When ariel sharon returned from washington after his april 14th 2004 meeting with president bush, the front page headline of one newspaper in the zionist state exclaimed, "Sharon got it all." It was a moment of triumph. The deal was sold as a peace initiative to the american public called the Gaza pullout. The american public supported it as a glimmer of chance for peace in the middle east - a step in the right direction. But, in reality, sharon had won a hugely beneficial deal for the zionists. Even if this perpetual liar and mass murderer, kept to his side of the deal it would still have been a huge step forward for the zionists because, for the first time, sharon renounced the right of return; legitimized virtually all other zionist settlements in occupied palestine; and legitimized the construction of the apartheid wall which will create open prisons for the palestinians. It seemed like a major triumph. "Sharon has said that failure to go ahead with the Gaza withdrawal would risk losing unprecedented US assurances that Israel would be allowed to keep land in the West Bank." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Likud crisis deepens’ Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8DD1FBE2-9A91-43AB-86AA-09CB90CA8878.htm Monday 26 July 2004).

Sharon’s long time friend and emissary, dov, finally decided to announce the zionists’ real intentions about the gaza withdrawal plan. The article which announced his views is so full of counter-counter-counter remarks it’s almost impossible working out what is real and what is not. The Gaza withdrawal plan was supposedly a means to bring to an end bush’s Road Map’ to which russia, britain and france had also signed up. But now the Gaza plan and the Road map were still compatible. The Gaza peace plan was intended to freeze negotiations with the palestinians but the Road map was still in effect ­ but presumably only after the elapse of several decades.

There are those who dismiss the evidence for zionist world domination. Well now there’s a good test case coming up which will either prove or disprove this theory ­ didn’t karl popper argue that a good theory should be falsifiable? The bush administration has stated its support for a palestinian state. (Many assume that sharon didn’t bother to tell bush not to support a palestinian state because he thought bush would realize that the zionists did not want such a thing - but he obviously overestimated bush’s intelligence about picking up on such matters). Sharon and the zionist state have stated their opposition to the idea. So, if the americans succeed in forcing the creation of a palestinian state then this will disprove the notion of zionist world domination. If, however, the americans are unable to bring this about then this will provide further evidence for the proposition that zionists dominate the world.

From the moment the zionist ideology was launched, zionists have pursued a policy of provocation. The early zionists deliberately provoked anti-semitism around the world in order to encourage jews to support the creation of a zionist state. Since the creation of the zionist state in palestine, zionists have continued this practice to encourage jews to return to the zionist state ­ even if this meant carrying out anti-semitic deeds themselves. After the creation of the zionist state the zionists also set about provoking palestinians, and arab countries, into violence. They did this for three reasons. Firstly, it justified massive retaliation which was completely disproportionate to the violence perpetrated against them. Secondly, news of palestinian or arab violence could be used as ammunition by the zionist owned media in america, britain, and russia, to denounce palestinians and arabs for their use of violence thus winning the sympathies of people in those countries for the zionist cause. Thirdly, it made the pursuit of peace between palestinians and zionists impossible. Zionists would continually undermine peace efforts through provoking violence because they knew that peace would bring an end to zionist expansionism. As israeli traitors have gained increasing control over american politics, they have installed the zionist policy of permanent provocation, often referred to as permanent revolution, as the main tenet of america’s foreign policies.

As usual, uri avnery was one of the few to see behind the deceit,."I was one of the very few who immediately raised their voice against the plan. I argued that it was really a right-wing plan for annexing most of the West Bank, burying the peace process and deceiving public opinion in Israel and abroad." (Uri Avnery ‘Don't Believe a Word’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/avnery.php?articleid=3763 October 12, 2004). Pro-zionist peace organizations in america such as ‘Peace Now’ were celebrating this first step on the road to peace.

"One reason that Sharon has continued to get a free ride on the strength of his disengagement plan, despite his long history as a tireless and powerful opponent of Palestinian national rights, is that many cannot believe that he would be so reckless as to propose the unilateral removal of Jewish settlements in Gaza without the intention of following through. But such a view of Sharon fails to take into consideration his willingness to take unprecedented risks, as well as his shrewd calculation of both the domestic and international political landscape. In Israel, there is no opposition to speak of. In the United States, Bush and his radical, pro Israeli neocon team is firmly in place for a second term and wholly supportive of Sharon's goals and vicious tactics. Moreover, as a veteran of more than 50 years on the Middle East scene, Sharon understands that pretexts can always be found to break, postpone and put off indefinitely agreements and treaties with the Arabs." (Ronald Bleier ‘The Israeli Palestinian Conflict and the Spread of Empire and Desolation’ http://desip.igc.org/1-27-05talk.html January 27, 2005).

"Thus far only a few lonely voices in Israel have pointed to the counterintuitive nature of the disengagement plan and have openly questioned Sharon's intention to remove the Gaza settlements. Israeli author and academic Tanya Reinhart has gone further than anyone else, providing invaluable documentation demonstrating the lack of any practical steps Israel is taking that would indicate a serious intent to remove the settlers. Despite the absence of such evidence, the media and the international community largely continue to take Sharon's disengagement plan seriously. Meanwhile Israel continues to pour resources into the settlements, suggesting that so far from evicting Jewish settlers from Gaza, the plan is to maintain them over the long term. In that case, it's not the Israeli settlers who will be leaving, but rather a million Palestinians who will be forced from Gaza." (Ronald Bleier ‘The Israeli Palestinian Conflict and the Spread of Empire and Desolation’ http://desip.igc.org/1-27-05talk.html January 27, 2005).

The new "peace plans" are no more real than the previous ones, and on the ground, the Palestinians are losing more of their land and are being pushed into smaller and smaller prison enclaves, surrounded by the new wall that Sharon's government keeps constructing. On the day of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit Israeli sources announced that even the illegal outposts that Israel has committed to evacuate long ago will not be evacuated until "after implementation of the disengagement from the Gaza Strip"." (Tanya Reinhart ‘From Aqaba to Sharm: Fake Peace Festivals’ http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3610.shtml February 11th 2005).

"We've been sated with optimistic talk about Palestine in the last few months: we have a cease-fire now; Ariel Sharon is disengaging from Gaza and may also pull Israeli troops out of some West Bank cities; George Bush and Condoleezza Rice talk all the time about two states living side by side in peace. But I think we need to be very clear about what is really going on in Palestine. When you know what's actually happening on the ground - which we all hope to describe to you tonight - you'll see, I think, that there is no reason at all for optimism. Despite all the nice talk, there will be no real Palestinian state, and there will be no peace, anytime in the foreseeable future, and the responsibility for this will lie with Israel and the United States. The reason there will be no Palestinian independence, and therefore no peace and no justice, anytime soon is purely and simply because the Israeli government does not want it, and the United States does not want what Israel doesn't want." (Kathleen Christison ‘Optimism vs. Reality’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02192005.html February 19th 2005).

Sharm el-Sheikh failed to address the major grievances that defined the Palestinian national struggle for generations: an end to occupation, the right of return, and the removal of the settlements, among others. The summit was almost exclusively reserved for talks about Israel's security: since when was it acceptable for an occupying power to demand security from its captives? The summit was a failure, infested with all the symptoms of Oslo, and with no doubt, it will garner the same fate. But by the time such a failure is recognized, Israel's imperial project, the wall and settlements and the calculated annexation of most of the West Bank, shall become accepted as "facts on the ground." Maybe then, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, the co-author of Oslo, will understand the extent of his self-defeatist pragmatism. But then, will it even matter? (Ramzy Baroud ‘How Israel Is Once Again Redefining the Terms of Peace’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=4890 February 19, 2005).

Kathleen christison supports the idea of a two state solution to what is often referred to as the middle east problem but is in reality the problem of zionist expansionism, "George Bush and I both have a vision of peace; he has described his vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, and that's my vision too." (Kathleen Christison ‘Before There Was Terrorism’ http://www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0502.html May 2, 2002).