Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been watching with some interest the articles about the Israeli removal jewish settlers in Gaza. Allow him to say, upfront, that this move causes mixed emotions in his mind.

On the one hand, he does not (by any stretch of the imagination) believe that the Palestinian Arabs are competent enough to run their “state.” Furthermore, he does not believe that they are able to, or interested in, providing a peaceful border between Israel and their state. So from this perspective he doesn’t think that Israel is doing itself a favour by moving the settlers and closing the settlements.

On the other hand, he realizes that there are very few settlers in question here. And the cost (in blood and treasure - so to speak) to keep the settlers safe is very high. So high in fact that over the long-term those settlements might be untenable.

In the end, your Maximum Leader believes that the closure of the Gaza settlements is a required good-faith move on the part of the Sharon government. One that he hopes the Sharon government is willing to undo if the situation demands it.

Allow your Maximum Leader to explain.

For decades now the Israelis have been slowly pulling back from areas they conquered during the various wars of survival in which they had to fight. Now allow him to say that your Maximum Leader is all in favour of the “right of conquest” insofar as land is concerned. If you attack me and in the course of defending myself I happen to wind up in control of land that was formerly yours - well too bad. It is mine now. (Excursus: Henry II has that wonderful line in “The Lion In Winter” about a small French county in his discussions with King Phillip of France. Phillip demands the county - the Vexin - be returned. Henry refuses and says the county is his. Phillip asks by what right and Henry responds, “It’s got my troops all over it. That makes it mine.”)

On the balance, your Maximum Leader believes that these land for peace swaps started off reasonably well for Israel. He thinks that exchanging the Sinai for Egyptian recognition of Israel (and the consequent stable relationhip between the two nations) was a good one. But the withdrawl from southern Lebanon hasn’t enhanced Israeli security. And the withdrawl and allowance of “self-governance” to areas of the West Bank and Gaza haven’t gone nearly as well for Israel.

That said, your Maximum Leader believes that much of the fault for the West Bank and Gaza not working out up to this point lay on the (rotting) shoulders of Yasir Arafat. With Arafat gone it seems sensible to do something to give his successor a chance to prove himself. Looking at is available as a “give” to Abu Maizen it makes sense to “give” the Gaza settlements.

This “give” is not without pain for Sharon and the Israelis. The settlers in question have fought for their existance every day. The settlers turned a waste-land into productive farmland (in most cases). Many settler families have lived in Gaza for going on 30 years. Moving them is painful for everyone involved. But in the interests of fostering a relationship that might bear fruit, you have to give something. By making the first move (and not forcing the Palestinians to do so) shows just how serious the Israelis are.

But if the forced removal of the settlers doesn’t bear fruit in the form of a more peaceful relationship with the Palestinians; then Sharon should let the settlers move back.

You see, land for peace only works if giving up land gets you peace. Recently it hasn’t worked out very well for Israel. They’ve given land and gotten momentary quiet. But that was under Arafat. There are some new leaders on the PLO side now. This is the olive branch for them. They can make it work - or not.

If the Palestinians can’t make it work, then Israel should be prepared to take back the land.

Of course, your Maximum Leader doesn’t know if the Israelis could actually take back the land. He doesn’t wonder about their ability to do so. He wonders if they have the will to do so. And that may be just what the Palestinians are betting on. They may be betting that Israel and her leaders don’t have the will to put settlers back in Gaza. To the Palestinians once the Israelis are gone they are gone for good and it is time to move onto the next bit of land they want.

This cycle is what makes the Arab/Israeli problem so intractable. One side (Israel) gives way a little. The other side (the PLO) says they will do something - then they don’t. The situation is deadlocked for years. Then they one side (Israel) gives a little something. The other side doesn’t live up to the bargain. Etc. Etc.

To prove they are serious perhaps the Israelis need to undo part of the “agreement” if the current round of land for peace doesn’t work out to their satisfaction.

Carry on.