act, Israel lost alot of investment and tourism, which will lead to the vicious cycle of young Israelis leaving for lack of challenging work and opportunity.

Leaving Gaza was done bec. the cost to defend those people was too great.

Israel faces great financial stress at all times. Their citizens, and I worked there, are taxed at 50%, while many items cost more than elsewhere.

Because of the demographic issue, they must retain their Jewish citizens and encourage Aliyah.

The military establishment is confident that they can win any conventional war, but not terrorism.

For that to happen, they must become much more brutal, and one theory is that w/ no Jews in the Gaza area, this will happen. I am not so sure, but I still think that this would work.

Sometimes you have to amputate a limb to save the body. It doesn't lessen the pain of having to do it or make you any happier, but life is precious.

Jack:

I suppose one could counter by asking: is the limb gangrenous?

Then comes the inevitable question: what's the definition of gangrene?

You see what I'm getting at?

But of course I see what you're getting at. I have shown the way all too clearly, I fear.

Thanks for the fine comment Dr. Jack Be Nimble. You have a fine bedside manner.

And considering the quality of care at some of our hospitals these days, another question we should ask is: "Did we amputate the correct limb?"

Jake:

Well now, you would have stop kidding around and ask the truly difficult question.

I think I'm getting a migraine.

Robert, thank you for this series. You echoed my thoughts when you commented about the strength of God. Israel would never have won if He wasnt her Strong Right Arm. Sharon was a strong military man but failed, it seems, to recognize his true source of strength.

Suziannr:

I'm glad you're enjoying the series. General Sharon is a great man and it's difficult to judge, at this time, if his decisions have been correct. Though, I have to admit, that the Gaza pull out, heartbreaking as it is, has provided clarity as far as defining who asnd what the Palestinians people truly are: genocidal maniacs, no longer hiding behind the duplicitous PA double-talk.

You know, HaShem, G-d, often chooses odd messengers for His Right Arm. Is Sharon such a messenger?

As always, time and events will provide answers.

And, as always, it is a pleasure hearing from you.

Robert, your analysis is brilliant, and necessary in light of the heartbreak I think most of us felt watching the "disengagement" and giving back the land. I think most of had mixed feelings, and did not..still do not understand if this was a necessary, smart or good decision.

It helps to have the background you put into these 2 posts. You said you feel like a traitor. I think, though, that you spelled out the one best reason for giving back Gaza. It highlights what I felt..and feel even more now, about Sharon. Whatever else he was or did, his raison d'etre was the survival of the State of Israel. If he was giving back Gaza in order to help in that survival...he is no traitor, nor are you for writing about this emotional topic.

It certainly helped me understand it better, and I appreciate it. It still is heart-wrenching to think about giving any more land up, but the analogy about the gangrenous limb is apt: Doctors have to make such decisions...I work in an emergency room, and we go on the best information we have, incomplete as it often is...and hope (and often pray) it's the correct one. We don't often know right away...but I think the military analysis (as well as a political strategy that I think DID work, to a degree) is brilliant.

Sorry the first was too long a comment, and I still forgot something: I don't think Torah is being left out. Sharon may or may not have thought about religious things, but if his actions were to save Jewish lives...it's Pikuach Nefesh

I know, I know, there are other very involved questions regarding the Land of Israel, and Halakhah..and I don't know enough about them (to say the least). I do believe, though, it should enter into the equation, and thus a purely military analysis still does not negate or ignore Torah values in this situation.

Robert:

But that really is the million-dollar question. Because if your guess as to his strategic reasoning is correct, well, this is stuff he could have and should have known way back when too. Yet, his earlier actions were in direct contradiction to your proposed elucidation of his strategy. Which leads to the conclusion that his present actions were predicated not on strategy but on politics.

Kishke:

Actually you could take your statement and turn it on its head: perhaps his PAST actions were predicated on politics? It's a connundrum.

Dear Maurice:

Welcome to Seraphic Secret. I do believe this is your first comment. I hope it will not be your last.

Thanks for your kind and most generous words.

It was our fine commenter/blogger, Jack Be Nimble, who brought up the analogy of amputating a limb. A metaphor, I believe, many will find quite distasteful. Nevertheless, the point of this series is to get past raw emotion, and into what I consider the finest military mind stalking this earth, Baruch HaShem, Blessed be His Name, fighting on our side.

You note that as a physician you are sometimes forced to make life and death decisions based on incomplete information. That is a fine point. Unfortunately, Karen and I spent years of our lives in hospitals, fighting along with doctors to try and save our son Ariel's ZT'L life.

I often felt that we were in a war. I often wondered if the order of battle that particular morning was correct. I often wanted to sack the general in charge and replace him with a better commander.

Hindsight in the Arab Israeli wars, (as in medicine) is always brilliant, always perfect. But life as it is really lived in Eretz Yisroel, the Land of Israel, is never so perfectly viewed. Thus the fog of war endlessly drifts over the Land of Israel and her people.

Jake:

Of course that is possible. However, I believe that at the time, Sharon stated quite clearly that he supported settlements because of their strategic value.

Robert,

Wow...your post is so well thought out that I really had to give much thought before posting. I would start....stop....start...not making much sense...so, between handicapping and market watching I was able to ponder your post.

What I find interesting is that Ariel Sharon basically hijacked the left wing plan. Barak...and Mizna, another failed Labor candidate for PM, all advocated withdrawal. That is why the right, and the settlers were so betrayed.

Did Sharon care? Probably not, from what I can observe he marched to his own beat. A trait I admire greatly. But, I wonder if he fully saw the consequences. Did Sharon take into account the "arab street", and that they would see it as surrender....no matter what strategy Sharon, for good or bad, was putting into action.

Now, with Sharon gravely ill, my fears are becoming realized.....leadership that has no clue and no plan...other than the one Sharon began.

Even a speculator like myself could not fathom a guess as to what the new PM, whomever it may maybe, will do.

Lance:

"Did Sharon take into account the Arab street, and that they would see it as surrender?"

A fine and painful question.

This is somewhat outside my military area of amatuer expertise, but let me take a stab at this one.

As Ariel Sharon's mother lay dying, she told her son: "Never trust the Arabs."

These last words from his mother had a powerful effect on young Ariel, as well you can imagine.

However, one thing Sharon could always trust about the Arabs is that the truth would be twisted to suit their ends, especially regarding Jews and Israel or as they like to call it, "The Zionist Entity".

You see, it matters little what Israel says or does. Arab culture, especially Palestinian culture is so steeped in denial, so awash in blood lust, in love of death, and the desire to "drink Jewish blood"––this a direct quote from Hamas––that no matter what course of action Israel takes, the Arab Street will interpret it for mass consumption as the most vile deed imaginable, and conversely as the greatest triumph for Islam and the Arab people since Saladin conquered Jerusalem, back in 1187. Good times for Muslims. Good times.

(FYI: Saladin's physician was the great Rambam, Maimonides.)

In short: My feeling is that Sharon felt that not only must Israel withdraw unilaterally from the Palestinian's physically, but ideally there should be a mental break as well, for their very consciousness is, well, poisonous.

Thanks so much Lance, perhaps you'll give me a tip sometime on one of your handicaps or market picks.

Robert,

It is true that the "culture of death" is so ingrained that it may take generations to change.....if it is capable of changing at all.

Yes, there is nothing more draining to the human soul than to be around people who think negatively....they have the desire to drag you down into their hole of despair. Similarly, I can see the same reaction happening in Israeli society. The killings....the threats....the constant bombardment from Arab "media"...it's poisonous, as you say....which is really an apt description.

Thus, If it was Sharon's intention to separate for "mental health" reasons....he may be a better strategic thinker than any of us could ever give him credit.

Lance:

Your comment deserves to be a post. I have nothing to add except to say: Bravo.

Robert,

I spent quite a bit of time writing about the disengagement. Out of the dozen posts that I wrote about it I think that this oneprovides a good example of my thoughts on the matter.

I don't claim to be master strategist, but some things seem to be obvious to me. There are places that are more important than Gaza. I don't like writing that any more than you like reading it, but it is the reality.

Too few people requiring too many resources for too little of a return. The people that lived there deserved better than they got, but sometimes you have to play the hand you are dealt.

Sharon had a vision and a plan that he thought would work. He wouldn't have done this if saw another way. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't see advantages to doing so.

Amputation is not always done because the limb is gangrene. Sometimes it is an emergency procedure to try and prevent other serious problems.

Jack:

Thanks so much for your follow up. I have read your post and I recommend it to Seraphic Secret readers. What stands out is your compassion for those being uprooted.

The great tragedy in this whole matter was not just the exulsions, but the cold-bloodedness betrayed by the Israeli left. As if the the settlers are the problem and not the Arabs.

One does not know whether to laugh or cry for the Israeli left has become a textbook study in The Stockholm Syndrome taken to clinical extremes.

Hi Robert,

I give credit to Rabbi Daniel Gordis for making so much of this crystal clear to me. He wrote an article called Even the Victors Ought to Mourn that I thought was excellent.

Even those of us who (however unhappily) favor the disengagement can, and must, understand this sense of betrayal. Because these Israeli citizens were encouraged by Labor no less than by Likkud to build homes in Gush Katif, and they did so with exemplary dedication. Because, our protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, we are withdrawing under fire. Because Ariel Sharon effectively promised these people that this would not happen, and they supported him with that assurance in mind. Because homes will be destroyed, communities dismantled, playgrounds abandoned, synagogues emptied, batei midrash razed. Because those who left Yamit (in the Sinai, when it was returned to Egypt, and was then destroyed by Israeli bulldozers) could at least console themselves with the knowledge that it was land for peace, while this week, we could not point to anything that we were getting in return for our evacuation.

Because there are cemeteries in the Gaza settlements, where these citizens have buried their parents and their children. And what should happen to those graves? Shall we disinter the children killed and buried there, and force those people to relive once again the torment of
those funerals? Or shall we leave the graves there, even as the Palestinians move in, pretending that we don't recall the desecrations of Joseph's Tomb in 2000, or of the Mount of Olives before the Six Day War?

Sadly, we hear little validation of the settlers' angst from those who favor the withdrawal. Where is the grieving on the "left" for a human tragedy of enormous proportions? Have we become so embittered that we feel nothing for those whom we must dislodge? Is that what statehood has wrought?

Oops, I must have closed the tag too early because everything from the third line down is from Gordis.

Robert:

I've been so busy lately, I haven't had a chance to stop by and really read and take in what you have written in the past week.

My family has "taught" for lack of a better word, military tactics. I traveled with my grandparent up and down the eastern part of the United States, walking through Civil War battlegrounds with my Grandfather ("Papa") explaining to me who did what, when, where, how etc. Unfortunately, I was way too young to appreciate and remember most of it.

My Dad and husband are the WWII buffs. (So I hear a lot about that.)

This is the first time (and place) I have read extensively about Israel and military tactics needed to defend it. I am enjoying it a lot!

I've always been concerned about the short distance across. (44 miles? something like that?) It seems almost indefensible. But given your information, maybe it is best.

It's kind of like the Alamo. I've always thought that the Texicans tried to defend too much area. A good bit of the Alamo perimeter had very low barricades, which ultimately failed in the onslaught. (The Alamo would have failed or been defeated eventually given the numbers, etc.) But, if they had tightened up and given up those areas, they may have lasted longer (and inflicted more damage to Santa Ana's army. The damage to the Mexiacan army inflicted by the defenders of the Alamo, ultimately led to their defeat at San Jacinto). But I know a LOT of people would argue with me on that.

Sorry to go so long, I'm rambling..... but keep writing about this. I am fascinated. I guess it is because I've never thought about it or been exposed to it before.

Rightmom:

How right you are! Don't just think Alamo. Think Verdun and Dien bien Phu. They were battles that were "won," but were lost in the grand scheme of things. I shake with fear every time I think about the name of any given Israeli settlement that may be added to the above list. May such a thing never come to pass.

I have a couple of questions about the petition.

Is there really any chance that this petition will cause the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to drop Paradise Now from consideration?

Is it desirable to pressure AMPAS to drop Paradise Now from consideration?

Let me explain the second question.

Would it not be better if AMPAS were allowed to show its true colors by giving an award to Paradise Now, thereby exposing its evil to the whole world? Or is it better to shame evil before it is fully exposed? I don't know the answer.

Kent:

There is a very good chance that the Academy will withdraw the film. There is a groundswell of opinion here in Hollywood that this should not stand.

It is not too late.

Winning the Oscar would be a moral setback giving homicide bombers a legitimacy and a romantic aura that would, frankly be a disaster for civilization and would make a mockery of The War Against Terror.

I do not believe that evil is capable if being shamed, that's why it is evil.

Thanks so much for asking.

Rightmom:

I have to admit that I've never studied the battle of The Alamo in depth. But from what little I do know, the grand strategy that Davy Crockett had in mind was to sacrifice himself and his men, in order to slow down Santa Ana's Army, thus allowing Sam Houston to bring up his superior forces and crush the Mexicans, as you say, at San Jacinto.

I don't believe Crockett and his men ever really stood a chance at the Alamo, not against the overwhelming numbers they faced. This was a case of winning while losing by becoming martyrs. It takes very special men at a very special time in history to make this happen. In short: Tenesseans in Texas.

As always, Rightmom, great to hear from you.

Jake:

In no sense was the battle of Dien Bien Phu won by the French. They had the stuffing kicked out of them. It was the beginning of the end for them in Indochina.

Sorry, meant to say that Dien was like the Alamo. Verdun is like what the Alamo would have become if the Texans had "won."

"There is a very good chance that the Academy will withdraw the film. There is a groundswell of opinion here in Hollywood that this should not stand."

Robert, I hope you are right....
It would be a first, that's for sure....but I don't think the hate America types in Hollywood have the spine to do the right thing.

When you consider that a great deal of the Academy voters are elderly people, I think they are less likely to be irresponsible idiots. Also, these people are craving attention in a good way. Ask H. Weinstein, who single-handedly got the Best Picture win for "Shakespeare in Love," simply by calling these people and taking them out to lunch.

Jake:

Until Hollywood changes its stripes....I will firmly believe they are "irresponsible idiots".

If they were "responsible", garbage praising terrorists would never have gotten a nomination.

Yeah, but you gotta have faith in the "elderly wing" of the Academy. I'm counting on them to vote for the short film based on my "IF CHENEY & HIS HUNTING PALS WERE JEWISH" script! :)

Paradise Now got 3 1/2 stars in my local paper:

review

Jake:

That fine film has my vote.

In fact, Seraphic University Students please note: Karen and I are setting up a special screening for IF CHENEY & HIS HUNTING PALS WERE JEWISH here at Seraphic University.

Where: The Sun Tzu Castle, in the Northern Tower Screening Room.

Time: We will be running the film from Morning until Night. Yes, we are that enthusiastic. There will be a video feed from here in California to points East, South, and North, into outer space. So, if you can't join us in the Northern Tower, fear not, you can pick up a feed from your computer, or directly into the fillings in your teeth.

Note: If you do attend the screening in the Northern Tower, we will ask you to check all your weapons at the door.

There was an unfortunate accident several days ago, the Treasurer of our University, Lance, was jousting with a friend, and accidently ran him through with a 15-foot lance.

Well, now our Journalism students are on the Warpath for they were not given the opportunity to break the story in the Student newspaper. They have threatened to assasinate, well, everyone.

Gentlemen, we enjoy violence as much as everyone, but don't you think you're, er, overreacting.

As Sir Galahad cautions: Perchance Be Chill.

Robert:

Seraphic University students are unique indeed... the only other time journalists or journalism students threaten to riot is when someone welches on a promise of free food and/or beer.

A bit off topic....

I got a real good belly laugh over this...

>

Why should Cheney go to CNN...NBC...ABC...etc..?

The interview would have consisted of heavy badgering……with the intent of getting Cheney on his knees begging forgiveness from the press.

I'm not saying the Veep handled this correctly...he clearly didn't....but, the press has gone nuts over this....because Cheney didn't come to them....

The self serving liberal press...

My advise to Jack.....get over it.....you are not in Brit Hume's league.

This is the comment made by Jack Cafferty of CNN....

>

This is the comment made by Jack Cafferty...

"On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

Lance:

I agree most of the rest of the media would have been very hostile. But let's not pretend that FOX isn't very friendly. Hey, it works for them... look at their ratings! I have many friends who work over there and they don't deny it. What CNN stands for, I'm really not sure. It sure isn't about ratings!

Oh and sorry, but I took the same angle today for my radio station joke writing service:

Cheney Interview
Dick Cheney finally spoke out about the shooting incident in an interview on FOX News Channel Wednesday. This was seen by the Vice President's office as a good training exercise in case he ever plans to face the real news media.

Cheney Interview II
In an interview on FOX News Channel Wednesday, Vice President Cheney said he thought it was "the right call" to step aside and allow one of the ranch owners to tell the public what happened in the hunting accident. That makes sense mostly because he was still drunk.

Cheney Interview III
During the interview Cheney said that, "ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry. And I take full responsibility. Some may say that Harry got in my way, didn't follow protocol, totally was at fault... but it would be wrong to even mention that possibility for a second!"

Top 5 Weird Questions Brit Hume Asked Dick Cheney

5) "Mr. Vice President, some terrible, mean people say you're a cold-blooded murderer. Are those people right?"

4) "Nobody's gonna mess with you now, are they?"

3) "Do you know where to buy heart medication wholesale? I have an uncle who's looking."

2) "Next time you go hunting, can't you go with Ted Kennedy or somebody like that?"

1) "Is it just me, or is this whole story making you so sexy right now?"

BUT I ALSO WROTE:

"New" Abuse Photos
The American and European news media is widely publishing "new" pictures of abu Ghraib torture incidents from 2003. It's a good thing those pictures didn't include any cartoon images of Muhammad... because then it would be very wrong to publish them.

I would like to know if Cheney was drunk or not. This would explain the initial silence. I find it interesting that the law and order types, are so gentle and forgiving when it comes to Cheney.

If he were a Democrat or liberal, the'd (you'd )be tearing into him like a free gift credit card.

Now do you see why I hate politics and politicking so?

Every issue becomes lockstep partisan.

Maybe FOX is considered a friendly place....but, I don't think Brit Hume rolled over for the Veep.

It was a professional, probing interview.

As opposed to the badgering....rude...and biased style seen on the MSM networks.

That is why FOX is successful....and the others...CNN...MSNBC...etc...will never come close to the viewership.

I'm hoping FOX will blow out of the water CNBC later this year when they launch their own business news brand.

"I'm hoping FOX will blow out of the water CNBC later this year when they launch their own business news brand."

Me too. I "lost" a lot of good friends in 2004 when CNNfn shut down. Those guys deserve to get good jobs and FOX would be only too happy to hire them.

Jobber,

I stated in my post that I thought the Veep handled this incorrectly.

Cheney stated in his interview that they were not drinking....IF they were, obviously that would be a big problem.

My beef is with the press.....who is treating this as a partisan issue. I assure you if this were a Democrat administration, the press would be treating them like lambs.

I find this series absolutely infuriating. You are basing your analysis of defensible borders for Israel on a movie!!! How about some expert opinions, eh?

Please look at the following website:

www.defensibleborders.org

Written by Dore Gold, MK Yuval Shteinitz (Security and Foreign Affairs Committee) and General Yaakov Amidror.

I'll return the favor and I won't write about writing screenplays in Los Angeles.

Westbankmama:

This series is not base on a movie. I used a scene from a movie as an example of basic military thinking. It's a way of illustrating a point.

Again, I am trying a dispassionate analysis, trying to understand the Gaza withdrawal, and the eventual withdrawal from portions of Judea and Samaria.

I have have read many other points of view regarding what constitute defensible borders. This is an old argument. I do not claim to own the truth. I'm making a hypothesis.

Your fury is wasted on me for I happen to be on your side. I just happen to believe in using my mind to understand how the forces of history work.