Saudi Peace Plan became Bush Roadmap!

[abu afak]

What happened to Bushes former demand for a more democratic Palestinian state for Isreal to deal/negotiate with than Arafat, as a prerequiste?

Abu Mazen was appointed by Arafat.

It is Not at all clear he has the support of The Palestinian people.

I say elections First.

Should Isreal make a deal with a man who has 40% support?

Should Isreal make Peace with Mazen if he has 60% Support and 40% will not go along?

Nope... Sorry...

Elections and/or a Civil war first not after.

BTW... how did the Saudi Peace Plan become Bushes 'Roadmap' (with deadlines no less!) after tacit approval for the Iraq war and a few meetings at the Ranch.

[Moskal']

And if these arabs support some sheikh Jassin scum? No treaties?

The life isn't that simple.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by abu afak

Elections and/or a Civil war first not after.

BTW... how did the Saudi Peace Plan become Bushes 'Roadmap' (with deadlines no less!) after tacit approval for the Iraq war and a few meetings at the Ranch.

Editorial: For a Palestinian Civil War-- JPost


Aug. 21, 2003


Since the launching of the road map and the beginning of the "cease-fire," Palestinian Authority leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan have been clear about one thing: There will be no Palestinian civil war.

They have insisted that they will end terror by their own methods, namely persuasion, without the use of force.

Over the past almost three years of their terror offensive, all Palestinian factions became increasingly unified. It became harder and harder to distinguish between the groups, which competed with each other over who could commit more suicide bombings and develop innovations, such as women suicide bombers and so forth. The distinctions between secular and fundamentalist, between "moderate" and "radical" became increasingly blurred, and Palestinians celebrated their new found unity as perhaps the only accomplishment of this period.

In this context, it is perhaps understandable that Palestinian leaders are loath to destroy the unity they had built. But the Palestinian Authority, whatever that now means, must choose. It cannot have unity based on terror and found a Palestinian state.

The parallel is often drawn between the Palestinian situation today and David Ben-Gurion's decision to sink the Altalena, a ship bringing weapons to Menachem Begin's Irgun, just after the founding of the state. Left-winger Uri Avinery has kindly offered the Palestinian rebuttal: Ben-Gurion already had a state when he challenged rival militias militarily.

There are two reasons, however, why the PA does not have the luxury of waiting a moment longer before waging its own "civil war." The first is that Ben-Gurion and the Hagana had never engaged in or supported terrorism, while the PA has for three years been proudly allied in a coalition of terror with its supposed rival factions.

Ben-Gurion did not have to prove that he was not going to set up a terrorist state; the PA does.
The second, related reason is that even if one calls the pre-state Irgun tactic of bombings of British military targets terrorism, such tactics did not represent the Jewish mainstream, which condemned them at the time, not just retroactively.

The PA, by contrast, still lionizes suicide bombers as "martyrs," including the naming of summer camps for children after them.
Far from distancing itself from terrorism, the PA has been at pains to stress that its argument with Hamas and Islamic Jihad is tactical. It does not say that terrorism is wrong or unacceptable, only that it is not in the Palestinian interest at this time.

This will not work. Furthermore, even if the PA were truly opposed to terrorism, its differences with the terrorist groups, including Fatah itself, would have to be more than tactical. These groups, after all, are not just opposed to a cease-fire, but to Israel's existence and the whole idea of a creating a state to develop peacefully along side it.

There will be no Palestinian state unless there is first a Palestinian leadership that proves not only that it has broken decisively with terrorism, but with the idea that the only purpose of a state is to continue the war against Israel.

We see no signs that Abbas and Dahlan are capable of proving either proposition. Their failure will spell the end of their leadership role, of the PA, and of any Palestinian, Israeli, and American hopes that this is the "new leadership, not compromised by terror" that President George W. Bush spoke of in June of last year.

Whether what Ben-Gurion did was necessary is bitterly debated until this day. But it is clear that he was able to bring himself to do it because he opposed the Irgun's tactics, saw it as a rival, and believed that it and other groups needed to be eliminated for a state to be built.

There was no unity to preserve, no ambivalence about giving up unacceptable tactics, and no other state that the new state had dreams of displacing or destroying.

We will know that a Palestinian leadership has arisen that truly wishes to live by Israel's side when that leadership forcibly confronts those who do not. The idea that people who are willing to die to kill Israeli children can be sweetly talked out of their beliefs is not credible. The Palestinians must choose if they want a state or unity under a banner of terror.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1061350053931