Geneva is a blueprint for war, not peace

[drdon326]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/04/geneva_is_a_blueprint_for_war_not_peace/

The premise of the Geneva agreement is that Israeli surrender will bring Mideast peace. It would require Israel to relinquish land, weaken its security, and yield tangible assets to the Palestinians. In exchange, the Palestinians would pledge to stop killing Israelis. Sound familiar? It's the 1993 Oslo formula all over again: Israel trades concessions on the ground for unenforceable Arab promises of peace.

It is worth remembering that Oslo, too, was showered with acclaim. The world cheered when Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn. It welcomed the PLO's unequivocal promise to forgo its guns and bombs. "The PLO commits itself . . . to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides," Arafat had vowed in writing, "and declares that all outstanding issues . . . will be resolved through negotiations. . . The PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence."

For the sake of peace, Israel paid the steep price Oslo demanded. It recognized the PLO, allowed Arafat to take over Gaza and the West Bank, agreed to the creation of a Palestinian militia, and even supplied that militia with weapons. It was appeasement on a scale far beyond Chamberlain's, but Israelis convinced themselves that it was worth it if it would mean an end to Palestinian violence and bloodlust.

But the violence and bloodlust didn't end. Far from ushering in a new era of peace, Oslo launched the worst decade of terrorism in Israel's history. Successive Israeli governments desperately tried to stanch the slaughter with new and deeper concessions. But that only convinced the Palestinians that the Jews were in retreat, and that hitting them harder would yield even greater rewards.

............................................................

*THIS* is a great article.

A MUST READ.

[cspiguy]

1. noone will remember Oslo. We will be fooled again. (And again)

we should *** never *** forget.

[bemildred]

2. Godwin's law, first paragraph, drool.

[seventhson]

3. Sharon/Arafat is a blueprint for war

My feeling is that those who live there must negotiate peace, and these parties have made an admirable start.

War just begets war as we Americans are learning.

If you want more death for Israelis, IMHO, then oppose ANY efforts at peace.

[bluesoul]

4. The Geneva Accord is a good start

and I couldn't disagree more with the article...

[damnraddem]

5. If violence is to be ended, the effort must go around the terrorists:

including the bombers, but especially including the Sharon government and the IDF. That's how Geneva is different: it DID NOT INCLUDE either of the sources of terror.

'Israeli concessions on the ground'? What a laugh! Israel has continually acted as the aggressor, taking more and more Palestinian land, launching forays into Palestinian areas, destroying houses, murdering Palestinians, and now fencing off Palestinian communities from each other, from their farmlands, from the world. Israel's "concessions" must include: stop acting like a barbarian invader, reverse the effects of past agression, recognize the humanity and rights of the Palestinian people, and stop playing the violence-cycle game with Arab terrorists. The latter is an old game, but has been perfected by Sharon: first give guarantees of success to the terrorists, by declaring that there can be no peace so long as there are bombings, thus instructing them in exactly what they must do to succeed; second, respond to any outrage by bigger outrages by the IDF; and most importantly, in the absence of recent bombings or other outrages, respond to any moves toward peace by attacks on Palestinians or others (recently, on Syria) that are sure to increase Palestinian hatred and encourage renewed terrorist attacks.

There are two possible peaceful outcomes: (1) a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel; or (2) a single democratic state in which all are full citizens. Given the pattern of 'settlements' (land and water-resource thefts), the first option looks more and more to be doomed -- although perhaps Geneva could revive it. The second option, if truly democratic, would effectively mean the downfall of the religious/ethnic state of Israel -- given that the Palestinian population is outgrowing the Jewish population. Either peaceful outcome would not require 'concessions' -- it would requite complete change in institutions and thinking on all sides to the conflicts.

There is little reason for optimism. But the Geneva talks do give some hope in that they do represent some rethinking from two sides -- those interested in peace in the Jewish and the Palestinian communities.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. "Two possible peaceful outcomes"

1) a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel;

Why would that necessarily be peaceful? If the Palestinians have been unwilling to stop terror now, why would they in the future? Plus, if they don't, what do you think will happen to their precious state? Do you think Israel will sit idly by and let a neighbor state support terror against it?

(2) a single democratic state in which all are full citizens.

Oh yeah, that will be peaceful for the Jewish people. Just like living in the other Arab nations was peaceful where they were told to, "leave in peace."

[Classical_Liberal]

10. The Palestinians were peaceful for a long time in the 90s

till it became clear the settlements weren't being dismantled, and until they were offered the ungenerous offer.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. You mean the offer Arafat rejected without a counter?

[Darranar]

21. He (Arafat) is not blameless....

he is as deserving of blame as Barak in this matter.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. One more time, Muddle

Why would that necessarily be peaceful?

It wouldn't be. Any more than an Israeli state, if possessed of a Likud government with expansionist dreams, would necessarily be peaceful.

If the Palestinians have been unwilling to stop terror now, why would they in the future?

Because they would have something to lose.

Plus, if they don't, what do you think will happen to their precious state? Do you think Israel will sit idly by and let a neighbor state support terror against it?

In other words, the Palestinians would have something to lose. As I pointed out to you last night and as The Magistrate points out to Dr. Don below, the Israelis can win any war against the Palestinians. The only people who don't seem to know that are the Palestinians who reject the Geneva Accord. However, a successful peace process will leave them marginalized.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Responses

You are right that such a Palestinian state would not necessarily be peaceful. But there is a big difference. Right now, people think the Palestinians and Israelis are at war. They are not. War bears little resemblance to what is going on right now.

But if a Palestinian were constructed and continued to ignore terror, war would come. And it would be bad. Not a few hundred dead on either side, but an actual, legitimate invasion.

Like it or not, the Palestinians have something to lose now. When Arafat rejected Barak's offer, there had been hope and economic cooperation. Now there is little of both. They had something to lose and they willingly lost it.

Also, you assume human beings will act logical. Experience tells us that is not necessarily the case.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Response

Right now, people think the Palestinians and Israelis are at war. They are not. War bears little resemblance to what is going on right now.

With all due respect, that is absurd. A state of war exists between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have chosen to use guerrilla tactics, and not very effective ones at that. In general, however, it is wise for the side that is weaker to choose guerrilla tactics. It would be wiser yet for the Palestinians to strike legitimate targets like soldiers on patrol or bulldozers rather than civilians eating lunch in a cafe.

(I)f a Palestinian were constructed and continued to ignore terror, war would come. And it would be bad.

Indeed, it would be bad. This, of course, assumes that a Palestinian state would continue to ignore terror. Why would they? They'd lose what they had gained.

Not a few hundred dead on either side, but an actual, legitimate invasion.

Followed by another occupation. I seriously doubt the Palestinian people want more of that.

Like it or not, the Palestinians have something to lose now.

Besides having their homes bulldozed to make way for settlement housing in which they cannot live and roads on which they cannot travel, what? Maybe Arafat should have taken the peace that Barak offered. At the very least, he should have offered his own proposal. However, that was when they were dealing with Barak. Now they are dealing with a man with a long, bloody history of disregarding Arab life and a penchant for regarding the entire Levantine region as Greater Israel. Sharon is not a man to be trusted.

(Y)ou assume human beings will act logical. Experience tells us that is not necessarily the case.

Of course I do, even if it isn't necessarily the case that people are always logical. Is there a better criteria on which to base a decision than that people as a group will act according to their rational self interest? To make other assumptions becomes a pretext for doing what one damn pleases. That is the way of the tyrant, not the peacemaker.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. With all due respect

Your first response is beyond absurd or just downright naive. This is, at best, a low-grade guerrilla conflict, not a war.

In a war, there is vastly more devastation and death and that is what would happen if a Palestinian state did NOT stop terror or even try aggressively. In a war, Israel would not be concerned about niceties such as it was in Jenin. In a war, you fire artillery form a mile away or blast an entire area into dust from the air. You don't send in your troops to attack an entrenched enemy that has set booby traps for you.

War lays waste to whole cities and kills thousands in a day. In a word, war sucks. Urban war sucks even worse because there are so many civilians around.

Again, you are applying logic to the Palestinian side. I think history is on my side saying that is a wild assumption. Human beings -- all human beings -- tend to act with emotion and not always in their best intersts. Plus, habits and hatreds are long in this situation. It would be easy for the terror network to continue its vile work and easier still for the PA to continue to quietly endorse and overlook their actions. Of course, they might think, Israel will never really retaliate in a big way. They would be wrong.

You complain that Sharon is not a man to be trusted. I disagree, but not the way you might think. As an enemy he is entirely predictable. He will continue to fight you endlessly. At least, right now, he has clearly been cast as an enemy of the Palestinians. The problem is that Arafat is neither trustworthy nor reliable as a friend or an enemy. He spends his entire life trying to straddle the two and, in so doing, can never be trusted at any time.

Ultimately, you and I differ on our perceptions of what will continue to happen. You argue that people will act in their best interests, I don't necessarily agree. Or, if you like, they will act in the best LONG-TERM interests of their people and many Palestinians see that as ending Israel's existence. Those that do will continue to fight and murder and blow up women and children until one side or the other is completely destroyed.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Response

This is . . . a low-grade guerrilla conflict, not a war.

Reductio ad absurdum. That's a contradiction. A guerrilla conflict is still a conflict (i.e., war). You simply go on to demonstrate that it is not a conventional war.

(Y)ou are applying logic to the Palestinian side. I think history is on my side saying that is a wild assumption.

Are Palestinians not capable of being reasonable? Why not?

Human beings -- all human beings -- tend to act with emotion and not always in their best intersts.

That is true. History would be quite different otherwise.

It would be easy for the terror network to continue its vile work and easier still for the PA to continue to quietly endorse and overlook their actions. Of course, they might think, Israel will never really retaliate in a big way. They would be wrong.

Exactly. If the PA (or government of Palestine) were to continue to turn a blind eye to the actions of terrorists after a peace agreement is reached, then Israel would be within her rights to invade Palestine and do what the PA should have done. That is more or less the claim that Sharon is making for his incursions into the territories now, although I believe they are about something more than that as well, but I digress. In any event, you're right, the Israelis would retaliate, it will be ugly and the Palestinians will lose whatever they've gained. Which is why I don't think they'll let it happen.

As an enemy (Sharon) is entirely predictable. He will continue to fight you endlessly. At least, right now, he has clearly been cast as an enemy of the Palestinians. The problem is that Arafat is neither trustworthy nor reliable as a friend or an enemy. He spends his entire life trying to straddle the two and, in so doing, can never be trusted at any time.

I agree about Arafat. Enough said about that toad. I still disagree about Sharon. He has never shown anything but hostility to any peace process. As a politician, he is a protoge of Menachem Begin, who declared the West Bank and Gaza to be an "intergral part of Israel". His lust is for land over peace. If he can get away with it, there will never be any Palestinian state and certainly not one that is fully sovereign or independent.

(Y)ou and I differ on our perceptions of what will continue to happen. You argue that people will act in their best interests, I don't necessarily agree. Or, if you like, they will act in the best LONG-TERM interests of their people and many Palestinians see that as ending Israel's existence. Those that do will continue to fight and murder and blow up women and children until one side or the other is completely destroyed.

You're right. We disagree. I don't think the long term interest of the Palestinians is to destroy Israel; it is to gain control over their lives. That can be done more easily recognizing Israel's existence than by attempting to destroy it. Destroying Israel is an unobtainable goal.

On the other hand, you fail to consider in your calculus that there is also an extremist element among the Israelis that wants to destory the Palestinians and claim all the land from the Jordan to the sea; many want Arabs expelled from this land. These people are a mirror image of the Palestinian extrmists. There may be some politicians in Israel who represent their views better than Sharon, but they are still part of his power base and he does not have the will to cross them.

There can be no peace so long as these extreme elements hold the power they do on either side of the conflict. That is probalby why the Geneva Accord is an unofficial peace treaty, negotiated by those with no ties to the war parties in Israel or Palestine. These war parties will not be placated. Therefore, for peace to happen they must be marginalized.

Beilin and Abed Rabbo have done the right thing. They have ignored the extremists and the politicians who have no will to marginalize them. This is how peace will have to be made.

[edzontar]

7. This is an OPINION COLUMN by an arch-enemy of peace

And one of the worst Arab-haters in print today.

It is NOT NOT NOT an article.

Jacoby is a Right-Wing, pro-Bush, conservative Pukeboy.

He is never a MUST READ for ANY progressive thinker.

I recommend a mental "ignore" button.

[Aidoneus]

11. he's not that noteworthy

A predictable rightwing gasbag, sure, but Martin Peretz has lightyears on him in the "worst Arab-haters in print today" catagory (and also an occasional feature offered up here from time to time).

Remember the lesson we've learned from the Fini/Mussolini affair (among others in a consistant pattern)--as long as they support Israel, preferentially doing so unconditionally, even a fascist is a "must read".

[edzontar]

12. Well, I used to live in Boston, when this pea-brained idiot

....Starting in the late 70s, I think, came on like gangbusters and filled the already loathsome OP ED pages of the Globe with a torrent of hateful diatribes against all that was good and human.

He is a hateful, ugly, evil man, and while Peretz may be worse, or more infkuential, that will never stop me from crying out at every opportunity against this despicable man's black, shriveled soul.

And when I see someone posting the rantings of this unspeakable creature on a so-called progressive, Democratic board, it just sets my hair on end.

[Lurking Dem]

13. Ed, really.

Don't hold back, man. It's not good for your constitution. :hi:

[edzontar]

14. I know, I sometimes have trouble expressing myself....

Not this time, though...

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Jacoby is a rightwinger, a homophobe, and a FREEPER

A tiny sample of Jacoby's Nazi rantings:

Jeff Jacoby: Down the slippery slope (Same Sex Marriage)

Of course the most radical redefinition of marriage in centuries is going to have deeply disturbing consequences. It may be a decade or two before the full impact is evident, but some of the coming changes we can anticipate right now.

In the SJC's brave new world of gender-neutral marriage, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will no longer communicate to its citizens that the central purpose of marriage is to bind men and women exclusively to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior is apt to produce. It will communicate instead that marriage was created to gratify grown-ups by reinforcing their committed romantic relationships. To be sure, a loving relationship is ideal in any marriage. But that isn't why every society in recorded history has defined marriage as an institution for linking the sexes.

Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life. The meanings and status associated with words like "husband" and "wife" will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex "spouse," just as "father" and "mother" will give way to "parent." Two years ago, a private school in New York caused a stir when it banned celebrations of Mother's Day out of concern for the sensibilities of children being raised by gay parents. That was a tiny foretaste of what is now in store for Massachusetts — and perhaps the rest of the country too, if the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means what many experts say it means.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1026415/posts

[edzontar]

25. More spewings of hate from one of our pal's fave raves

How many more times?

[Blitz]

32. Do you think that Robert C. Byrd is a Nazi?

Because he has come out at least as strongly (more strongly, actually) against gay marriage.

Is Byrd a freeper whose opinions on completely unrelated topics should be forbidden? Or, perhaps, should we consider every expressed viewpoint on its own merits?

[edzontar]

36. Byrd is very bad on gay marriage...

So are most of the Dems.

That does not justify Jacoby's raging hatred.

[The Magistrate]

8. With All Due Respect, Doctor

This is simply bilge.

The "Geneva" plan represents in broad outline the only conceivable solution to this conflict. It is hard to see anything it really obliges Israel to surrender: even most of the settlement blocs remain as Israeli territory under it. It does not affect the security of Israel at all; settlements beyond the Green Line do not, today, enhance the security of Israel, but rather detract from it. Decades ago, when the menace to Israel come from conventional armies, there was a great deal to the argument that the Green Line boundaries were indefensible. But today, the leading menaces to Israel's people are things such as ballistic missiles and infiltration by fanatic killers, against which territory offers no benefit, and a deteriorating diplomatic position. This latter is actively aggravated by Israeli lodgements beyond the Green Line.

Further, if a state of Arab Palestine were to continue to connive at attacks against the people of Israel, there is nothing to prevent Israeli military action to halt such attacks, and there would be little legitimate ground for complaint over such actions, in that circumstance.

[drdon326]

15. Magistrate.....

I respectfully disagree.

[The Magistrate]

17. I Appreciate That, Doctor

As we are united in support for the Jewish state of Israel, and our hope for its secure and peaceful existence into the future, disagreement between us cannot really amount to very much. We have, perhaps, different appreciations of strategy that lead to differing views on how best to bring that happy condition about.

You will know me well enough to appreciate my support for this measure is not owing to any belief it is ideal, any more than my support for Israel is owing to any feeling it is perfect. This seems to me the best thing that can be got, and therefore it seems to me it ought to be given a decent trial, to see if it works.

The gun can be picked up again, if necessary.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Oslo failed because it wasn't implemented!

. Settlements were never even stopped.

[dai]

16. Surrender?

Sadly, I feel there are those on both sides of this conflict who consider anything short of "total victory" as conditions for surrender. Some twisted sense of "winning" trumps genuine efforts to improve the lives of one's own people.

These people belong in padded rooms, not at the heads of governments.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Another rightwing attack on Geneva

Jacoby is full of more baloney than Krauthammer, whose nonsense was posted here the other day.

The premise of the Geneva agreement is that Israeli surrender will bring Mideast peace.

When the Palestinian people, for all intents and purposes, give up the right of return, it cannot be characterized as an "Israeli surrender." The abrogation of the right of return should be enough to satisfy the Israelis that they will be able to retain the Jewish character of their state. Perhaps Mr. Jacoby has something else in mind when he objects to the Geneva Accord. After all, one may scour his screed from one end to the other, but one will find no mention of the Palestinians' giving up the right of return in exchange for sovereignty and peace.

Beyond that, as others who have already posted here have pointed out, Jacoby provides a one-sided view of the history of the Oslo process. Was its failure all the fault of the Palestinians? It may have been Arafat who failed to counteroffer at Camp David, and there was violence during the process, but it was the Israelis who continued to build settlements during this time. Neither side did as much as possible to live up to the Oslo agreement.

Jacoby, like Krauthammer, is a rightwing shill. His agenda is not based in the concept of the equality of all humans, but in the concept that some people are superior to others and are entitled to walk right over them and take what they can from them. On what exactly he bases this perceived superiority is something of a mystery, but clearly he has decided that, whatever it is, Israelis have it and Palestinians do not. It would be better if on a progressive board when posting a piece by the likes of Mr. Jacoby or Mr. Krauthammer that one be more elaborate in explaining why their views should be taken seriously by this audience than providing a simple "great article."

Mr. Jacoby, like Mr. Krauthammmer earlier in the week, has presented a wholly dishonest attack on the Geneva Accord. No such attack should dissuade the informed individual that support for the Accord should be reconsidered. This one certainly does not.

[Lurking Dem]

28. I think Jon Stewart got it right last night.

(Not an exact quote.) "A fictional agreement that neither government has accepted."

He also said Geneva wouldn't even happen when pigs fly since both sides agree that pigs are unclean.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. It's something more than that

It may not have any force of law, since no government accepts it. However, it undersocres the fact that an agreement is possible and that the governments are not doing what they should do.

Sharon and Arafat have been caught with their pants down. Neither is serious about making peace. Both are beholden to the extreme elements in their respective nations that don't want peace if it means giving up territory (which it does).

The Geneva Accord is the product of a revolt of reasonable men. If nothing else, lending it support puts pressure on those so-called leaders to do something constructive.

[Lurking Dem]

31. I can only hope you're right. eom

[tinnypriv]

34. That just happens to be bullshit, probably because Jon is quipping

The fact is, the PA has not rejected Geneva, and has actually expressed guarded (if somewhat ambiguous) support for it. Israel has categorically rejected it. Hardly analogous.

The United States reaction (at least in public), is roughly between the two.

Those are the facts, and the media is just doing what comes naturally: implying "both sides" are at fault. There is no reason for anybody informed to take that seriously - it is simply a mechanism that high-minded folks in the US use in order to absolve themselves from any responsibility: if "both" are just clusterfucks, who cares, right?

Morever, the Palestinians don't have a "government". They barely have an autonomous capacity even in areas Israel prefers to occupy via a native facade. Implying the opposite is utterly offensive.

[Lurking Dem]

35. He didn't say

anyone had rejected it. He said no one had accepted it. Which is what I typed.

[tinnypriv]

37. Of course

That is what I was addressing. Saying "neither" implies an analogous situation by both the PA and the GOI.

The accurate thing to say is:

"Israel has rejected it, and the PA has not accepted it".

If you wanted to be smart, you could add:

"The US government is on the fence, seeing as how Iraq and Nov 2004 are greater priorities at the moment".

Then, being Jon Stewart, you could quip about how the fence is really a wall. ;)

[Forkboy]

40. How any progressive can suspend that progressiveness

when reading a shitheel like Jacoby is beyond me.

Jacoby has NEVER written a "great article".

[bluesoul]

41. Sometimes

one has to wonder indeed...

[edzontar]

42. Actually the situation is quite clear to me....

nt