Mr. Sharon, Declare Victory

[Darranar]

The signing of the Geneva Accord addresses a critical weakness of the Road Map—the failure to articulate the end game of the Road Map's confidence-building measures. That weakness left both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wondering whether compliance with the Road Map's process would either (a) leave Israel without a secure border and a durable peace or (b) leave Palestinians without a politically and economically viable homeland. While some might nitpick details in the Accord, it is now clear that Israelis and Palestinians of good will can negotiate and resolve these critical endgame issues.

Does the Accord have any chance of moving the ball toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Given recent history, the answer would have to be no. Prime Minister Sharon has been doing the proverbial Texas Two-Step—he has given cosmetic lip service to the two-state solution envisioned by the Road Map, but has acted as a man dedicated to creating "facts on the ground" that would make a two-state solution impossible.

Sharon is acting as if Jews are an inexplicably, perpetually victimized people who will never know peace and security and who will always be compelled to fight for their survival. He has simply blinded himself to a vision of Jews and Arabs in historic reconciliation, living in peace and prosperity in neighboring homelands. As Robert F. Kennedy might have put it, Sharon is wailing at a world as it is and saying "why?", not seeing the world as it might be and saying "why not?"

...

Let me emphasize the crucial point: the Geneva Accord, were it to be fully implemented, promises a secure peace for Jews in a Jewish homeland living in peace with its Arab neighbors. This has been the Zionist dream for over half a century. That dream is what our people have been yearning for over nearly two millennia.

Tikkun

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Thanks for posting

I'm not sure that either Sharon or Arafat is interested in implementing the Geneva Accord. It would require both of them to turn on part of their political base. For Sharon, this is the settlers and their vision of a Greater Israel; for Arafat, this is the terrorists who still reject peace with Israel, although, as Mr. Vradenburg correctly says, "The Arab goal of pushing the Jews into the sea has been defeated," and everybody knows it (except them).

The Geneva Accord is an excellent plan. It is better than the Road Map, which was designed to fail. Unfortunately, its implementation may have to wait for a change in leadership by the people of both nations that share the Levant.

[Resistance]

2. If I'm not mistaken

Arafat did at least give the Geneva Accord his blessings, while Sharon only complained about Israeli officials going behind his back to meet with Palestinian representatives.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. You're not mistaken

Nevertheless, Arafat has the same problem Sharon has -- he needs the ultras who are most against Geneva. He can afford to give it lukewarm support. If he doesn't move on the militias, his words are worthless.

Meanwhile, Sharon is threatening unilateral steps which he will take if there is no move toward peace. If Arafat was gambling on looking good when Sharon thumbed his nose at Geneva, Sharon is gambling on Arafat being paralyzed by the militants. That suits Sharon fine. He has never wanted to deal with the Palestinians as equals.

Sharon, as usual, is holding the cards. He can take as much of the land and as few of the people as he wants. There's not very much that can stop him.

Unfortunately, Sharon's unilateral actions probably won't lead to a stable peace. What he will do may buy some time before things gets nasty again. However, by then, both Sharon and Arafat will cold in their graves.

[vierundzwanzig]

4. I do not agree

Any plan that does not make the ROR a personal decision of the affected and forces Israel to admit their wrongdoings for the last 50 years is not going to fly.

It is more of an emotional matter than a po.litical one as misconstrued. The walls of the refugee camps are plastered with the posters of martyrs and slogans of the return to Palestine.

Unless you address this emotional conflict (and only if you do so) you will not solve the problem.

OF course, I find it highly unlikely to for Israel to pay the piper as Germany did after the war. But this is what it takes.

For the longest time I have wondered what motivates fighters to go our and try to kill a couple of settlers while being killed themselves. Of course, it will have no military effect.

But it achieves two things:

a.) It demonstrates to Israel that even with the most tightest of occupation it will never be safe unless it confronts the demands of these people.

b.) It goes along with the mindset of the fighters, namely 'Victory or Death'. Not that I endorse this trype of thinking but it's a win-win situation for them. They either achieve victory or become martyrs and will have their reward in the afterlife (It sounds stereotypical but is true).

I would like to see the d situation defused just like the next guy (and am a member of Tikkun) but they live in an ivory tower.

It sounds arrogant but I walked at least 10 camps and talked to the families of a dozen martyrs. I did talk to three representatives of the PA, one of them being a Supreme Court Judge. This guy was one of the signatories of the accord.

All jokers if you ask me and none of them believed they would achieve anything. I heard them talk to the 'common man' in the camp and they got their a** kicked, though my Arabic is a bit rusty. But gestures tell a story.

Enough ranting.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Martyrs?

Another plan to perpetuate the conflict for 1,000 years.

I see nowhere among the pro-Pal forces any attempt to lay the blame for all of this conflict on the Arab and Palestinian forces that refused partition. Now you want, "Israel to admit their wrongdoings for the last 50 years."

Fat freakin' chance.

I don't care what the walls of refugee camps are plastered with. Israel has hundreds of thousands of refugees as well. Refugees not just from Europe's attempt to wipe out the Jews, but from the ethnic cleansing throughout the Arab world. And a hell of a lot of its own martyrs as well.

We can address this conflict all you want, but you won't get what you see to want -- both an apology AND the right of return.

Then, you have the audacity to compare Israel to Nazi Germany at the end of WWII. It is all I can do to contain myself for that bit of bizarre sophistry. I would ask the mods to delete your post on that alone, but I want it to stand and show the world.

Next, you try to rationalize the acts of terrorists. Israel already knows it will never be safe. Jews, after 2,000 years, are quite used to this attitude among those who hate them.

Yes, the psycho terrorists want victory or death, perhaps even both. The thing is, they won't ever get victory. If that means they get death, rock on!

By your comments, you would NOT "like to see the situation defused just like the next guy." Your suggestions here would never lead to peace.

Ah, you talked to families of a dozen "martyrs." How many Israeli women and children did these "martyrs" kill?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. People like me

Hmmm. People like me support a totally free and independent Palestinian state. Is that what you mean?

As for suffering, both sides suffer. Hell, everybody suffers because of this perpetual conflict. But there is no action Israel can take that will stop it. There are actions that the Palestinians can take that will do so.

[Forkboy]

10. There are actions Israel can take though

Stop the settlements (instead of building more)
Stop collective punishment
Stop building the Land Grab Wall unless it's adhere STRICTLY to the Green line

Will these stop terror attacks? No.
Will it take away a lot of the anger and frustration and give groups like Hamas a tougher time in recruiting them? Yes

And yes,there's plenty the palestinians can do as well.It will take BOTH sides to find peace,not just one.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. "Will these stop terror attacks? No."

Glad you are honest about that one.

Right now, there is no established Palestinian state and no established borders. Those here who claim the Green Line is sacrosanct appear to have missed the Palestinian request/demand for a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank in the latest peace proposal.

Face it, both sides claim this territory. Both sides have history here. The only way to sort it out is a peace treaty. That peace treaty will need to address everything from water rights, to borders to air travel and actions against terrorists.

Right now, as long as terror continues, that is impossible.

In the meantime, the Peace Fence will separate the two warring factions to the ultimate benefit of both.

[Forkboy]

12. Nothing short of a police state will stop terror attacks though

In the meantime both sides need to take steps to lessen the amount of attacks.The steps I mentioned will do so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Nothing Israel does will stop the attacks

You made that much clear and I agree.

Like I said, we need a long-term solution. But until we get one, the Peace Fence is a good option.

[Forkboy]

15. Why choose all or nothing?

if people are dying and you're given options that will lessen that why not take it? Wouldn't 1 attack be better than 10? Why ignore steps that will save Israeli lives?

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. That's what the fence is for

[Forkboy]

18. If they built it where it should be built

I think you'd see opposition to it drop quite a bit.

I personally dont think it's going to make a difference,but I wouldn't complain if they weren't building it in the fashion they are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Quite a bit

This debate is all about the qualifiers. If they built it on the Green Line, it would be then argued that the fence needs to move just a little further this way or that.

Add to it that the borders are NOT set as yet. Nor will the final borders be exactly on the Green Line. Nor should they be.

[bluesoul]

20. Oh really?

Says who? Israel doesn't have enough land that was given to them? Want more?

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. More?

I've said this before. Jerusalem is the captial of Israel. It will remain so.

On the flip side, the Palestinians have made it clear they want more land as well -- a corridor connecting the West Bank and Gaza. How the rest plays out is up to the eventual peace negotiations, but land, water and air rights are all issues.

[Forkboy]

22. I dont know

If they built it on the Green Line, it would be then argued that the fence needs to move just a little further this way or that.

Definately not by me,and suspect a large chunk of the people currently opposing it now either.

[bluesoul]

23. Definately also not by me

...

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Certainly by the terror groups

Who think that anything Israel does is wrong and they vow to destroy it.

Probably also by the international agencies that expect Israel to have open borders and worry less about terror.

[vierundzwanzig]

27. That is plain not true

Only Hamas vows to destroy Israel. The rest of the groups perform knee-jerk reactions and would be quite willing to make a just peace.

Why do you keep saying these things? Have you read their published policies?

[Forkboy]

28. Israel is ignoring them anyways (UN)

And why kowtow to what the terror groups believe or want? Israel would rightly ignore them as well.

I'm telling you Muddle,Israel's policies right now are hurting them just as surely as any terror attack,perhaps more so.Israel under Sharon is commiting slow motion suicide.

on edit-I got to take off for awhile.Thanks for a nice exchange Muddle.If you add anything to the thread I'll answer later tonight.Peace.

[vierundzwanzig]

24. I do not believe you properly read my post

I analyzed the situation, no more, no less. Please do not put words into my mouth.

It is true that I rationalized the acts of terrorists. Unless you make an attempt to understand what makes these people tick you will never make progress.

You make a special case for Jews that is in no way justified. There are dozens of other ethnic groups that have been persecuted over the last 2000 years and when you add it all up I am not sure who fares the worst.

You also (apparently intentionally) failed to interpret my wording of martyrs. A little bit of Arabic TV goes a long way and once again you refuse to make an attempt to understand the underlying logistics and psychology.

Adding up who died the most - the Palestinians come out first (I mean the innocent bystanders of extrajudicial assassinations).

So you don't care about the camps, the situation altogether, what makes terrorists tick and what is expected of a solution the Palestinians would accept. So far nobody came up with anything, did they? Occupation sure didn't do the trick. And your refusal to look for other means speaks volumes.

Well, I can say no more. I wonder why you pretend to participate in a sensible discussion. To call me a sophist is really plain polemic and not a sign of character.

At least I blew a couple salaries worth on making up my own mind instead of regurgitating the same mantra over and over again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. No words were put in your mouth

I am glad you admit that you "rationalized the acts of terrorists." I understand them. I prefer to spend my time thinking about ways to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I make a special case for Jews because it is indeed justified. As a member of an often-victimized minority myself (African-Americans), I am willing to be honest and say that no group in the world has suffered as long or as much by proportion than the Jewish people.

How did I misinterpret your wording of "martyrs?"

Yes, of course the Palestinians come up first with death rate. Anyone could tell you that a perpetual network of terror based in civilian areas (a mega violation of the Geneva accords, btw) would lead to acts designed to root them out. Every such act is bound to have bad consequences for the neighboring population. Then there is the added bonus that the mortality rate for Palestinian suicide bombers is kinda high.

The situation in the Palestinian camps is perpetuated not by Israel, but by the Arab world. Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of those ethnically cleansed by the Arab world. They are no longer refugees. Further, Israel took in Jewish refugees from around the world.

The Arab world did none of that and continues to perpetuate the refugee status of Palestinians as a political ploy to use against Israel.

As for blowing your own salary making decisions, that cuts both ways. I've been there. I still have friends in Israel in fact.

[bluesoul]

30. And I am sure you have no Palestinian

Arab friends...

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. I worked with Israeli firms

Not Palestinians ones.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[vierundzwanzig]

26. I am for a just peace,

the only peace acceptable to Palestine.

You can analyze and dissect and talk about historical facts and how the Arab leaders sold out the Palestinians but that is completely meaningless to the guy in the camp.

The Geneva Accord was a well-meant attempt of people that are about as far from reality as the distance from here to the moon.

The camps need to experience a change in attitude. Israeli society needs to stop their policy of oppression.

You need to deal with the here and now.

And, quite possibly, a solution is not in sight until the demographics in Israel tilt in favor of the Arabs.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[GabysPoppy]

33. You really did say this didn't you

"I am for a just peace,

the only peace acceptable to Palestine."

I can only wonder what would have been said to me had I said the same thing only substituting Israel for Palestine?

What do you think? Think I might be flamed?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. What's wrong with it?

It's the words 'JUST PEACE' that makes it acceptable to me regardless of if you add that it's the only peace acceptable to Israel or Palestine. The only folk who'd have a problem with that would be those who don't want there to be a just peace...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. We all define the term, "just" just differently

That is the heart of the matter. I JUST don't care what the terrorist wing of Palestinians wants or how they define Israel starting at the sea.

The Palestinians are the ones who really desire a major change in the status quo. To accomplish this, they need to shut down terror so that both sides can get on with the business of peace.

If they don't, they won't get a state for a long, damn time and it will be their own fault.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I don't think we all do...

A just and lasting peace means the same for both Israel and Palestine. It means security for both with viable and independent states. And where was anyone talking about terrorists? They weren't. Terrorists on either side don't even understand what the word 'just' means, and unless we want to stereotype most Israelis and Palestinians as extremists etc, the failure of some to understand a very simple concept shouldn't be used to claim that reasonable people have differing opinions on what it means...


And the occupation isn't a 'status quo', any more than Indonesia's long-term occupation of East Timor was. In the case of Indonesia, the onus was NOT on the East Timorese to do anything...

Violet...

[Gimel]

5. To replace the Road Map

The GA would have to start with Pres. Bush, as the Road Map did. My opinion is that the Road Map was agreed upon by the parties and the EU and the Quartet, simply to please Bush and the American administration. Everyone knows that it is a poor concept for peace. It leaves mush to the imagination while the GA provides for realistic and managed arrangements to achieve an agreed upon settlement by the parties involved.

Sharon has been working on his own approach, and probably the PA has their own strategy as well. That means that if Israel manages to stop terror or manage it to a minimum, only then will there be peace.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Critique

The GA would have to start with Pres. (sic) Bush, as the Road Map did. My opinion is that the Road Map was agreed upon by the parties and the EU and the Quartet, simply to please Bush and the American administration.

The GA remains a virtual peace agreement until people who can embrace it are in power. It don't count Arafat's muted "Hello" as an endorsement (see post number 3).

As for Mr. Bush, it would be ideal to remove him from power as well. His motivation for pushing the Road Map was that it provided the appearance that something is being done while he ran off to his colonial misadventure in Iraq.

The world would probably do better if, instead of attempting to please this tyrant, the other world leaders would stop pretending to respect him. If, instead of agreeing to the Road Map, the others came up with a plan that could be taken seriously we would be ahead of the game.

Everyone knows that it is a poor concept for peace. It leaves mush to the imagination while the GA provides for realistic and managed arrangements to achieve an agreed upon settlement by the parties involved.

It was one that nobody had to take seriously. It offered a good principle, simultaneity. However, it also tried to dictate to the PA who couldn't be in charge without actually ousting Arafat. Therefore, Arafat appoints a Prime Minister to give the Israelis somebody with whom to negotiate and then undermines him. He is yet to choose a PM with an independent political base. All he can do is go to the militants and they, in turn, effectively laugh at him. Arafat does nothing.

Meanwhile, Sharon sees the PA doing nothing and uses that as a pretext to do likewise. Terrorists are not being reined in, settlements are expanding and now a wall is being built in Palestinian territory.

Sharon has been working on his own approach . . .

Indeed. He "threatens" unilateral steps. It's more of a promise than a threat. Sharon has always been loathe to treat Palestinians as equals. He'd rather just do a number on them then negotiate.

The only reason Sharon seems willing to end the occupation to any extent is because he realizes that he can't take all the land without taking on 3.7 Palestinians with it. That would be the end of Israel either as a Jewish state or as a democracy. It's too bad it took the old man so long to figure that out.

. . . and probably the PA has their own strategy as well.

I doubt it. At least, it doesn't look like a strategy to me. It looks more like paralysis. That Ha'aretz report posted last night about how the militants are undermining the PA shouldn't have been a real surprise to anyone.

That means that if Israel manages to stop terror or manage it to a minimum, only then will there be peace.

In the short run, yes. However, it won't be a real peace. A real peace is still something that must be negotiated by parties willing to make an agreement. There are no parties willing to negotiate an agreement in power right now, so there will be Sharon's unilateral steps instead.

That will contain terror for a while. However, it will not put on paper that representatives of the Palestinian people agree to Israel's existence and recognizes this and that as the border. Sooner or later, the terrorists, who agree to nothing and will not have been reined in, will find a way around the Wall. And then the whole thing will start over again.

I feel sorry for those in Israel and Palestine growing up today who will have to live through that because today's so-called leaders are selfish, foolish and feckless.

[Gimel]

17. Rebuttal

The GA remains a virtual peace agreement until people who can embrace it are in power. It don't count Arafat's muted "Hello" as an endorsement (see post number 3).

The GA is based on previously drawn up peace agreements, and as such it probably is superior to the Camp David Accords which were rejected by Arafat. It seems to have more of a mechanistic approach, although Camp David Accords do deal with a process for working out disagreements, the committee approach to solving problems is advanced even further in the GA. That is my impression, however.

The Bush Administration is in power for at least another year. with an election coming up, I don't think he's going to be devoting much time to the I/P issue. He'll deal with urgent situations as they come up, but that's it. Sharon has presented a plan that calls for Israel to begin unilateral steps within 6 months. This seems realistic because the Road Map is already obsolete in it's goals for achieving a settlement. In 6 months, little hope will be left for it and it will be simply tossed aside. Can the GA take its place on the table then? It looks less and less likely. Neither Arafat or Sharon were completely sold on the Road Map. It did lack a realistic vision, as GA sponsor Yossi Beilin has claimed, and the GA supplies it.

The exercise did give Beilin and Amnan Mitzna experience in working with an agreement, which could be valuable in their future political careers.

It was one that nobody had to take seriously. It offered a good principle, simultaneity. However, it also tried to dictate to the PA who couldn't be in charge without actually ousting Arafat. Therefore, Arafat appoints a Prime Minister to give the Israelis somebody with whom to negotiate and then undermines him. He is yet to choose a PM with an independent political base. All he can do is go to the militants and they, in turn, effectively laugh at him. Arafat does nothing.

Meanwhile, Sharon sees the PA doing nothing and uses that as a pretext to do likewise. Terrorists are not being reined in, settlements are expanding and now a wall is being built in Palestinian territory.

The change in the PA administration seems to be a positive development of the Road Map. Diversifying power, if not distributing it well or equally could have stabilizing effects and begin a long post-Arafat process essential if the Palestinian state ever really materializes.

Qureia now counters his own response to Sharon's unilateral plan, saying he will demand a bi-national state, in that instance.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/381076.html
And so the pose and counter-pose continues in order that no solution be found.

Indeed. He "threatens" unilateral steps. It's more of a promise than a threat. Sharon has always been loathe to treat Palestinians as equals. He'd rather just do a number on them then negotiate.


The unilateral steps are to be taken if the Road Map cannot succeed. Sharon has refused to deal with the Palestinians under fire. If terrorism was stopped by the Palestinians themselves, you would see that Sharon is capable of treating the Palestinian people as equals. To negotiate with the terrorists would be a colossal mistake.

The only reason Sharon seems willing to end the occupation to any extent is because he realizes that he can't take all the land without taking on 3.7 Palestinians with it. That would be the end of Israel either as a Jewish state or as a democracy. It's too bad it took the old man so long to figure that out.

This awareness necessitates the two state solution, but both the Palestinians and Sharon are playing with these facts. The Palestinian Administration know what they can counter the peace moves with, and of course the terrorist organizations have an active role in this as well. Putting their trump card on the table now makes this all perfectly clear.

I doubt it. At least, it doesn't look like a strategy to me. It looks more like paralysis. That Ha'aretz report posted last night about how the militants are undermining the PA shouldn't have been a real surprise to anyone.

Arafat's stalling strategy, and now Qureia's gambit show that their has always been a wily strategy behind the power struggle, and the Hamas and IJ have kept confusion and debased the peace attempts which didn't surprise anyone. Arafat knows who his bedfellows are.

In the short run, yes. However, it won't be a real peace. A real peace is still something that must be negotiated by parties willing to make an agreement. There are no parties willing to negotiate an agreement in power right now, so there will be Sharon's unilateral steps instead.

The wall will prevent terrorist infiltration, and limit access. It cannot be air tight, but will give a manageable border, and with a good level of vigilance, very few infiltrations will succeed.

To succeed, a peace agreement must also have the will of the people behind it. The assessment in Israel that a new generation raised without hate and expectation of glorifying martyrdom as the greatest good, will have to replace the current generation in the Palestinian's land before a meaningful peace can materialize.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Thank you

Very thoughtful. I think we are in agreement on most matters. You seem to have a higher regard for General Sharon than I, which is not to say you have a high regard for him at all.

It should be pointed out that while opinion polls in the occupied territories show a high rate rate of approval for terrorism, they also show that when there is a possible peace agreement, there is high support for that as well, even though these often feature the surrendering of the right of return. For that reason, I do not believe that negotiations between the two parties should be abandoned.

The virtual peace agreement shows that there are Israelis and Palestinians willing to deal with each other. Let's hope they can come to power and make something of the hope they represent.

[Gimel]

35. One correction

Sharon is no longer a General in the IDF. His correct title is Prime Minister.

Thank you for responding thoughtfully.