I agree with your neighbor. Krauthammer wrote that under Sharon's plan (with the fence) Israel will retain just 7% of Judea and Samaria. How does this differ from Yossi Beilin in 1996 (as I wrote in my blog? Or Ehud Barak when he was desperately trying to make a last minute deal while a lame duck before his term expired in 2001?
If Sharon's proposed plan meant better security I could see your point. But with what's going on in Gaza, it looks to me that further withdrawals will only strengthen the enemy and give them more territory from which to operate freely.

Naw... you're right and your neighbor and SoccerDad are wrong. Not only did Sharon not change ideologically, he barely changed strategically - his goal was always to retain as much of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as realistically possible. But he had to change tactics when he realized that the terrain of the international battlefield wasn't what he thought it could be. He saw pressure coming, and moved to preempt it by trading up Gaza for large parts of the West Bank. I was just looking at an interview two nights ago (which I've now infuriatingly lost because Firefox has what can charitably be called "stability problems") where someone was saying that his primary concern was that eventually the US would swoop in and impose a negotiated settlement if he didn't do something first.

im not sure the distinction you draw between ideology and tactics is meaningful. If,for the sake of argument, Dubya said tomorrow that he was calling for huge tax increases, cause now he believed that they were necessary for the prosperity of the American economy, would you agree that only his tactics had changed, but not his ideology, since he still wanted prosperity for the american people (as opposed to say a libertarian who believed in smaller taxes without regard to their impact?)

Wanting security for Israel as the main goal, isnt an ideology, its apple pie and motherhood (despite the existence of some loonies whose motives for settlement had nothing to do with security) Ideology is a set of broad beliefs about the world that tell you how to gain your goals - IE cutting taxes makes people work more, or its doesnt, Palestinian nationalism will be fulfilled east of the Jordan river etc. Tactics are the details of how you implement that ideology - we cut personal income taxes this year, but capital gains later - we build settlements in the west bank, but try to maintain peace with Egypt.

Bibi has changed tactics more than once - agreeing to talk to Arafat at Wye river, for ex. Sharon, from 2001 on, seems to have genuinely changed ideologies. From believing that Israel had the military, economic, and demographic wherewhithal to hold on the West Bank, and that Palestinian nationalism could be fulfilled east of Jordan, he determined that maintain[ing] a secure, democratic and Jewish state of Israel, given the politics of the West Bank, the international situation, demographics, etc was only possible by a withdrawl from Gaza and most of the territories. Tactics - talk to Arafat or isolate him, support Abbas or pressure him, when and how to make unilateral withdrawls, what to demand in bilateral talks, how to navigate internal Israeli politics - are all subordinate to this grand change in ideology - which is still of course, in support of the same underlying goal.

Thanks Omri and Soccer Dad for your comments.

As for Sharon, despite comments here and there, I don't really think we know yet what he would have done in the West Bank - I think he, too would have waited to see how the elections went off and to evaluate the implosion in Gaza and all of these factors -- assuming they continue to go as they appear to be going largely unchecked -- would have been negotiation points in reaching a better deal for Israel later on.

In fact, despite the agreement that Sharon signed for Gaza, as far as I know, there is not yet the open access for weaponry and terrorists consumer and agricultural products to flow unchecked between Gaza and the West Bank which was a very controversial part of that deal.

While I also agree that Netanyahu is by no means a loony right wing fringe figure – that Carville’s spin machine still holding forth and the kind of thing that people on the right are used to here - IMO, I’m not sure I’m in agreement that he is the center of the country, politically speaking, either. As far as I know, he does have a lot of credibility on the economics issue. Although, I believe, that as finance minister, Olmert has also continued to move the country in that direction. (Please correct if I’m wrong on that point as I have not followed it as closely.)

Omri, if you recover that link, would you please let me know. It sounds very interesting.

If the ultimate goal is the expulsion of the Palestinians, Gaza is a very good first step.

It sets the field in which the action is to take place.

The first step in that action is the discrediting of the Palestinian cause. Sharon identified the real battle field. World public opinion.

It is not clear to me that Sharon gave up any of his goals. What he has done is a tactical retreat, not necessisarily a strategic one. Of course we won't know for sure for a couple of years.

Sharon has pulled off one of the most difficult military manuvers. A retreat while in contact with the enemy. The first fruits are already in evidence.