Seems to me that it does not necessarily follow from the fact that someone opposes the direct expression of a political goal that the same person opposes that goal in fact. You would have to look to other indicies, such as past behavior and past pronouncements. As for past behavior, Sharon doesn't fly with the angels. It seems to me that a relevant precedent would be many pro-life republicans that fought a pro-life plank in the party platform for purelyy politcal reasons, knowing full well that they were committed to the same outcome.
Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: >Sharon didn't speak in support of a Palestinian state. He just didn't want
>Likud to make it their official stand that no Palestinian state would be
>allowed.
He spoke in opposition to those totally and completely opposed to a Palestinian state. That's good enough for me.
Besides, the greater the number of people who say that Ariel Sharon has publicly and definitively rejected the core doctrine of Likud--that there should never be a Palestinian state, and that Judea and Samaria are by Grace of God rightfully part of Israel--the more true it will become...
Brad DeLong
--------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020513/500f5886/attachment.htm>