 |
 |
 |
The “Peace Process"
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/10847
Comments
1
.
BobW
said:
To study the "peace process" for those with limited time or not wanting to delve into treaty terms and expressions, there's a faster way.
Phone Soroka Medical Center, Beer Sheva (outside Israel: Country Code 972)and ask if there's any need for get well cards, teddy bears and the like.
Again, I said call; don't go there. The Soroka Medical Center itself is targeted for death, multilations and destruction by the PLO and affiliates.
If I told anyone the planned bombing of Soroka Mecial Center was by a former patient, I'd be labeled as mad.
Use the last word above to understand the "peace process".
Noah got drunk, King David feigned insanity. Now we witness the progression of the cycle.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on October 14, 2005 06:47 AM
2
.
Zeev Shemer
said:
Ted as well as most establishment, pragmatic, practical Jews are stuck in their conviction that only appeasement will make way to some sort of peace. When Hertzl proposed Palestine to be the homeland for European Jews he was labeled a madman. How could he want to drag millions of Jews to a barren dessert and a swamp malaria-infested coast-line?
That insanity gave birth to our state. The "insanity" of expelling the Arab plague from our land IS and WILL ALWAYS be the only real solution. It is not about racism or hatred, Arabs here have proven beyond the shadow of doubt that they wish to take over even if it means killing us one by one.. and they are succeeding, slowly, but surely. This year alone, 25,000 israelis left our land for good. 3000 (and not all Jews) came to settle here. 75% of the Galilee is Arab and the violence is increasing even in places that thus far had enjoyed relative calm. Was Rabbi Kahane a madman when he begged Israeli parliamentaries to expell the Arab element? It may not be a pretty solution, but anyone with an ounce of grey matter understands that it is the only solution (ok, aside from killing them all, a thought to horrifying to enter my mind).
With Love of Israel,
Zeev
Posted by: Zeev Shemer on October 14, 2005 09:31 AM
3
.
Ted Belman
said:
I attempted to describe what I think is going on. I also suggested the outcome is far from certain.
While I agree expulsion seems like the only "realistic" solution. But is it realistic? Can Israel accomplish it? Rather then end the conflict, transfer ensures it will continue forever. Will the gain, be worth the pain?
Can Israel maintain the status quo without a peace process? No. Everything keeps changing including diplomacy, demographics, strategic position, and the like.
Expulsion isn't even on the radar screen.
Posted by: Ted Belman on October 14, 2005 10:05 AM
4
.
Ted Belman
said:
Furthermore, mainstream Zionist ideology always believed in living with the Arabs, not expelling them. After the '67 war, Israel never annexed the territories and always followed policies in line with retreat from the territories to defensible borders. If Israel had another five million Jewish citizens then its policies would be different. But it doesn't.
Posted by: Ted Belman on October 14, 2005 10:10 AM
5
.
Ted Belman
said:
Israel Resource News Agency wrote:
In the article, the seminal exchange of letters between Rabin and Arafat is reported.
This exchange of letters was known as the DOP - the Declaration of Principles, which was ratified by the Israeli Knesset on Sept 25th, 1993 by a 59-50 vote.
However, what is often overlooked is that it was NEVER approved by the PLO, since Arafat could not or would not get quorum for the PLC to ratify the DOP on Oct. 6th, 1993.
Therefore, the PLO never made any commitment to Israel to cancel the PLO covenant. let alone denounce violence.
When our news agency confronted Rabin's office with this fact, Rabin's press spokesman, Israel Government Press Director, Uri Dromi, made it clear that all agreements were signed by Arafat on HIS NAME ONLY.
Our news agency covered the April 24th meeting of the PNC which was reported to cancel the PLO covenant yet did not do so. And on December 14th, 1998, the PLO was reported to cancel the PLO covenant yet did not do so. Following the assassination of Rabin, it is virtually impossible to critique what has been described as a "peace process".
David Bedein
Bureau Chief
Israel Resource News Agency
Jerusalem, Israel
www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com
Posted by: Ted Belman on October 15, 2005 06:14 PM
6
.
Ted Belman
said:
David
Thank you for providing me with this detail. I was aware at the time that the PLO never amended their Charter.
I submit that lawyers could argue, if not a contract, at least the principals of detrimental reliance. Everyone acted on the basis that the agreement by Arafat was binding on the PLO and it could be so argued.
But that is a legal nicety. As you know, There have been many subsequent agreements which were not honoured. If Rabin's office said that the PLO wasn't bound, it may simply be a reflection of their position that they were not going to insist on compliance.
What about the covenants for mutual recognition? What about the acceptance of Res 242 which as you know entitled Israel to remain in occupation until they achieved agreement on secure and recognized borders. Are they bound? Their rhetoric flies in the face of this too.
Furthermore the fact that the amendment of the Charter was not a pre-condition speaks volumes. I was certainly presented as a commitment by the GOI much the same way that Sharon presented Bush's letters in the lead up to disengagement, as binding when they weren't. All this is part of the "process".
But my piece does not stand or fall on whether the PLO was bound. I attempted to explain what, in my opinion, was going on. It was not intended as a criticism but intended as an explanation of what is happening now.
By the way I met you in Toronto at the Zionist Centre.
Posted by: Ted Belman on October 15, 2005 06:15 PM
7
.
David Gerstman
said:
Ted wrote:
From all the reports of anarchy, chaos and the flow of terrorists and armaments into Gaza, the “peace process” is going nowhere. Either it will result in the birth of Palestine or the death of it.
And this is the impression I've gotten from some other writers too, notably Norman Podhoretz and Jim Hoagland.
That's the best that can be said about the disengagement, that it's a test. Either the Palestinians will show that they can run their own affairs, or they can't and won't get their state. It might even be true.
Posted by: David Gerstman on October 16, 2005 03:31 AM
8
.
Ted Belman
said:
David Bedein replies
NO principles were ever agreed to by the PLO.
Arafat was not authorized by the PLO to sign anything. That was his
ultimate trick.
No. Rabin was going to insist on compliance. That cost Rabin his life.
PLO has ratified one thing: the phased solution for Israel's
destruction, adopted in 1974. PLO was set up by the Arab League in 1964 and reports to the Arab League. Arab League has one purpose: to win the 1948 war, which has yet to be
resolved.
Posted by: Ted Belman on October 16, 2005 09:10 AM
The “Peace Process"
By Ted Belman,
To understand the “Peace Process”, I recommend a number of articles by Ami Isseroff.
Exchange of Letters Between Rabin and Arafat, Sept 9, 1993
The Oslo Declaration of Principles, September 13, 1993
The Peace Process is Dead; Long Live the Peace Process, January 17, 2003.
Contrary to his commitments, Arafat pursued the goals of the PLO Charter, which he never amended, with violence, propaganda, incitement, duplicity and mendacity.
Arafat rejected Barak's generous offer at Camp David and then, in order to demonstate that the Palestinian people supported him, planned and initiated Intifada II. Israel was thus subjected to a series of horrendous suicide bombings resulting in many casualties.
This violence brought Sharon and Likud to power in the Jan 28th 2003 elections.
Sharon rejected the far Left’s approach of total capitulation and the far Right's approach of no capitulation. He sought a middle way. Following lengthy negotiations with the Americans throughout 2003, he decided to recognize the creation of Palestine, if, as and when, to prepare Israelis for “painful concessions”, to accept the Roadmap and if need be, to bring Labour into the government
He believed that endless occupation was not in Israel’s interest, that the transfer of Arabs out of Yesha was not feasible and that the best Israel could hope to achieve was to retain the major settlement blocks and “Jerusalem” as Israel’s undivided capital. (I put Jerusalem in italics because I believe that Sharon intends to give up East Jerusalem to the future Palestinian state should it ever come into being.)
The Americans have always been against the settlements because they considered that they made a peaceful settlement impossible to achieve. A compromise was reached that provided for the construction of the fence to include some of the settlements and the separation of the populations. The exact location of the fence has not been finalized nor has the ultimate disposition of Jerusalem.
The Roadmap stipulated that “Palestine” be contiguous and viable and required Israel to “freeze settlement activity pursuant to the Mitchell Report”. It is instructive to note that none of the fourteen redlines attached to Israel’s acceptance rejected any of these three fundamental requirements. These were America’s three redlines and Israel’s Cabinet accepted them.
This is the deal that Sharon and Bush are working to implement. The Roadmap requires an end to incitement and violence in the first phase. Both have agreed though to move the process forward even if the Palestinians don’t do what they are committed to. That's why, even with the ongoing violence, there is talk of moving to the second stage where a provisional state is created without fixed borders. No one believes that the Palestinians are ready to make the concessions necessary to achieve an end of conflict agreement nor does anyone believe that the Palestinians will become peaceful. Thus an interim stage is sought which will enable Israel to contain the violence and secure a more favourable diplomatic and economic reality.
Once Sharon came to terms with the creation of Palestine, he realized that it was in Israel’s interest that it be viable and successful rather then be a failed state. Israel presently is exporting to the Palestinians about $2 billion worth of goods and is benefiting from Palestinian cheap labour. The $9 billion that the Group of Eight has pledged to invest in Gaza will also have huge economic benefits for Israel. Obviously, it is in Israel’s diplomatic and economic interest that Palestine is prosperous and peaceful. A win-win solution if you will.
Having decided on such a solution Israel is assisting in its birth by its “goodwill gestures”. It is imperative that the West ensure Palestinian good governance and full financial accountability. It does not serve the cause of peace to allow the $9 billion to be frittered away or worse to fund the terrorists. It does not serve the cause of peace to allow Gaza to turn into a terrorist state.
Unfortunately Sharon and Bush are banking on a weak horse, Abu Mazen. Israel, with US encouragement, is considering releasing Marwan Barghouti from prison in the hope that he would be a strong horse and that he would accept the Bush/Sharon deal. But can either of them be trusted?
Furthermore, the success of the peace process is linked to American success in Iraq. The peace process will fare no better or worse then the democratization process in Iraq. The terrorists must be defeated and Syria must be neutralized for Iraq or Palestine to succeed. Expect a deal to emerge where Syria capitulates and recovers the Golan or most of it. Such a deal would go a long way to achieving peace in Iraq and Israel.
Many would argue that “Palestine” is a bad idea, that it won’t be viable no matter what, that it won’t be a good neighbour of Israel and that it will repatriate “Palestinian refugees” from surrounding countries thereby exacerbating the situation; and finally that the Arabs will never accept Israel. And they could be right, but it is the only game in town.
And that game is not going well. From all the reports of anarchy, chaos and the flow of terrorists and armaments into Gaza, the “peace process” is going nowhere. Either it will result in the birth of Palestine or the death of it.
Posted by Ted Belman at October 16, 2005 08:16 AM