The Mideast Quartet's New Roadmap for Peace

[NewsGuy]

While the war against Palestinian terrorism rages on, there is momentum building on the diplomatic front, unnoticed by many. In the past several months, a "Mideast Quartet" was coalesced, comprised of the U.S., Russia, the EU and the UN.

This new group was formed with the intent to produce a globally-backed peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, presumably incorporating a measure of fairness into its proposals. In reality, three out of its four members have a proven track record of hostility and bias against Israel.

To a great extent, the very need for this Quartet is a mark of shame on United Nations. It is an expression of the failure of the UN to act as an authoritative and impartial arbiter of international disputes. This is why the UN, whose members already include Russia, the U.S. and the European countries, is largely tasked with acting as a rubber stamp for the final agreement to be hammered out among the other parties. Decades of biased and even racist resolutions against Israel have transformed the UN into a shill for the Arab world and, therefore, devoid of any credibility as a force for peace and justice.

An Initial Draft

Last week, during his visit to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was presented with an initial, non-binding draft of the latest "road map for peace" produced by the Quartet. This week, Israel is expected to present its first official reaction to the proposal, which is already exposing basic disagreements between the main partners in Israel's fragile coalition government. But before examining Israel's internal differences of opinion, let's examine the proposal at hand.

The new plan ultimately calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which would be designated a "temporary State" by May 2003, to be converted into a permanent State by 2005. Meanwhile, between the adoption of the plan and the establishment of the temporary Palestinian State, both the Palestinians and Israel would undertake immediate confidence-building measures. Israel would be required to withdraw its troops from Palestinian areas, dismantle many of its West Bank suburbs, forcibly uproot and transfer a large portion of the Israeli population into other areas, and freeze the natural expansion of other Israeli suburbs. At the same time, the Palestinians would stop all violence against Israelis.

In essence, this plan is nothing new. The terms are almost identical to a long line of previous failed plans. But this Quartet concoction incorporates a bizarre dimension to it, which is the concept of a "temporary" Palestinian State. This designation is nothing but a foolhardy ruse whose purpose is to serve as a fig-leaf for the international community which is, in essence, rewarding Palestinian terrorism with generous portions of the Jewish homeland.

Theory vs. Reality

Theoretically, the temporary state would transformed into a permanent State on the condition that the Palestinians implement political and security reforms. But the real plan is to immediately grant the Palestinian State full international status, including recognized borders, funding for an army, full diplomatic powers, including UN voting rights that would transcend those of Israel, and the establishment of regular embassies for all its foreign contacts.

And what if the Palestinians proceed with their current and historical track record of terrorism, Islamic extremism, alliances with the worst enemies of Western Civilization and the omni-present public corruption? Of course, no matter what, the Palestinians will never be denied permanent Statehood, because the intention is the drop those requirements as soon as the Israelis are strong-armed into accepting this ridiculous sham.

Internal Matters

And this brings us to the crux of the internal disagreement in the Israeli cabinet. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, eager to accept any peace plan at all, no matter what its consequences to Israel may be, is prepared to accept this one, as well. On the other hand, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is willing to achieve peace with the Palestinians that will result in a Palestinian State, but he demands performance guarantees and accountability in any agreement.

The Israeli press quotes Sharon's office as stating that "the single obligatory framework of the Quartet's road-map needs to be the principle of the test of implementation. In other words, we cannot proceed from one stage to another without the completion of the prior stage. Israel cannot accept the principle of the establishment of a Palestinian State by 2005, on its face, without being conditioned on the Palestinians battling their forces of terrorism, on demilitarizing the Palestinian State, and on implementing all the agreements."

Sharon, therefore, will inform the Quartet's representative, William Burns, that the automatic timetable is not acceptable because it lacks the element of enforcement of reciprocal obligations.

History and Accountability

In the past, international proposals for similar peace plans have been accepted by the parties. However, invariably, Palestinian terror groups have destroyed any chance for peace by launching repeated large-scale, bloody attacks on Israeli civilians.

At the same time, the Palestinian leader, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat has made public speeches calling for suicide bombings and assuring his people that any peace agreements with Israel are akin to the historical Muhammad's treaty with the Jews of Medina. Arafat reminded the Palestinians that after Muhammad signed a peace treaty with the Jews, he then turned on them, slaughtering the trusting Jewish inhabitants of the city.

So, too, Arafat and many Palestinians view peace agreements with Israel: As an opening to ethnically cleanse the Jewish homeland of its Jewish population. For this reason, Ariel Sharon insists on removing the Palestinian capability to attack Israel and demands that the Palestinians be put to the test, with predetermined consequences for failure to uphold their commitments.

* * *

Do you think that this latest plan has a chance of succeeding?

Do you think we'll see a Palestinian State by next year?

[cerulean]

Sharon seems to be doubtful about this plan (with good reason):

http://msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0bl=-0
JERUSALEM, Oct. 23 — Ahead of his meeting with U.S. envoy William Burns, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has reportedly questioned the value of the “roadmap” for peace designed by the United States. Other Israeli officials as well as Palestinians also have questioned the latest U.S. proposal, undermining Burns’ mission before it even gets under way here on Wednesday.

ACCORDING TO a report in the Haaretz newspaper, Sharon told visiting American Jews that “it’s not credible that Israel takes irreversible steps while the other side only makes statements.” ...

Do you think that this latest plan has a chance of succeeding?

Not unless the terrorist infrastructure in place is thoroughly routed.

Do you think we'll see a Palestinian State by next year?
Maybe the quartet will be foolish enough to persist, but I hope not, because it would just help increase terrorism under current conditions.

[Jorge]

NewsGuy in post #1 raises two questions regarding the latest roadmap, namely:

Do you think that this latest plan has a chance of succeeding?

Do you think we'll see a Palestinian State by next year?

My answer to the second question is a big NO and to the first one: I wouldn't bet on that chance.

There's no chance that we'll see a Palestinian State by 2003 for a number of reasons: a) we're already approaching the end of 2002 and the IDF incursions are still in full swing. b) Mr. Sharon has already indicated that his government won't go along with the proposal. This is in line with his rejections of all the peace plans that have been put on the table by various countries during the last year. c) The Quartet cannot apply pressure the israeli government because 2003 is an election year and Mr. Sharon can claim that any major policy decision must wait till after the elections (to be held in Oct, 2003, so that a new government will be formed only about the end of the year.)

As to why I wouldn't bet on the plan's chances of success (unless someone gives me a generous handicap), my reasons being : a) Chances are that the Likud Party will get the upper hand over Labor in the next elections b) that means that either Mr. Sharon or Mr. Netanyahu will be the next PM, heading a coalition with Shas, the NRP amd other right wing parties. c) such a government will be no more interested in negotiations with the palestinians than the present one is.

A future israeli government that follows the same policies as those of the present one might indeed go along with the Quartet's Road Map provided two minor alterations are introduced in the time table: a provisional Palestinian State by 2103, followed by a final settlement by 2105.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

Do you think that this latest plan has a chance of succeeding? No, it's one more time about pretending that Big We Are Doing Something - the diplomatic counterpart of a welfare job project :eek:
Do you think we'll see a Palestinian State by next year? No. And the more idiotic meddling from outside, the less likely a positive outcome for both sides. What on the earth is a "temporary state"? :rolleyes:

Maybe someone should start taking care of Chechnya instead - IMO it would be much easier to manage...

*Miriam, don't make indecent suggestions*

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Jorge
[B]NewsGuy in post #1 raises two questions regarding the latest roadmap, namely:

Do you think that this latest plan has a chance of succeeding?

Do you think we'll see a Palestinian State by next year?

My answer to the second question is a big NO and to the first one: I wouldn't bet on that chance.Jorge, do you believe that there is a suitable social infrastructure on the Palestinian side, regardless of a timetable?

[Jorge]

From Miriam post#5:

Jorge, do you believe that there is a suitable social infrastructure on the Palestinian side, regardless of a timetable?

Miriam, don't you have any easier questions? I can't answer that one, I haven't the foggiest idea.

Nevertheless, instead of an answer, some comments on the subject:
We tend to think of infrastructures as having a certain permanency. In the case of social or economical ones, they are not static, but change or evolve at a certain rate. This rate has to be slow enough for sociologists to be able to arrive to conclusions before they become obsolete. I once asked a sociologist why couldn't they device faster methods; he looked at me with contempt and said – We're scientists, not journalists!--. What I'm getting at is that the people whose job is to answer questions like yours wouldn't touch the issue of the structure of palestinian society even with a barge pole.

I would risk saying that palestinian society at 2000 was very similar to that of 1999, or 1998 or even down to 1995. However it had little in common with that at the end of 2001, which in turn has little in common with that at the end of 2002 and Heaven knows what will it be by the end of 2003.

One of the big accomplishments of israeli policies in the territories has been to put palestinian society in a state of disarray. What happens in a town which has been under curfew for months on end and who's isolated from others by a sanitary belt? People that used to work, doesn't work any more, children or youngsters don't study, teachers don't teach, even bureaucrats and politicians are idle. Is it possible to talk at all of an infrastructure under those conditions?

We have to face the fact that, as a result of Israel's much heralded "War against Terrorism" the entire fabric of palestinian society has been reduced to shreds. In which direction will it evolve when and if, israeli occupation ends? For how long can a population endure those conditions before the disruption becomes irreversible?

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Jorge
From Miriam post#5:

Jorge, do you believe that there is a suitable social infrastructure on the Palestinian side, regardless of a timetable?

Miriam, don't you have any easier questions? I can't answer that one, I haven't the foggiest idea.

Nevertheless, instead of an answer, some comments on the subject:
We tend to think of infrastructures as having a certain permanency. In the case of social or economical ones, they are not static, but change or evolve at a certain rate. This rate has to be slow enough for sociologists to be able to arrive to conclusions before they become obsolete. I once asked a sociologist why couldn't they device faster methods; he looked at me with contempt and said – We're scientists, not journalists!--. What I'm getting at is that the people whose job is to answer questions like yours wouldn't touch the issue of the structure of palestinian society even with a barge pole.Yes, but this is exactly the problem that I have with most of the peace plans. Maybe it's b/c of my Soviet background and my vicinity to fmr. Yugoslavia, but the "give them a state and then they will finally give peace" approach gives me creeps. No one seems to think of the day after. Were the future Palestinian state to be created on an island in the Pacific, it could be, I guess, regarded as a problem of the Palestinians alone, but given the siamese-twin geography and the somewhat doubtful neighborhood, isn't it too much of a risk to be taken blindly, without assuring a framework for stable development in advance? You know, the community-building-comes-before-nation-building stuff.

Many people like to make comparisons with the post WWII de-nazification of Germany. What they tend to forget is that Germany was a democratic state before the Nazis came to power. The 12 years of their rule were hardly enough for the entire population to forget how a decent state should function. The Palestinians, AFAIK, have never actually had a chance to make the experience of running a state on their own. Combined with the fact that the strongest power structures are said to be the Islamist organisations, I shudder to think of results, should the Palestinian society be granted unrestricted self-determination overnight.

And are you sure that the disarray is solely a result of Israeli action? The corrupt PA rule is also often blamed for the slump in the 2nd half of the 90ies - with everything that can be concluded from this even without advanced academic research.

[Jorge]

Quote from Miriam, post #7:

Many people like to make comparisons with the post WWII de-nazification of Germany. What they tend to forget is that Germany was a democratic state before the Nazis came to power. The 12 years of their rule were hardly enough for the entire population to forget how a decent state should function.

I entirely agree in that the comparison with the de-nazification of postwar Germany is a very poor one. That was the case of a well structured society gone astray. As some say "traditions die hard" and those of civil service, education, work discipline, etc. persisted, even if altered through the first half of the 20th century. In the case of palestinian society those traditions are virtually inexistent and everything must be created nearly from scratch.

One of the many problems the Palestinian Authority had to face was that individuals that acted as leaders of a national liberation movement had to occupy executive governmental roles. Here, we had another classical example of The Peter Principle , of people promoted to positions above their level of competence . The fact that you have proven yourself as an efficient DCO (Director of Clandestine Operations) doesn't mean that you could be an efficient Minister of Agriculture. Actually, it's very likely that you'll be proven incompetent in your new position.

The Palestinians, AFAIK, have never actually had a chance to make the experience of running a state on their own.

Nevetheless, (and I know I run the risk of being crucified for the comparison) what experience did we have of running an state? Who knew in 1948 about agricultural planning, running a civil service, or urban and industrial development? There were some experts here and there but the persons that had to take decisions in the Administration, were definitely inexperienced and ignorant. The golden rule in the years of the creation of the State was "improvise and hope for the best". Against all the odds, we managed. One has to admit that the Founders of the Nation didn't do such a bad job, considering the odds.

I'm not attempting to prove that lack of expertise is a condition for the successful running of a country, I’m only saying that you might get away without it provided you're clever enough.

To be continued...

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Jorge

I entirely agree in that the comparison with the de-nazification of postwar Germany is a very poor one. That was the case of a well structured society gone astray. As some say "traditions die hard" and those of civil service, education, work discipline, etc. persisted, even if altered through the first half of the 20th century. In the case of palestinian society those traditions are virtually inexistent and everything must be created nearly from scratch.

One of the many problems the Palestinian Authority had to face was that individuals that acted as leaders of a national liberation movement had to occupy executive governmental roles. Here, we had another classical example of The Peter Principle , of people promoted to positions above their level of competence . The fact that you have proven yourself as an efficient DCO (Director of Clandestine Operations) doesn't mean that you could be an efficient Minister of Agriculture. Actually, it's very likely that you'll be proven incompetent in your new position. LOL :)

I wonder whether this applies to the nice Israeli habit of military careers being the preferable qualification for government positions as well ;). It certainly results in a society with... umm... elevated overall testosteron level...
Nevetheless, (and I know I run the risk of being crucified for the comparison) what experience did we have of running an state? Who knew in 1948 about agricultural planning, running a civil service, or urban and industrial development? There were some experts here and there but the persons that had to take decisions in the Administration, were definitely inexperienced and ignorant. The golden rule in the years of the creation of the State was "improvise and hope for the best". Against all the odds, we managed. One has to admit that the Founders of the Nation didn't do such a bad job, considering the odds.
Sure, the Jews had only 1000+ years' experience of running relatively small communities against impossible odds under ever-changing conditions. The experience of early Zionism didn't differ all too much from it, in fact, even if the actual challenges, such as agriculture, were, technically speaking, new. In this respect, the Founders performed a magnificient job, all things considered. However, this may also explain in part, the problem of IMO disgustingly incompetent Israeli political class today: Jews always excelled at running things at small scale on their own, but less so at a large one. It seems that Israel is now going through a similar nation-building phase that many European principalities did on their way to becoming states - only it has less time and can afford less mistakes.
I'm not attempting to prove that lack of expertise is a condition for the successful running of a country, I’m only saying that you might get away without it provided you're clever enough.
The main difference in this light may be the Jewish tradition of self-reliance that made Zionism such a stunning success story, current problems notwithstanding. Palestinians don't have much to show for community-building either, it seems. Worse still, they seem to define themselves mainly over the (real or imaginatory) evils bestowed upon them from the outside: the classical prerequisite for fascism. It'll always be the evil Zionists, you know: dear world, please protect defenceless little us against this blight :rolleyes:

I remember an interview with a Palestinian journalist in the mid-90ies in which he compared the installment of the PA to building a house from the roof downwards: 6(?) different security services, but none for garbage collection. He suggested that Palestinians should learn "house-building" according to the laws of nature from the early Zionists and made rather gloomy predictions on future developments.

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t believe that there’ll ever be peace between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world.

I’m all for peace while I prepare for war!

The trouble with entertaining a hope for peace is that you don’t fully prepare for war. Peace can’t be had with Arabs/Muslims they have consistently shown bad faith. To trust Arab/Muslim nations would have deadly consequences.

[Teacake]

Lamp... islamic warriors are active in almost every part of the world right now, I for one hope to see islam crushed in the next few years. Oh do I miss the good old days when communists were the one's to be afraid of.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Teacake
Lamp... islamic warriors are active in almost every part of the world right now, I for one hope to see islam crushed in the next few years. Oh do I miss the good old days when communists were the one's to be afraid of.

Those days have gone the way of a cigar store Indian and a five cent cigar.

[Teacake]

That's a good one Lamp. Did you come up with that yourself?

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Teacake
Lamp... islamic warriors are active in almost every part of the world right now, I for one hope to see islam crushed in the next few years. Oh do I miss the good old days when communists were the one's to be afraid of. You hope to see Islam crushed??? What exactly does it mean - kill every last Muslim? Come to your senses!

[Jorge]

Continued from my post #8:

I think that, when discussing the Road Map proposed by the Quartet, one must bear in mind that, as peace plans go, it is a bad plan. It lacks precision, it's full of loopholes and the number of objections that made be raised by each side is pretty large. However, it is also important to consider, that it makes sense politically, as a starting point of peace negotiations.

I would venture to say that it makes political sense because its proposals conform with the minimum conditions that the palestinian side might be willing to accept and with the maximum conditions that the israeli side might be willing to offer, at this moment in time. Note that I didn't say may but might and even more, might in italics, because in spite of being minimalist there's no guarantee that it will be accepted by both sides.

In this sense the main merit of the Road Map lies in its realism; given the positions of both sides at this moment it offers an starting point whereby the israeli leadership appears to be granting very little and the palestinian leadership appears to be receiving the first installment of a much larger bill. As I said, anyone of us can come up with a much better peace plan than this one, but what's the use of a good plan if it's not accepted as a negotiating platform by both sides?

Within this context it's worthwhile to include a quotation from Minister Dan Meridor:

. Everyone of good sense knows what the solution looks like, everyone wants a solution. And it's a good one, which we can live with. But the tragedy is that we can't move from here to there, which maybe makes it even more tragic than the Greek classical definition of tragedy.


The solution Mr. Meridor was talking about was of two sovereign states, coexisting side by side along mutually recognized borders. The plan we are discussing offers a road map to follow so as to get from here to there ; from here to a solution.


Note:
The above quote is from a Seminar held at the Brookings Institution last June under the title: Defining the Road Map: Ways to Emerge from the Israeli Palestinian Crisis . I have the notion that there was where the idea of the Road Map was conceived. It makes very interesting reading, particularly the contributions of Senator G. Mitchell:

http://brookings.edu/dybdocroot/comm/transcripts/20020716.htm

[Mediocrates]

But therin is the problem. We are supposed to treat the PA like some power crazed insane drunk uncle who MIGHT not lash out and beat us if we're real quiet like. Arafat disconnects himself from the process and simply waves a limp hand at the quartet saying "You DO remember that I want the world, right? Just give me that and get back to me..." We can't even craft a plan with their cooperation because we all understand that any plan has to be fully fleshed out for Arafat to even agree to talk about it.

I understand what Meridor says, perfectly but the fatal flaw is that the Israelis definition of a two state solution and the PA's definition of a two state solution are vastly different from one another. The Israelis want the Green Line, give or take with some accomodation for the Jews of Yesha. Contiued control over Jerusalem and a complete cessation of terrorism. The PA wants the Green Line, all Jews kicked out, most if not all of Jerusalem and an open ended right of return. To the PA statehhood simply is not the goal. It is merely the first step toward a goal.

How does a two state solution deal with the everyday problems countries have like treaties, natural resources, travel, immigration, trade and so on? How? We clearly see the first last and only response from the 'duly elected legitimate leaders of the Palestinians' and they are laughingly called, is BOOM. Boom has now become the Palestinian Constitution and its foreign policy tool. Boom.

[Jorge]

Quote from Miriam post # 9:
However, this may also explain in part, the problem of IMO disgustingly incompetent Israeli political class today: Jews always excelled at running things at small scale on their own, but less so at a large one. It seems that Israel is now going through a similar nation-building phase that many European principalities did on their way to becoming states - only it has less time and can afford less mistakes.


I'd say that your explanation is fairly correct. A good example is our multi-multi-political party system. Not only that the number of political parties is incredible for such a small nation, but within each party there are factions, which in turn are divided into several groups. A leader of a party is not usually a leader of the party but the leader of the more numerous faction within it. In turn, a national leader is not a leader of the nation but a leader of a party, so that party interests or rather, faction interests are more important than the interests of the nation.

[Jorge]

Reply to Mediocrates post #16:

That's exactly my point. You and everybody else may raise an endless list of objections, fears, doubts and worrysome predictions.

Either we keep pondering about the items in that list and do nothing but wait till the palestinians start thinking the way we want them to think or... or we start moving along a certain road that may lead to a better situation.

Palestinians can not go on living for long under their present social and economic situation. Israel is rapidly heading for economic disaster and social disruption. For how long do you propose to sit and wait? Five, ten, twenty years ? Whatever you choose, try to imagine how it would be like in here in 2010 or 2020 if things kep on going downroad as they been going for the last two years.

[Mediocrates]

Then unilateral action begins to look better and better. And why not? If anyone felt that it would present some stability then I guess that would be a plausible course of action. Because at its base I believe that ANY plan that is short of the absolute maximum totality of everything the PA has ever asked for would not even be seriously entertained.

So again - if a unilateral withdrawal that resulted in a defacto Palestine with the borders more or less on or over the Green Line today the concern is STILL that all of those other stated and unstated demands would be sufficient motivation to continue fighting. We hear over and over 'occupation occupation' but that's not nearly enough is it? The worry, the constant worry is simply that a free Palestine is merely a launch point for the next set of demands: PA controlled Jerusalem, right of return. I think the Israelis would love to be able to leave those issues on the table while thrashing through 'occupation' but is the PA really willing to work that way. It's not clear that that is true.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Teacake
That's a good one Lamp. Did you come up with that yourself?

I think so but you know how it goes I might have heard it somewhere years ago.

[Jorge]

. Quote from Miriam post #7:

Were the future Palestinian state to be created on an island in the Pacific, it could be, I guess, regarded as a problem of the Palestinians alone, but given the siamese-twin geography and the somewhat doubtful neighborhood, isn't it too much of a risk to be taken blindly, without assuring a framework for stable development in advance? You know, the community-building-comes-before-nation-building stuff.

Miriam, I tend to agree with you, in principle, regarding "community building" and a " framework for stable development". They make sense in a properly designed process, where they should constitute stage I. Actually, one the tenets of the much maligned Oslo agreements was precisely that: a period of about five years in which the PA would gradually attain control of all the areas that Israel was supposed to give back. Throughout this period the PA, with international help, would try to establish what you call a framework for stable development and engage in community building . Unfortunately, the process set in motion at Oslo went astray. Whatever community building was achieved was shredded into pieces and, instead of development, we caused a regression to a level of barter and bare subsistence.

The clock was put back by at least 20 years and the Palestinians could not accept a plan where they have to start all over again without a firm israeli commitment about a timetable for the establishment of their state. As I said before, this is the minimum they may be able to accept. The creation of a Palestinian State is the first of their demands; if Israel is not prepared to go along with it, the Road Map is dead letter before it started.


Mediocrates is right when he says that the palestinians will not be content only with an State.
Quote from his post #19:

So again - if a unilateral withdrawal that resulted in a defacto Palestine with the borders more or less on or over the Green Line today the concern is STILL that all of those other stated and unstated demands would be sufficient motivation to continue fighting. We hear over and over 'occupation occupation' but that's not nearly enough is it? The worry, the constant worry is simply that a free Palestine is merely a launch point for the next set of demands: PA controlled Jerusalem, right of return. I think the Israelis would love to be able to leave those issues on the table while thrashing through 'occupation' but is the PA really willing to work that way. It's not clear that that is true
The end of occupation, and oppression, is not "nearly enough" but it's a very good starting point. The issues of Jerusalem and the refugee problem will have to be solved through negotiations; they cannot be simply put aside or ignored. The Road Map under discussion proposes to leave these issues for negotiations between two separate States and that, again, makes sense politically.

I don't quite agree with Mediocrates in that "the israelis would love to thrash through occupation" . The end of occupation involves dismantling a large number of settlements in the territories and this is no easy matter. Is Israel willing to go along in this point? After all, this so called "War against terrorism" is not such, but a device to keep and expand the settlements for the foreseeable future. The objections raised by Mr. Sharon in connection with the Road Map, use doubts about terrorism as a smoke screen to obscure the real issue: the settlements in the occupied territories.

[Miriam]

Jorge, what do you think of Sharansky's objections to the "roadmap"?

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El1566&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

IMO, thisBut unfortunately, the "road map" unveiled this week is a far cry from the vision of peace Bush articulated four months ago. For what he did is place the hope for peace squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian people. The Quartet's road map, in other words, has returned to the illusion of peace with dictators.

The primary mistake of the Oslo peace process was that it implicitly assumed that a Palestinian dictatorship would advance the cause of peace. Arafat, the logic went, was to be strengthened as much as possible so that he would fight terror and provide security for the people of Israel.

Any measure that was deemed to weaken Arafat was to be conspicuously avoided for fear of undermining our "peace partner." This logic created a climate in which the pressure to preserve the "momentum" of the peace process and to adhere to fixed timetables had a far more powerful hold on world public opinion than did the need for Arafat and the PA to fulfill their commitments.

[...]

Despite its good intentions, the road map unveiled this week is bound to yield the same results. Its call for a game of musical chairs among the current Palestinian leadership, the appointment of an "empowered" Palestinian prime minister, the enactment of a Palestinian constitution, and statements reiterating Israel's right to exist misses the point. These measures will not truly reform Palestinian society because they are being implemented from the top down, not from the bottom up.

Instead, this road map will only result in a new illusion whereby a new Palestinian dictatorship will be called upon to protect Israel's security and advance the cause of peace. Judging from this map, the Quartet believes that a Palestinian society poisoned for the last decade to hate Israel and Jews will be ready to freely choose a new leadership in a matter of months and be ready to peaceably join the community of nations in less than a year

[...]

Rigid timetables, confidence building measures, and new Palestinian strongmen will bring us no closer to peace today than they did for the last decade. The only hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace remains investing in a free Palestinian society that will want to join Israel in building a common futureis rather reasonable. Maybe I'm biased. Whenever I hear "Palestinian state" I always think "Croatian independence", then Tadjikistan and some other places few people remember... :(

Your scheme, if I understand it correctly, is: full Israeli withdrawal + Palestinian statehood within the shortest time and let us hope for the best, maybe thing will calm down one day. Unfortunately, most comparable precedents demonstrate that it doesn't happen. Are you not afraid of Israel in a weakened military position facing what might quickly become an externally funded uncontrollable terrorist Eldorado?

The issue is politicized to a degree that most people seem to miss an absolutely basic fallacy: it is impossible to "give" a state to a people. A state can be only "given" to a certain power structure which will shape its future face. In case of Palestinians it is by all accounts the PLO with its sidekicks and the Islamist organisations. Future developments are thus perfectly predictable. Does anyone really want it?

Then there is the question of external influence. I am a poor judge of the interests of Israel's immediate neighbours, I can only guess at them, yet it is rather obvious that peace in the ME contradicts the interests of major European countries. Worse still, on street level we have scores of people who have made life careers of "criticizing Israel" and "helping Palestinians", for all practical purposes inciting them against Jews. They won't let their universes collapse easily. I remember the reactions to Oslo rather well. True, there were some warm fuzzies for Israelis on governmental level, the Palestinian-supporting "street" remained as hateful as ever.

Since then, Europe has settled its internal problems (Germany, the Balkans etc.) and is competing with the US for influence in the ME much harder that before (actually, several European countries are competing with each other as well). Bashing Israel is excellent political glue in securing economic and other loyalties of Muslim/Arab countries, which no one in his/her right mind would want to lose, especially at a time when everyone here is shaking with fear of terrorist attacks. Besides, it's a useful distraction from severe domestic problems, as has been demonstrated during the French elections.

Sorry if it sounds gloomy, but IMO the situation can only be settled once the Palestinians won't have pitying Western laps to cuddle into and not a second before. Then Israel would be really negotiating with Palestinians and not with dozens of other nations with their own shadowy interests in the background. As I see it now, "the world" won't permit the Palestinians to be satisfied with anything :(

[Jorge]

Quote from Minister Sharansky's article,mentioned in Miriam' s post #22:

Instead, this road map will only result in a new illusion whereby a new Palestinian dictatorship will be called upon to protect Israel's security and advance the cause of peace. Judging from this map, the Quartet believes that a Palestinian society poisoned for the last decade to hate Israel and Jews will be ready to freely choose a new leadership in a matter of months and be ready to peaceably join the community of nations in less than a year


I choose to start with this paragraph because it exemplifies a type of approach which tends to obscure the main issues. There are some millions of Arabs who happen to live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip who think themselves as constituting a Nation and, as such, demand the right of a State of their own in a certain area of land to which they claim to have a right. They think themselves as a Nation who has a right to a State; what outsiders think is not going to change that conviction. What interested outsiders can do is to support or oppose their demand for self determination. This, in my modest opinion is the main issue.

For outsiders to make their approval or reject, conditional upon who is going to lead that hypothetical State and how it's going to be governed is, to put it mildly, presumptuous on their part. Mr. Sharansky's and, also Presiden's Bush, approach belong to that type. – Yes, you may have your State, provided is a true democracy, free of corruption, full of love for their neighbors,etc.-- ( looking around, I don't manage to count more than a dozen States that fill the requirements).

What if they choose to have a theocracy, a plutocracy, a monarchy or a dictatorship? Then they won't be granted the right of self determination? Does self-determination mean that you have to have a type of government that pleases the outsiders?

The most interested outsider is, of course, Israel. In this case it has the additional capability of being able to oppose the creation of a Palestinian State, if so wishes, by the use of military force. So far it has chosen to do so. Israeli occupation, whether its considered a malevolent or a benevolent one, is utterly removed from the most loose definition of democracy. Palestinians have been consistently deprived of every possible chartered rights. And yet, according to Mr. Sharansky's "plan" we are going guide them in the road towards democracy:

It (the plan) calls for a temporary administration to be established for the next two to three years so that Palestinian society can be "detoxified" and democratic institutions can be developed. Rather than call for elections at the beginning of

Presumptuous is really a mild word for this attitude; my Thesaurus came up with others like arrogant, conceited, bigheaded, which seem far more appropiate.

[Mediocrates]

So let's assume that "democracy" is a codeword for "Not the anarchic confederation of terrorists you have now". I doubt most non Palestinians care much what kind of rule or misrule that elect for themselves. The key point is to reduce or eliminate the fallout and therefore that damage and death and destruction to Israelis.

We perhaps wrongly or arrogantly assume that the optimal conditions for that are met under some kind of democratic institutions. Perhaps not. Certainly the Oslo process assumed quite the reverse and we have been made to pay dearly for it. So in essence you are right. It should matter little to Israel whether Palistan is a 'democracy' or anything else. Only the results matter. But clearly it has to be some form of stable government that meets a few basic criteria:

Accountable
Responsible
Verifiable
Identifiable
Locateable
Consistent
Uniquely In Control
Transfers power internally w/o warfare

Beyond that it shouldn't matter. Now again, we tried dictatorship and that failed. They're not particularly theocratic and the people who are are even more dangerous. Perhaps a constitutional monarchy, I don't know. A Premier/President/PM system? Communist Politburo? Maximum Leader, Big Kahuna, Capo de Tutti Capi? Who knows. Who cares.

What is important is to meet and manage those objective criteria above.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Miriam post #22:

Sorry if it sounds gloomy, but IMO the situation can only be settled once the Palestinians won't have pitying Western laps to cuddle into and not a second before. Then Israel would be really negotiating with Palestinians and not with dozens of other nations with their own shadowy interests in the background.

May I remind you that "pitying Western" countries are mixed in this because, so far, israelis and palestinians have proven themselves incapable of conducting bilateral negotiations? If Israel were willing to negotiate with the palestinians, the Quartet would immediately withdraw its good offices.

yet it is rather obvious that peace in the ME contradicts the interests of major European countries.

Would you care to expand on this? Looks interesting…

Your scheme, if I understand it correctly, is: full Israeli withdrawal + Palestinian statehood within the shortest time and let us hope for the best, maybe thing will calm down one day. Unfortunately, most comparable precedents demonstrate that it doesn't happen. Are you not afraid of Israel in a weakened military position facing what might quickly become an externally funded uncontrollable terrorist Eldorado?


Only two thirds of the above fit into my scheme, namely, full withdrawal and palestinian statehood within the shortest time; I don't hope for the best, that would be something short of a miracle and I don't believe in them. I only hope it's not going to be as bad as the right wingers prognosticate. Given the present conditions of palestinian society, it's quite likely that they will lapse into periods of anarchy, civil strife, authoritarian rule and the like.

I agree with you that "comparable precedents" are not very encouraging. I'm thinking of past history in Latin America and more recent history in Africa. Very rarely former colonies have had a peaceful start as a newborn nation. But ( and this is an important but) I think that every year that lapses with continuing occupation and oppression makes the prospects even more gloomy. In the context of a Palestinian State " the sooner the better" is in the best interests not only of palestinians but of the israelis as well. Once this is achieved we can desire the palestinians a happy journey to wherever they want to go and we can go back to build a Jewish democratic State, a task that we have been neglecting since 1967.

The issue is politicized to a degree that most people seem to miss an absolutely basic fallacy: it is impossible to "give" a state to a people. A state can be only "given" to a certain power structure which will shape its future face. In case of Palestinians it is by all accounts the PLO with its sidekicks and the Islamist organisations. Future developments are thus perfectly predictable. Does anyone really want it?

Yes, the palestinians seem to want it and that should be enough! The PLO is not really an example of an efficient, honest and farsighted organization; that's the best the palestinians have got for the moment; it will have to do.

I'm rather of the opinion that "future developments" are never "perfectly predictable" even more so in the Middle East. Actually, since the times of Jeremiah and Eliahu, the art of prediction has gone out of fashion around here.

[Jorge]

This Road Map business we are discussing got to day an unexpected push forward.

None other than the Strategic Planning Branch (SPB) of the IDF
stated that the Road Map "for the most part answers Israel's security needs". The SPB therefore recomends that the political echelons accept the blueprint while adding some remarks and reservations.
(All this acccording to Ha'Aretz,1/XI, page A4:"IDF gives thumps up to road map".)

Acc. to the newspaper, the opinion of the IDF, as presented to Mr. Sharon is that the Road Map acknowledges several of Israel's diplomatic demands, etc. (better to read the article).

All this doesn't mean that Mr. Sharon's is going to embrace the plan; very likely he'll look for ways to stall. However, the professional opinion of the IDF is quite weighty around here and, in this sense, the road map is fast becoming 'the only game in town'

[Miriam]

Jorge, there is a lot to write about it, let's start from the end:

I'm rather of the opinion that "future developments" are never "perfectly predictable" even more so in the Middle East. Actually, since the times of Jeremiah and Eliahu, the art of prediction has gone out of fashion around here.I guess that you and I share a certain respect for the scientific method, which does apply to some degree for political action as well. As I wrote, when I hear "Palestinian state" I think, for one "Croatia": remember how its independence was proclaimed? Sure, the Croatians wanted it. There was only one problem, a sizeable Serbian minority, which was - predictably - driven out by force, since no one bothered to make Croatian independence conditional on guarantees for the said group, with the - predictable - consequence of Serbian-dominated Yugoslavian rest attacking Croatia, with the equally predictable results. Pardon this triviality, but human decision-making is based on making predictions, the only part worth discussion is the quality of such. Poor quality of the decision-making process, irresponsible external action regardless of all the warnings that came at the time, is what brought murderous forces upon millions of people's heads in fmr. Yugoslavia - and you won't find many saying now, in retrospect, never mind, as long as this is was what the Croatians wanted.

This is why I find faith-based politics, as manifestated in the endless "ME peace plans" clones so irritating. They seem to ignore the situation on the ground completely. I don't see why it should be too much to ask for to make a clear assessment of the situation, and act on it, not on some vague notion of "what the Palestinians want" - this may do fine as "worst of Freud" but applying it to political practice is IMO an act of criminal ignorance.

Please correct me on this. The current power structure, through which "the Palestinians" presumably voice their aspirations, didn't come into existence through anything even remotely resembling a democratic process. It seems that the Palestinian society is firmly in the grip of murderous thugs, the average mortal rarely daring to express his or her genuine sentiments opennly.

So along come our peacemakers, get the Israeli troops to pull out and "give the Palestinians a state". For practical purposes, the latter means cementing the rule of Fatah, Hamas and whoever owns a suffcient numebr of guns. Is this really what you wish for the Palestinians whose plight you have described so touchingly on mutual occasions? Would this bring little Palestinian girls any nearer to nice swimming pools you wish them, IIRC?

I mean, there are numerous reports of horrific abuses during the Arafat reign. How can someone who wishes the Palestinians well support the idea of establishing this rule - in a coalition with Islamist groups? This is what the Palestinians want, you say - and I ask back: did you really ask them?

Only two thirds of the above fit into my scheme, namely, full withdrawal and palestinian statehood within the shortest time; I don't hope for the best, that would be something short of a miracle and I don't believe in them. I only hope it's not going to be as bad as the right wingers prognosticate. Given the present conditions of palestinian society, it's quite likely that they will lapse into periods of anarchy, civil strife, authoritarian rule and the like.

I agree with you that "comparable precedents" are not very encouraging. I'm thinking of past history in Latin America and more recent history in Africa. Very rarely former colonies have had a peaceful start as a newborn nation. But ( and this is an important but) I think that every year that lapses with continuing occupation and oppression makes the prospects even more gloomy. In the context of a Palestinian State " the sooner the better" is in the best interests not only of palestinians but of the israelis as well. Once this is achieved we can desire the palestinians a happy journey to wherever they want to go and we can go back to build a Jewish democratic State, a task that we have been neglecting since 1967. This is, of course, provided that both sides survive these "periods of anarchy, civil strife, authoritarian rule and the like" - and given the friendly surroundings quite likely to pour oil into the fire in the form of advanced weaponry I wouldn't be so sure about it.

The issue is politicized to a degree that most people seem to miss an absolutely basic fallacy: it is impossible to "give" a state to a people. A state can be only "given" to a certain power structure which will shape its future face. In case of Palestinians it is by all accounts the PLO with its sidekicks and the Islamist organisations. Future developments are thus perfectly predictable. Does anyone really want it?
Yes, the palestinians seem to want it and that should be enough! The PLO is not really an example of an efficient, honest and farsighted organization; that's the best the palestinians have got for the moment; it will have to do. It shouldn't really be enough. After all, the concern of the Allies re. post-WWII Germany wasn't what the Germans wanted, it was how to create a stable country unthreatening to its neighbors. There is nothing wrong with Israel having a say in Palestinian affairs, no more than, say, France or Britain having a say about post-WWII German affairs. Just what if the PLO doesn't "do"? It never "did", after all.

Let's take a practical example. A fellow countryman of yours has just posted a nice level-headed explanation of the practical difficulties the IDF would face in apprehending Palestinian attackers trying to cross the "Green Line" should it withdraw completely from the WB. According to him, the Israeli population would be much worse off than it is now. Assuming the probable scenario that the PA won't try too hard for too long a time to perform the job itself - what then? An all-out war with the State of Palestine, Israel carpet-bombs the place, including the little girls who never got to see their swimming pools, occupies it, and... sounds familiar?

I'd be quite happy if someone would tell me I'm wrong. But I don't see the smallest trace of a chance of a positive development should the current Palestinian power structures remain in place.

The most interested outsider is, of course, Israel. In this case it has the additional capability of being able to oppose the creation of a Palestinian State, if so wishes, by the use of military force. So far it has chosen to do so. Israeli occupation, whether its considered a malevolent or a benevolent one, is utterly removed from the most loose definition of democracy. Palestinians have been consistently deprived of every possible chartered rights. And yet, according to Mr. Sharansky's "plan" we are going guide them in the road towards democracy:

It (the plan) calls for a temporary administration to be established for the next two to three years so that Palestinian society can be "detoxified" and democratic institutions can be developed. Rather than call for elections at the beginning of

Presumptuous is really a mild word for this attitude; my Thesaurus came up with others like arrogant, conceited, bigheaded, which seem far more appropiate.I know. Israel-bashing is fun. But - have their own, the Palestinian rulers, the de jure and the de facto ones, ever treated the Palestinians any better? And what of the Israeli treatment did arise from ill will, what from foolishness and what from necessity?

I remember a Palestinian (a social scientist?) complaining to a German journalist that he was free to publish his books under the Israelis but cannot do so anymore under Arafat....

I may lack the sensitivity for the current stand of the Israeli PC, but - in this light - what is so dreadful about Sharansky's statement you quote above?

There are some millions of Arabs who happen to live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip who think themselves as constituting a Nation and, as such, demand the right of a State of their own in a certain area of land to which they claim to have a right. They think themselves as a Nation who has a right to a State; what outsiders think is not going to change that conviction. What interested outsiders can do is to support or oppose their demand for self determination. This, in my modest opinion is the main issue.This is perfectly correct. But genuine self-determination can be only expressed through genuine democratic institutions. Otherwise it's not what they think, it's what Arafat, Rantisi and hell knows who else say. They, the Palestinians on the ground, were never really asked so far, were they?



More later.

[Miriam]

For reference:

The Ha'aretz article on the Strategic Planning Branch (SPB) of the IDF's position (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=225816&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

and the documents of the "Quartet" from the UN:

a press release (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/10c460afa1b41b3f85256c3700651703!OpenDocument)

and a communiqué (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/54c9e0a5f8ccbd2b85256c3700653ea4!OpenDocument)

- both from Sept. 17

Anyone got the link to the full text of the US version, should it be different from the UN stuff?

[Jorge]

Quotes from Miriam post #27:

Pardon this triviality, but human decision-making is based on making predictions, the only part worth discussion is the quality of such. Poor quality of the decision-making process, irresponsible external action regardless of all the warnings that came at the time, is what brought murderous forces upon

I'm glad we're getting down to basics. You're certainly right when you say that decision making(DM) is based on predictions. DM is often concerned with choosing between various strategies which in turn relate to various predictions whose likelihood is to be appraised beforehand. Sometimes when conditions of a high degree of a"high degree of uncertainty" prevail, the likelihood of predictions cannot easily be appraised but, nevertheless DM is needed. What I objected to, is to the pretension of assuming that "future developments may be perfectly predictable". To do so all the variables influencing the event should not only be known but subject to control. This is obviously impossible in any political decision and, particularly, in such a volatile atmosphere as that of the Middle East.

To pretend that we can predict with certainty that the creation of a Palestinian State will foster terrorist attacks against Israel is unwarranted. It may so happen or it may not. Everyone can choose between both alternatives according to his beliefs or hunches or "gut feelings" but that has nothing to do with "perfectly predictable future developments". My favorite example is that of the retreat of the IDF from Southern Lebanon. At the time, a number of learned politicians predicted, with absolute certainty that if we did retreat, Northern Israel will go up in flames under mortar and rockets attacks. Three years have elapsed and nothing of the sort has happened; it may not happen in the foreseeable future or it may happen tomorrow morning. The situation concerning the West Bank and GS is far more complicated than that of Lebanon so we have to consider both alternatives on their own merits.

I don't see why it should be too much to ask for to make a clear assessment of the situation, and act on it, not on some vague notion of "what the Palestinians want" - this may do fine as "worst of Freud" but applying it to political practice is IMO an act of criminal ignorance.

"What the palestinians want" cannot be disregarded so easily because they happen to be our adversary in this conflict. A number of us believe that the establishment of a PS serves the interests of our side better than a solution based in the Greater Israel notion. It constitutes "a clear assessment" based in certain notions, values and hypothesis which are not the same as those of the right wingers so, no wonder that theirs is a very different clear assessment of the situation. I wouldn't accuse neither of the two camps as guilty of "criminal ignorance", let's say that they are both reacting in good faith according to the way they perceive the situation.

Please correct me on this. The current power structure, through which "the Palestinians" presumably voice their aspirations, didn't come into existence through anything even remotely resembling a democratic process. It seems that the Palestinian society is firmly in the grip of murderous thugs, the average mortal rarely daring to express his or her genuine sentiments openly.

I couldn't correct you because you're right in asserting that the leadership of the PLO that in turn took control of the PA wasn't elected according to a democratic process. I disagree with you however that Palestinian society is firmly in the grip of murderous thugs. The present situation is that no one exerts a firm grip on palestinian society, not even a loose grip; palestinian society seems to be disintegrating fast and one of the many symptoms is the absence of a well defined power structure. This disintegration is one of the main achievements of Mr. Sharon's policies.

To be continued…

[Jorge]

Quote from Miriam post # 27:

There is nothing wrong with Israel having a say in Palestinian affairs, no more than, say, France or Britain having a say about post-WWII German affairs. Just what if the PLO doesn't "do"? It never "did", after all.

Now, this is a rather delicate point that you raise here. A tricky point, very tricky. You'll excuse my lengthy comments since it is an issue that is not amenable to blacks and whites.

Is there anything wrong "with Israel having a say in Palestinian affairs"? I suppose it depends to what extent we stretch the meaning of "having a say". Developments in the WB and GS and in a future, hypothetical, Palestinian State (PS) are of vital importance for Israel. It is natural to expect that Israel will continue trying to influence those developments according to its interests. Influencing neighboring countries' behavior is an accepted tactic of international relationships and is carried through diplomatic pressure, trade sanctions or inducements and other means. But, is it legitimate for a country to dictate the behavior of another? To determine how and by whom it should be ruled? Are there extenuating circumstances when this can be justified? Where do we draw the line between influencing and dictating ? I am afraid there are no easy answers to those questions.

A case in point. As an aftermath of the invasion of Lebanon led by our Mr. Sharon, we established there a puppet regime led by some Christian Lebanese leaders of our choose. This was a clear case of dictating how and by whom a country should be governed. Could this be justified on the grounds that what happens in Lebanon is vital for israeli interests and, consequently, only a friendly government could be tolerated?. I don't mean justified on ethical grounds, ethics has little to do with international politics; I mean justified according to some code of behavior accepted by all nations.

Allow me to take, as a case study, this Road Map which we are supposed to be discussing here. The Quartet may be convinced that this is the best plan of action given the present conditions and will attempt to get it going. In the case of the EU and Russia, they may attempt some influencing; in their case there is no dilemma because their means are limited to diplomatic ones. In the case of the USA however, besides influencing there is the possibility of dictating to Israel, ordering to Israel, to follow the Road Map. If at some conjecture of events the pursuit of the plan were considered vital for US interests they would have no scruples about it. For that they wouldn't need more than to summon our future Prime Minister to Washington and tell him in no uncertain terms that either Israel behaves, or else… Question is: could this, hypothetical, conduct of the USA be justified according to some code of behavior universally accepted?

The only code I can think of is one based on the principle of self determination, contained I think in the UN Charter. As against it, there is the principle of the will of the strongest, which seems to be the accepted norm of our times. If we are to behave as civilized peoples shouldn't we at least, as the Greeks would say, attempt to follow the golden mean?
Sorry, as usual, more questions than answers

[Miriam]

"Electronicintifada" is less than pleased with the roadmap either: http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/display.php3?article_id=40613 :p

[Miriam]

Jorge, sorry, but thisI mean justified according to some code of behavior accepted by all nations is pretty naive. What are "all nations"? China, Russia, Zimbabwe, Syria and Pakistan? (Umm... the US?) Please, what you are talking about is a nice abstract ethic concept - there is no such thing in the real world. Why not just be brutally pragmatic?Question is: could this, hypothetical, conduct of the USA be justified according to some code of behavior universally accepted?

The only code I can think of is one based on the principle of self determination, contained I think in the UN Charter. As against it, there is the principle of the will of the strongest, which seems to be the accepted norm of our times. If we are to behave as civilized peoples shouldn't we at least, as the Greeks would say, attempt to follow the golden mean?A good question for a philosophy colloquium. In real world, the first question is: who is there to pass judgement? In this life, I mean? ;)


Another aside, I'm not an Israeli voter. No need to convince me of "Mr.Sharon's" vices (or his virtues, for that matter). I seriously doubt his capabilities as a politician (but then I don't know of many capable Israeli politicians, do you?), but he hardly warrants the demonisation he receives. For all his apparent personal unpleasantness, the world has seen much worse.

Our "conversation" is getting almost surrealistic... Time to do some cleaning up, but I'm too lazy. What was I going to write about? European stakes in the conflict? Another time ;)


I'm still unclear on what your idea of "the Palestinians" and of the medium through which they voice their apparent wishes is. When I write "grip" I mean it in the same sense that problematic neighbourhoods may be effectively run by criminal gangs elswhere in the world. Accepting these gangs as the voices of aspiration of the ufortunate local residents is not commonly regarded as a good deed towards the latter.

The Lebanon parallel is, from what I know of it, rather flawed. Israel has a clear adversary there, Hezbollah, a disciplined organisation, run by several states in the background. The fact that no massive attacks took place after withdrawal is more likely due to some calculation that the said parties have no interest in them. At the given moment, of course.

My objection that the notion of "the Palestinians" expressing some kind of wishes the world pretends to know of through umm... what/whom exactly? is humbug, still stands. This is easily the most overreported conflict in the world, but I still have a strong hunch that less is known of the inner workings of what is left of the Palestinian society than about Afghanistan or Rwanda.

Is Arafat speaking for "the Palestinians"? Sheikh Yassin? Uri Avneri? The King of Morocco? Bin Laden? Are any of these gentlemen, along with the henchmen/foot soldiers on the streets likely to bring swimming pools to little Palestinian girls? Do you really believe that giving, say, Hamas and PIJ free run of the territories would be a case of enabling Palestinian "self-determination"? Maybe this should start (and, no, I'm not interested in "but Sharon is a bad guy too" once again - it doesn't help) by enabling the Palestinian "Joe Shmoe" to express his/her genuine wishes - something the said organisations are hardly likely to do? (Seems like even Ami Iseroff thinks pretty much the same, if I understand him correctly: http://www.mideastweb.org/murdersuicide.htm )

And, as you know, Freud never found it out... :p

It takes an assessment that is entirely different from the one about Lebanon withdrawal (I agree that the original invasion plan was, from what I know of it, in many of its details not the work of a bright mind, but that would be the subject of Israeli political competence once again...). How is the Palestinian society, the power structure likely to develop when left to its own means? Negative scenarios are abundant, and vary greatly, but what I have yet to see is a single positive one.

[Teacake]

Originally posted by Miriam
You hope to see Islam crushed??? What exactly does it mean - kill every last Muslim? Come to your senses!

Communisim was crushed without bloodshed. But unfortunatley it seems to be returning along side islam. And yes, I would very much like to see mecca nuked, as well as al jazirah put out of business and mullahs and islamic dictators, kings and princes, assissinated.

[Jorge]

In connection with the implementation of the Road Map, we heard this week Good News and Bad News. Let's see the good ones first:

Talking in a conference about security issues held in Herzelyia last week, Prime Minister Sharon gave his approval in principle to the Road Map; he called it:
"a reasonable, realistic and, I believe, attainable plan which will create a real chance to reach an agreement.".
Mr. Sharon added that Israel has no intention to remain indefinetly in the occupied territories.He said that occupation was a temporary response to what he called "security demands, and does not represent a political change of status." Furthermore, "Israel will not return to rule in territories from which it has previously withdrawn," he added.

Turning now to the Bad News regarding the Road Map: Mr. Sharon said in the same speech that "The transition from one phase to the next will not be on the basis of a predetermined timetable. It is clear to all that Israel can no longer be expected to make political concessions until there is proven calm and Palestinian governmental reforms."

In rejecting the proposed timetable and conditioning the establishment of Palestinian State to "proven calm" he's leaving the initiative in the hands of the terrorist groups. If they decide to behave and refrain from attacks, the Plan will go forward if not it will wait till they decide to reform themselves and be good boys. This is merely a continuation of the present policy of his government when also the initiative in the conflict has been on the hands of the said terrorist groups.

As to the "palestinian governmental reforms", the most important of them seems to be the replacement of Mr. Arafat. If this were to happen, the Plan would still have to wait till the new PM finds favor in our eyes, if not, it's a question of waiting until the palestinians select someone who has Israel's approval.

To sum up, Good and Bad News may be stated in one sentence: Mr. Sharon's government agrees with the Road Map, provided its implementation is postponed until some distant date to be fixed in the course of time if and when conditions are considered to be leading to a climate favorable for the resumption of negotiations which might or not result in the consideration of the said mentioned Road Map.

[humus_sapiens]

1. Antisemitic UN (remember "Zionism = Racism", Conf of Durban 2000, UNRWA)
2. Antisemitic Russia with its history of centuries of pogroms (BTW, Russian word), totally pro-arab foreign policy today, just as 35 years ago
3. Antisemitic EU (the motherland of Antisemitism). Millenia of expulsions, ghettos, pogroms, inquisition. Crowned by the Holocaust.
4. The US. The only friend and ally, but also dependent on Arab oil. Look at the State Dept. policies. All these "heavy-handed", "Arafat is untouchable", etc.
So, the question is: why should the Antisemites decide the fate of the Jews and Jewish State?

[Jorge]

Re., the question of humus sapiens in post #35:

So, the question is: why should the Antisemites decide the fate of the Jews and Jewish State?

Well, if the question is posed like that, the obvious answer is that they shouldn't. But the question, within the context of the Quartet's Road Map is, let us say, misleading.

It is true that European countries and Russia have a long tradition of anti-Semitism; true as well that a number of UN declarations have reflected a strong bias against Israel. While all this background may be taken into account, we have also to admit that the above countries and the UN are deeply concerned about the fact that the israeli-palestinian conflict
seems to be getting more and more acute and the hopes of resolving it getting dimmer everyday.

The Road Map is not intended as an alternative to an israeli or palestinian plan to end the present confrontation. No such plans have been formulated by either party since Oslo. The Road Map has been proposed merely to provide an operative framework for conducting negotiations. It is problematic and has many drawbacks, but, is there any other plan under discussion at the present moment?

Both the present israeli and palestinian leaderships are following policies that imply a continuation of the bloodshed for years to come.

The Road Map is an attempt to stop this bloodshed while ensuring the rights of both nations to live in adjacent sovereign states delimited by mutually accepted borders. It is not even a "peace plan", only a plan aimed at ending the actual armed confrontation.

The sectors behind the Road Map in Europe or Russia are not necessarily anti-semitic ones. Their motivation is neither likely to be love or sympathy towards Jews or Arabs. This spot is and has always been a particularly sensitive one for East- West affairs. It is in the interest of most countries and, particularly the European ones, that this region should be stable and quiet. In short, and as usual, no other reasons for their international policies but mere self-interest.

In this particular case we would be wise to follow the Quartet's plan with the aim of improving it along the way. Perpetuation of the present confrontation does not serve our interests, nor of the palestinians, nor of the world at large.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Jorge

It is in the interest of most countries and, particularly the European ones, that this region should be stable and quiet. In short, and as usual, no other reasons for their international policies but mere self-interest. Of the European countries - maybe yes, of many European politicians and business enterprises - definitely no, I'm afraid :(

[Jorge]

It was shocking to realize that my former post# 36 and the preceding discussion between us took place over half a year ago. I say shocking because of the realization that, from the point of view of a diplomatic solution of the conflict, we haven't moved an inch forward in all these months. Some may even say that now we are further from a solution than in 2002.

The absurdity of the situation comes to light if we consider that there seem to be no other viable alternatives to the interim solution proposed in the Road Map. If both parties would have started along this path one year earlier, we would nowadays be carrying out discussions about the end stages of the settlement. More important a lot of bloodshed and suffering could have been avoided.

Today, as we approach the celebrations of Independence Day, it is a good occasion to express the hope that a year from now, the provisions of the Road Map will have been implemented within the time-frame proposed.

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Jorge
It is in the interest of most countries and, particularly the European ones, that this region should be stable and quiet. In short, and as usual, no other reasons for their international policies but mere self-interest.


As far as goverments of Russia and France are concerned their primary goals are not the stability of the region, but to extend their influence in ME at the expense of americans. The only good that their inclusion as mediators might bring is to prevent them from sabotaging american initiatives and I'm not sure that it's worth the risk.

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Mercury
As far as goverments of Russia and France are concerned their primary goals are not the stability of the region, but to extend their influence in ME at the expense of americans. The only good that their inclusion as mediators might bring is to prevent them from sabotaging american initiatives and I'm not sure that it's worth the risk.

I tend to agree with you that the primary goals of Russia and France is to extend their influence in the ME. The same may be said for the USA or of any of the other intersted countries. However you may concur with me in that those goals are best served by stability of the region. The main business around here is"oil business"; stability is essential for exploration, production and transport of oil; accordingly, a sub-continent continuosly on the brink of conflagration it's not in their interests,

[Mediocrates]

"Stability" assumes erroneously that there was stability before and then jumps off into space claiming we should all try to go back to the way things used to be.

But "stability" has never been the condition of the region or even of Iraq. So what is stability in this context. I think that when we say stability we mean "not much of a problem for us to worry about". Regardless of what it means for those people over there. In other words, we have to be clear that we are talking about stability we are talking about anything that serves our own interests in the most efficient way possible. The plight of individuals is unimportant. And perhaps this is the right way to look at it - by extension, detente, or at best colonial indifference.

We don't for example care much what the PRC does with or to its own people. We are happy enough that hybrid capitalism works reasonably well for both parties. Similarly perhaps we should simply look at the mid east the same way. Stability means that we should simply draw a veil over what they do internally and meet with them in the marketplace.

Positively Randian. And I say that w/o any irony.

[Jorge]

From Mediocrates #41:

Similarly perhaps we should simply look at the mid east the same way. Stability means that we should simply draw a veil over what they do internally and meet with them in the marketplace.
Positively Randian. And I say that w/o any irony.

Nothing wrong with a Randian approach. May be much better than my mechanistic approach: to asses stability according to the magnitude of the force needed to de-stabilize a given state.

The first problem is whether the concept of stability could be applied to countries or whole regions, like the ME, or only to systems or organizations in those countries. I favour the latter.

One could say for instance that the Iraqi government( not the country Iraq) was a rather stable one since it took all the might of the american empire to de-stabilize it. The Palestinian Authority, or what is left of it, may be regarded as highly unstable since relatively minor events, like a street confrontation with Hamas, may de-stabilize it

Stability, in my view, implies assurance of the continuity of the status quo and thus we come back to the Road Map. If the Powers behind the Quartet had confidence that the present situation could continue for years on end without a disruption of the systems in place, they'd probably would not worry too much about solving the conflict. Since they seem to be of the opinion that the present state of affairs cannot go on without reaching ignition point sooner than later, they choose to take an active role in ME affairs.

[Mediocrates]

To me stability has a key ingredient: the ability to maintain and transfer power w/o a police state and w/o tanks in the streets. The Soviet Union, East Germany, Romania, etc. were not stable. They were static - maintained by a vast opppressive apparatus.

We saw the fall of Iraq in exactly the same way. The vaunted Republican Guards did not fight because they were really instituted as internal police force of terror to keep the Baath party in power. We see the PA in the same terms as well. Fatah and other 'security' apparatus do not exist only to kill Jews, they also exist to keep the PA ensconced in power. This is not stability it is stagnation maintained by force.

And if I had time I'd go into another related issue which I think speaks to a primary problem with the Palestinian Question. The difference between freedom (or Democracy) and autonomy. The PA wants autonomy not freedom. The Palestinian people I think want the reverse. One need only look in Iraq at the Iraqi Palestinians who are being pogrommed by their own neighbors and who refuse to move, when offered, to go to Yesha, preferring instead to take their chances on Jordan to see a profound disconnect between how WE view the Palestinians and how the PA does.

[Jorge]

Quote from Mediocrates #43:

To me stability has a key ingredient: the ability to maintain and transfer power w/o a police state and w/o tanks in the streets. The Soviet Union, East Germany, Romania, etc. were not stable. They were static - maintained by a vast opppressive apparatus .

It's a rather interesting approach except for the use of static. On applying your concept to the example of the IDF in the WB and Gaza Strip; there you have a typical demonstartion ofthe ability to maintain power through "a police state and with tanks in the streets"

The fact that power is there mantained by, in your words, "a vast oppressive apparatus" does not necessarily mean that we face an static situation, that could go unchanged for a considerable period of time. On the contrary, I would describe such situation as highly dynamic; as times goes on the occupaying power has to invest ever increasing human and financial resources that have to be diverted from social and development items. As time goes on, deep social and cultural changes in the conquered population, result in further radicalization which, in turn reuire more and more oppresive power. Furthermore diplomatic pressres resulting from international public opinion are likely to get intensified.

I wouldn't describe the situation described above as static but as one of spirally accelerating downward.

[RonE]

Here's some food for thought concerning the Road Map:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=490

What do you think?

[Mediocrates]

Jorge -

It's a rather interesting approach except for the use of static. On applying your concept to the example of the IDF in the WB and Gaza Strip; there you have a typical demonstration of the ability to maintain power through "a police state and with tanks in the streets"

Here is what I mean. I mean static in the political sense not the social sense. The PA and its apparatus are what is static. They exist to further their own power and nothing else.

The fact that power is there maintained by, in your words, "a vast oppressive apparatus" does not necessarily mean that we face a static situation, that could go unchanged for a considerable period of time. On the contrary, I would describe such situation as highly dynamic; as times goes on the occupying power has to invest ever increasing human and financial resources that have to be diverted from social and development items.

That’s probably true but besides the point. The point is that the PA is unable to operate their own country because all of it’s focus is on only two things – killing Israelis and managing its own internal repression and terror.

As time goes on, deep social and cultural changes in the conquered population, result in further radicalization which, in turn require more and more oppressive power.

By the PA itself. Why for example is it we hear nothing of the Palestinian middle class? We make statements that ‘they’ are becoming more and more radicalized but what does that actually mean? How much pressure does the PA maintain to keep their own people under control? How many ‘teachers’ are required to teach hate? How many agitators are required to stir up increasingly large numbers of increasing tired and depressed people? How many operators are required to deny their own people resources and access in order to keep the public face of ‘occupation’ looking right?

See it works both ways. If they paint themselves as perfectly miserable victims then that takes a great deal of resources to maintain as well.

I wouldn't describe the situation described above as static but as one of spirally accelerating downward.

Yes of course – I’m betting on Palestinian civil war shortly after Arafat dies, through natural or unnatural causes. And that would be the apotheosis of ‘static’ little different than Ceaucescu and his wife screaming obscenities at their firing squad.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Last week, during his visit to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was presented with an initial, non-binding draft of the latest "road map for peace" produced by the Quartet. This week, Israel is expected to present its first official reaction to the proposal, which is already exposing basic disagreements between the main partners in Israel's fragile coalition government. But before examining Israel's internal differences of opinion, let's examine the proposal at hand.

The new plan ultimately calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which would be designated a "temporary State" by May 2003, to be converted into a permanent State by 2005. Meanwhile, between the adoption of the plan and the establishment of the temporary Palestinian State, both the Palestinians and Israel would undertake immediate confidence-building measures. Israel would be required to withdraw its troops from Palestinian areas, dismantle many of its West Bank suburbs, forcibly uproot and transfer a large portion of the Israeli population into other areas, and freeze the natural expansion of other Israeli suburbs. At the same time, the Palestinians would stop all violence against Israelis.
Do you think that this latest plan has a chance of succeeding?

Do you think we'll see a Palestinian State by next year?

OK, this original post (brilliant, Newsguy, congratulations!) is almost 7 months old. There is a supposedly "empowered" Prime Minister who has supposedly "supplanted" Arafat.

And where are we?

Exactly where we started with Oslo, only thousands of Israeli (Jewish, Christian and Moslem) lives have been devastated, and hundreds of lives have been lost.

There is the exact same bleat to "crack down on terror". There is the exact same snivelling that it's Israel's fault that Arafat and henchmen, including the "empowered" suit, stole - and are still stealing - the millions of dollars pouring into the PA every month.

Syria still whines that it is a terrorist state because Israel won a war against them and captured the Golan Heights, so that Syrian gunmen can no longer shoot people working in the fields below. Before anyone can legitimately consider Assad's ridiculous posturing, a visit to the Golan is a must-do. The Syrian bunkers are there for anyone to see. A child could throw a rock from the bunkers and kill a farmer below.

The roadmap was doomed to be an abortion at conception. It was stillborn as soon as the cloned Arafat took over. Nothing has changed. There will be no Palestinian State in 2003, 2005, and probably not in 2025 - certainly not if the United States continues to "cooperate" with those who are its and Israel's enemies.

[Mediocrates]

Below is an excerpt from the article linked here called "West Bank Bombing Kills Jewish Settler".

The bombing took place in Hevron, historically a Jewish City, mentioned in the Bible, where the Patriarchs purchased land and where they and their wives are buried, hardly a "settlement"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/17/international/middleeast/17CND-MIDE.html?ex=1053835200&en=da03ea559bb9b8a4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

In the shorter term, Mr. Sharon has so far resisted pressure to adopt the new peace plan, which calls for reciprocal, simultaneous concessions to create a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and a Palestinian state in just three years. Palestinians say they have already complied with several obligations — including creating the post of prime minister — and that they cannot take the politically difficult step of acting against violence until Israel also starts carrying out the plan.

This paragraph above describes the "Road Map" as a "calls for reciprocal, simultaneous concessions to create a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace".

Exactly what "reciprocal concessions" are we talking about here? The Palestinian Arabs are suppose to stop murdering innocent Jewish people, and the Jews are suppose to stop building Schools, Homes, Synagogues, etc. for their people. Absolutely EVERY Jewish town in Judea and Samaria were built on barren hillsides, not occupied by any "ancient" Palestinians. So, I ask, what kind of reciprocity is that! One that equates the murder of innocent Jews, wholesale slaughter while claiming religious license from Allah, with the act of carpentry to build homes and schools for growing Jewish Children! This is wrong, and must be stopped.

This is not a "Road Map" for Peace, but a Railroad Map, to Railroad a half-million Jews from their Homes (AGAIN!) and off the "high ground" in Judea and Samaria. Placing them all on the Coastal plain, in easy artillery range from those Judean Hills. It means instead of the Jews residing on a 50 mile wide strip of land, they will have a 9 mile wide mini-country, for now, while the Arabs work on part ll of the plan to rid Israel of her Jews.
Remember that their are 1.5 million Arabs living in Israel, with no talk of that being an obstacle to peace, while the Arabs just can not let 250,000 Jews live in peace in the "West Bank". Just as between 1949 and 1967 with the expulsion of Jews from their Homes, those Arabs want the region "Judenrein" , or "Jew Free". And what's more, while the Jews have only one Nation on the Planet Earth, the Arabs have 21, as well this would make a second Palestinian State. The first, of course, being Jordan which took up 77% of the original Palestine mandate, in which was to be made a Jewish State.

[abu afak]

The Rogue Map
by Emanuel A. Winston
May 14, 2003

President George W. Bush, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth, tells Israel to take a chance. Strangely, his proffered advice to a minuscule nation surrounded by 160 million Arabs howling for Jewish blood is not matched by similar plans for Homeland Defense in the United States of America. President Bush is spending millions or billions of American tax-payers’ money to prepare America for another attack by Islamists. Israel, which is being attacked daily by every terrorist method known, is told to allow those same terrorists to establish a base of operations, called another Arab Palestinian State, in the heartland of the Jewish State of Israel.

President Bush now knows - if he did not know before - that radical Muslims, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, are in a full war mode. They incite their children and young people to hate and kill Jews and Christians (and other non-Muslims) via their media, school curricula and mosques. While Bush and entourage like to deny this by saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, the fact is that almost wherever there is terrorism, there one finds that the perpetrators are Muslims.

President Bush and England’s fading Prime Minister Tony Blair are trying to buy the good will of Arab Muslims by abusing Israel, as an apology for beating an Arab/Muslim nation on the field of battle in three short weeks. Bush and Blair will be using Jewish lives to pave that “Rogue Map” to Hell for the Jewish nation.

Israel is constantly prodded to make gestures to the savage Arab Palestinian terrorists and they do. The U.S. wants Israel to give them money and to freeze the building of Jewish homes. Nothing Israel gives is ever reciprocated with peace by the Arab Palestinians - just more terror attacks. Then come more demands from the Arabist U.S. State Department or the anti-Semitic Europeans and United Nations for yet more gestures.

America now admits that she has seen chemical weapons tests in Syria, people entering Iraq from Syria with money and orders to kill Americans, and the safe passage of senior wanted Iraqi war criminals into Syria for sanctuary, along with Syria’s sponsorship of at least ten terrorist organizations. Despite these obvious casi belli, it is Israel which is ordered to appease the Arab countries.

Major nations with huge armies are frantically preparing themselves for assaults from terrorists, while simultaneously telling the small, embattled nation of Israel to take a chance with her country and her people. Not to worry. We will "guarantee" your safety with our President’s signature on a piece of paper. You can trust us - the "Quartet" (the Arabist U.S. State Department, the extremely anti-Israel United Nations, the Jew killers of the European Union and finally the Russians - long known for their vicious pogroms against their Jews). Now here is gang of betrayers that even Hitler would salute. These will be the signatories of the deceitful “Rogue Map”. But, again, not to worry, because they have recruited Abu Mazen as the new leader of the Arab Palestinians. Abu Mazen has a terrorist record that even Carlos the Jackal would approve of.

Abu Mazen, like Carlos, had his early training by the Russian KGB and the East German Stasi Secret Services. Mazen wrote a book purporting to show that Zionism equals Nazism. Abu Mazen denies that the killing of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust ever happened. Today, Mazen pledges the return of 3-5 million relatives of the 450,000 Arabs who fled Israel in 1948. Yes, indeed, Abu Mazen is the perfect selection by the "Quartet" to take over from Arafat (although, I personally believe that Arafat will not allow Abu Mazen to take his imperial throne as Head Terrorist and will likely have him killed - fast). Since Abu Mazen has now been selected as Yasser Arafat’s replacement - all whitewashed and cleaned up - perhaps America will now put out a contract on Arafat.

What is more troubling is to see Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres accept this killer of Jews as a reasonable replacement for Yasser Arafat.

Since we cannot rely upon the Sharon government to just say "no" to the Bush “Rogue Map”, we must rely upon others. There is George Bush’s political base of support among Bible-believing Christians, many of whom have already pressed Bush to cancel the “Road Map”. Then, there are those in the American Congress who are already circulating "Dear Colleague" letters, calling on their colleagues to join them in an anti-“Road Map” position.

Perhaps Israel may be saved from herself, a hostile Bush “Rogue Map” and a weak Israeli government, by others.
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=article&id=2282

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by wellofvow
The roadmap was doomed to be an abortion at conception. It was stillborn as soon as the cloned Arafat took over. Nothing has changed. There will be no Palestinian State in 2003, 2005, and probably not in 2025 - certainly not if the United States continues to "cooperate" with those who are its and Israel's enemies.

First, thank you wellofvow for your kind words, but I know some people in the forum who would definitely disagree. :)

The real chance of the creation of a Palestinian State has nothing to do with the Palestinians themselves. Whether headed by Abu Puppet or directly by Arafat himself, they will unfortunately be free to continue their atrocities and Crimes Against Humanity with little consequences.

Instead, and much more alarmingly, it will all boil down to an American assessment of whether a forced "peace" solution in the Middle East will lead to the Pax Americana that is the real post-9/11 Bush dream. The only wrinkle in this, is that 2004 is a presidential election year here in the States. So, basically, Bush won't want to alienate the Jewish and the Christian Right voting blocks.

On the one hand, Bush will be pressured by the Arabist, anti-Israel State Department, to create a Palestinian State at all costs. On the other hand, the national security people, and the Republican Party leadership will push to be fair to Israel.

We'll see how all this will pan out, with issues like the economy, the situation in Iraq, and the upcoming elections determining the shape of Bush's 2004 election campaign, as well as his policy towards the Middle East.

[ibrodsky]

Has it occurred to anyone that the U.S. is trying to put the Palestinians in the position of being fully responsible for their actions and attacks launched from their territory?

Remember, Israel has not annexed the WB and Gaza and doesn't want to be in charge of such a large and violent Arab population.

I think there are only two ways this can possibly go:

1. The Palestinians continue their mass murder campaign and Israel continues to defend itself. The U.S. is not going to force Israel to stop defending itself because that would be surrendering to terrorism.

2. A Palestinian leadership emerges that wants their own state more than they want to mass murder Jews. Realistically, this would either be to take dictatorship and corruption to the next level, or merely as a way to prepare for the final jihad-genocide.

However, the Palestinians have never been able to agree on a two-stage plan to destroy Israel. Plus, the Palestinians' approach to problem-solving has always been murder and mayhem. Thus, option #2 is very likely to lead to civil war.

I have no doubt that the Palestinians will kill many more of their own fighting over the "roadmap" than Israel ever killed. When the dust finally clears, the remaining Palestinians will be in no position to dictate terms.

Of course, I am concerned about the EU, Russia, and the UN having a hand in the roadmap. But I don't see the U.S. letting them enforce it. This is more like the US seeking a UN SC resolution. The real meaning of the roadmap depends on how serious the U.S. is in demanding that Palestinians fight the terrorists in their midst. I think the US is very determined to see this happen, as it would be infinitely better to have Arabs fighting Palestinian terrorists than the US Marines.

Perhaps my view is overly optimistic. But I don't think Pres. Bush needs to be "pushed" by the Christian Right; he is one of them.

Put another way, the conflict will never end if we crush the Palestinian terrorists because the Arab world values its inflated self-perception over everything else. They will only accept crushing Palestinian terrorists if they are the ones who do it.

They only care about saving face--not lives.