Mitzna less of a peacenik than commonly believed?

[Miriam]

An Israeli blogger reproduces Mitzna's idea of peace proposal:


http://israeliguy.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_israeliguy_archive.html#86761353


What do you think?


Update
There must be smth. wrong with the editing system. Go to the front page http://israeliguy.blogspot.com and find the entry from "Tuesday, December 31, 2002" by yourself.

[Mediocrates]

Eh? pls check the link - ~ maybe it's the wrong one.

[Miriam]

Corrected

[NewsGuy]

Right after the double homicide bombing in Tel Aviv, Mitzna spoke of his plans for security.

He said that the "security system must be changed to allow Israel to strike, without mercy, at the terrorists." He also called for the completion of a security fence between Israel and the Palestinians to serve as a protective belt between Israel and its Palestinian enemies.

Of course, Mitzna said nothing about the rest of his plan, which is to uproot Jewish suburbs and forcibly transfer 1/4 million Jews from their land.

He also said nothing about his plan for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from territories which are in dispute, in the same way that former prime minister Ehud Barak fled from Lebanon, inviting increased terrorism.

This leads me to conclude that Mitzna knows that most Israelis don't believe that the Labor party, or other Leftists, are capable of defeating Arab terrorism, and that every additional Arab attack pushes more of the electorate to vote for Likud.

So Mitzna talks tough about "changing the security system," without of course specifying how to do so, in the hopes that Israeli voters will view him as having the backbone to take strong action against Palestinian terrorism, which is not the case at all.

In fact, if Israel was to withdraw unilaterally from disputed territory, it would signal even greater weakness to its Arab enemies, who will be motivated to mount a final genocidal war against Israel -- at least if recent history is any indicator.

The trouble with the Leftist views on peace is that they rely on a certain level of civilization on the part of the Palestinians and other Arabs. The Leftist plans might work to solve a dispute between, say, Norway and Sweden, but in the Middle East, the situation is far different.

[Rob]

Labor Campaign manager Vilnai: I disagree with Mitzna on policy
Aaron Lerner Date: 6 January 2002

Matan Vilnai, who is serving as the Labor Party's campaign manager, stunned Channel 2 Election Magazine host Gabi Gazit this afternoon when he declared that he disagreed with Mitzna on policy and that the Labor Party. Vilnai went on to say that Labor has yet to formally accept Mitzna's program of
unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be followed by unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank if a withdrawal can't be negotiated with the Palestinians.

Vilnai noted he opposed Mitzna's program and expected the Labor Party to decide on this matter later. Vilnai added that he hoped his position would be accepted by the Party.

A startled Gazit pointed out to Vilnai that elections are being held in a few weeks.

The issue came up when Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert (Likud) who was also appearing on the program warned that if Mitzna wins the elections he would unilaterally withdraw, thereby creating a situation that instead of fighting terror at the source in Palestinian cities, Israel would find itself defending itself from the Green Line.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager 03-6106666 subscriber 4811
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=15276

[Anat]

He also said nothing about his plan for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from territories which are in dispute, in the same way that former prime minister Ehud Barak fled from Lebanon, inviting increased terrorism.

Newsguy, I think most Israelis would say getting out of Lebanon was the best thing that has happened to Israel in the past couple of years. If leaving the territories would guarantee the same relatively peaceful border - I think most would be happy to go along with unilateral withdrawal. The problem is that the territories is a completely different story.

Just had to comment on the point you made about Lebanon. I still remember too well what it was like to see the faces of the young IDF soldiers killed there every week all over the papers - thank God this is over with!

[Communication]

What would you recommend doing about Jerusalem, Anat?

[Anat]

My personal view? Split the city and let the Palestinians take care of their part. Maybe leave only the Jewish quarter and a few Jewish neighborhood under Israeli control. The rest is Palestinian anyway so let them take care of it. Let's face it - most Israelis would not set a foot in Eastern Jerusalem, so what do we need this headache for?

[Communication]

Originally posted by Anat
My personal view? Split the city and let the Palestinians take care of their part. Maybe leave only the Jewish quarter and a few Jewish neighborhood under Israeli control. The rest is Palestinian anyway so let them take care of it. Let's face it - most Israelis would not set a foot in Eastern Jerusalem, so what do we need this headache for?

Ideally, yes.

Since you can't put up a wall dividing Jerusalem, I guess they would have to use look-out towers. What happens when a terrorist goes through and kills people?

The UN actually declared that it would be consider it an act of agression if Israel responds to hezbollah rockets by firing into Lebanon.

Without the use of the settlement roads, it would be even harder for Israel to access some of the Palestinian cities. Would they even be allowed to enter Palestinian territories at all? I suppose they would if there wasn't a peace agreement in place, it would just be much harder to do, or they would have to bomb from the air, which would bring international condemnation. Then again, if Israel relinquished the settlements unilaterally, it would potentially be easier for Israel to respond to terror attacks "defensively," assuming the same type of UN resolution doesn't occur in this instance as with Lebanon.

You would also still have plenty of excuses from Palestinians that will say that the wall should have been 100 yards to the west over here and over there, which will be used for launching terror, just as is now the case with Lebanon. From what I understand, they consider Gilo a settlement. Do you consider Gilo a settlement? And look at what's happening now with the fighting over water supply with Lebanon. They have refused to even negotiate, just decided it's ours and we are going to take the water. I guess what I'm saying is that they can find plenty of excuses to continue attacks on Israel. Without a peace agreement, I'm just not sure that total withdrawl is a good idea. In fact, it will probably be used as propaganda for continuing the attacks- the rock throwers won against the Zionazis with the big tanks!

Certainly no more settlements should be constructed, and the settlements created under Sharon and perhaps even Barak should be dismantled as an act of good faith.