It is obvious that terrorist organizations shouldn’t have it both ways. If al Zarqawi wanted to form a party in Iraq and run for elections while keeping his guns and terror offensive he clearly wouldn’t be so permitted. On the other hand al Sadr was permitted to run and keep his weapons.
So what to do with Hamas?
Nathan Guttman reports
“…the US administration is well aware of the delicate situation facing Mahmoud Abbas. Too much pressure on the Palestinian leader to confront Hamas could lead to a collapse of his government and throw the PA into chaos. On the other hand, there is the principle that terror and democracy cannot coexist.
If the US demonstrates tolerance towards Hamas in the Palestinian elections, how will it be able to prevent terror groups from running in Iraq, in Lebanon or anywhere else?”
So far the US solution for both Hezbollah and Hamas is to allow them to contest elections but to refuse to deal with them. This refusal though is to no avail. The US worries that if Hamas was barred from running, there would be no incentive for it to maintain the so called period of calm. That would throw the PA and the Roadmap into chaos if not oblivion. Then what to do with terror offshoots of Fatah.
On the other hand,
“...Sharon caught the US administration off-guard with his explicit threat that Israel would not facilitate the Palestinian elections if members of armed terror groups are allowed to participate in them. Israeli cooperation is crucial to the success of the Palestinian political process.”
Either Sharon believes that an agreement with PA can be reached that is acceptable to Israel if Hamas is not part of it or that its absence will enable the PA to eventually disarm Hamas and all other armed factions or that it won't and chaos will continue.
Sharon and Bush will have to fight this one out. I bet Sharon is opting for chaos.
For or against the peace process
The Left in Israel supports the peace process from Oslo to the Roadmap to the proposed Geneva Accords. It believes that peace is only attainable by giving the Arabs borders approximating the green line, sharing Jerusalem and accepting a token right of return. It even supports more international pressure on Israel to move in that direction.
The Right has no confidence in any peace process which it sees as a means for the international community to force concessions out of Israel that it doesn’t want to make. It also believes that the give away proposed by the Left will not bring peace but war on a much weakened Israel. Thus it rejects the land for peace formulation. It believes that Israel’s security depends on its strength and not on its concessions. While the Right wants to retain the land either because of Israel’s biblical, moral or legal right to them, or as necessary for security.
Sharon is attempting to chart a realist’s course. Inherent in the Roadmap which he supported, is the objective of the separation of two peoples into two states. This is the name of the game. He wanted to avoid a one state solution that keeps lurking in the wings and he wanted to avoid a passive approach (which has never been his MO) which invites further pressure. Instead he chose to go on the offensive with a plan of his own.
The Roadmap stipulates that in Phase I,
“[Palestinians] end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures.”
and
“Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.”
These are the parallel steps Rice keeps talking about. The creation of a provisional state is to wait for Phase I to be completed and final status negotiations only take place in Phase III.
Sharon views Israel’s steps in this phase a small price to pay for Palestinian compliance with its obligations. As for “freezing settlement activity consistent with the Mitchell Report” it would appear that there is wiggle room. Sharon is claiming the right to build for natural growth and to infill.
The Roadmap thus serves to protect Israel from further demands until there is an end to terror and incitement and until the terrorist groups are disarmed. True, it also stipulates that Palestine is to be contiguous and viable, but these matters are not to be negotiated until Phase III.
So what about Hamas? Bush wants them in the elections to stabilize Abbas which is his first priority. Sharon wants them out to insure they are ostracized and disarmed. He prefers chaos, and thus, lack of progress along the Roadmap.
Suzie Becher of Meretz puts it this way
Sharon has made it perfectly clear that his plan now is to sit pretty while he raises the hoops through which he expects the Palestinians to jump.
Having taken the hit on disengagement from Gaza, he is determined to keep on the offensive with more moves in Judea and Samaria all designed to consolidate Israel’s hold on as much of this land as it can populate.
Since the name of the game is separation, we can look forward to the abandonment of settlements east of the fence and the resettlement of their inhabitants west of the fence. This has already begun to happen.
It is reported that 35% of these settlers are ready to move now. Regardless of this resettlement activity and the need for Israel to comply with the Roadmap, Israel will retain control of all of Judea and Samaria until an agreement is negotiated. Imagine if most of these settlers settle around Jerusalem how much stronger Israel’s hold on Jerusalem will be.
What Sharon’s realist approach recognizes is that the attempt to settle Jews in Judea and Samaria as a means of keeping it is not going to work. He has created a paradigm shift of epic proportions and is determined to see it through. I wish him well.
The Hamas Factor and the Sharon Factor
By Ted Belman
Hamas is a terrorist organization. The US and the EU agree. It is also a political organization but that shouldn’t give it a license to murder. Nor does it give it the automatic right to enter the upcoming Palestinian elections.
The US is conflicted about whether to allow them to participate in the democratic process.
Although the UN has called for Hezbollah to disarm, Hezbollah was allowed to run for office. The jury is still out on the effect this will have but it is certain that their participation in government will not make conciliation more probable. They will not abide by the will of the majority if reconciliation was decided upon otherwise, why keep the weapons. These same weapons will also be used to kill and intimidate political opponents. Furthermore Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran.
It is obvious that terrorist organizations shouldn’t have it both ways. If al Zarqawi wanted to form a party in Iraq and run for elections while keeping his guns and terror offensive he clearly wouldn’t be so permitted. On the other hand al Sadr was permitted to run and keep his weapons.
So what to do with Hamas?
Nathan Guttman reports
So far the US solution for both Hezbollah and Hamas is to allow them to contest elections but to refuse to deal with them. This refusal though is to no avail. The US worries that if Hamas was barred from running, there would be no incentive for it to maintain the so called period of calm. That would throw the PA and the Roadmap into chaos if not oblivion. Then what to do with terror offshoots of Fatah.On the other hand,
Either Sharon believes that an agreement with PA can be reached that is acceptable to Israel if Hamas is not part of it or that its absence will enable the PA to eventually disarm Hamas and all other armed factions or that it won't and chaos will continue.Sharon and Bush will have to fight this one out. I bet Sharon is opting for chaos.
For or against the peace process
The Left in Israel supports the peace process from Oslo to the Roadmap to the proposed Geneva Accords. It believes that peace is only attainable by giving the Arabs borders approximating the green line, sharing Jerusalem and accepting a token right of return. It even supports more international pressure on Israel to move in that direction.
The Right has no confidence in any peace process which it sees as a means for the international community to force concessions out of Israel that it doesn’t want to make. It also believes that the give away proposed by the Left will not bring peace but war on a much weakened Israel. Thus it rejects the land for peace formulation. It believes that Israel’s security depends on its strength and not on its concessions. While the Right wants to retain the land either because of Israel’s biblical, moral or legal right to them, or as necessary for security.
Sharon is attempting to chart a realist’s course. Inherent in the Roadmap which he supported, is the objective of the separation of two peoples into two states. This is the name of the game. He wanted to avoid a one state solution that keeps lurking in the wings and he wanted to avoid a passive approach (which has never been his MO) which invites further pressure. Instead he chose to go on the offensive with a plan of his own.
The Roadmap stipulates that in Phase I,
and These are the parallel steps Rice keeps talking about. The creation of a provisional state is to wait for Phase I to be completed and final status negotiations only take place in Phase III.Sharon views Israel’s steps in this phase a small price to pay for Palestinian compliance with its obligations. As for “freezing settlement activity consistent with the Mitchell Report” it would appear that there is wiggle room. Sharon is claiming the right to build for natural growth and to infill.
The Roadmap thus serves to protect Israel from further demands until there is an end to terror and incitement and until the terrorist groups are disarmed. True, it also stipulates that Palestine is to be contiguous and viable, but these matters are not to be negotiated until Phase III.
So what about Hamas? Bush wants them in the elections to stabilize Abbas which is his first priority. Sharon wants them out to insure they are ostracized and disarmed. He prefers chaos, and thus, lack of progress along the Roadmap.
Suzie Becher of Meretz puts it this way
Having taken the hit on disengagement from Gaza, he is determined to keep on the offensive with more moves in Judea and Samaria all designed to consolidate Israel’s hold on as much of this land as it can populate. Since the name of the game is separation, we can look forward to the abandonment of settlements east of the fence and the resettlement of their inhabitants west of the fence. This has already begun to happen. It is reported that 35% of these settlers are ready to move now. Regardless of this resettlement activity and the need for Israel to comply with the Roadmap, Israel will retain control of all of Judea and Samaria until an agreement is negotiated. Imagine if most of these settlers settle around Jerusalem how much stronger Israel’s hold on Jerusalem will be.What Sharon’s realist approach recognizes is that the attempt to settle Jews in Judea and Samaria as a means of keeping it is not going to work. He has created a paradigm shift of epic proportions and is determined to see it through. I wish him well.
Posted by Ted Belman at October 2, 2005 08:47 AM