Sharansky's Plan - What do you think of it?

[Vic]

Today, as the Israel Defense Forces are engaged in destroying the terrorist infrastructure, we must ask ourselves, "Where do we go from here?" Is there any other option besides reestablishing full Israeli control over Judea and Samaria, or resigning ourselves to the fact that Yasser Arafat is the only address that we have?

I believe there is, and it is based on the premise that only democracy and economic prosperity for the Palestinian people can bring security for Israel.

In order to ensure our own security, the Palestinians must be encouraged to form an open and free society that is not burdened by the fear, hatred, and terror that have been sown in recent years by Arafat and his leadership - a society that affords real economic opportunity for all its inhabitants. Only such a society can serve as a solid guarantee for normal relations between the two peoples, and as a promising starting point for negotiations, ultimately leading towards a permanent peace settlement. This cannot happen overnight; for this we need a Transition Period.

Last week, I presented the following seven- point plan of action to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, defining the principles for a three-year Transition Period, leading the Palestinians away from terror and towards peace:

1. Establishment of an international coordinating body

A coordinating body, headed by the United States, with those Arab states which recognize the State of Israel as its members will be responsible for establishing a Palestinian Administrative Authority (PAA) in the areas under Palestinian control. Israel will not be involved in this process, and will only maintain the right to veto candidates to the PAA in the event that such candidates had been connected to terrorist activities against Israel.

2. Day-to-day administration

The PAA will be responsible for administering the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians, in matters such as the economy, law enforcement, education, etc.

3. Security

During the Transition Period, Israel will continue to be responsible for security, as well as for the freedom of passage, in all of Judea and Samaria. Israel will have the right to set up transition zones and buffer zones, as well as using any other appropriate method, to prevent the resurgence of terror activities.

4. Development of democratic life

During the transition period, the coordinating body and the PAA must develop the infrastructure for democratic life among the Palestinians. This must include the formulation of new educational programs, inculcating values of peace rather than of terror; securing freedom of political, social and religious association; and guaranteeing full freedom of speech and press. These three principles must be a prerequisite for all economic and other international assistance to the PAA.

5. Dismantling of refugee camps

The coordinating body will act immediately to dismantle all Palestinian refugee camps, and normal existence will be offered for those evacuated from the camps. Arab countries, with the assistance of the United Nations, will finance this effort.

6. International economic fund

An international fund will be established for the creation and financing of industrial zones, infrastructure projects, R&D companies, etc. in the areas under the PAA.

7. Negotiations for permanent peace

After the three-year transition period, free and open elections will be held in the areas administered by the PAA. Israel will then negotiate the terms of a permanent peace with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people.

Why do I see this plan as viable?

The Oslo Accords were based on two fatally erroneous assumptions. The first was that if control of territories in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, along with their inhabitants, were transferred to Yasser Arafat, he would then act as Israel's partner in the effort to maintain security and peace in the region. The second, held by many Oslo supporters, was that the existence of a dictatorial regime in these territories was more of an advantage than a disadvantage. They assumed that Arafat, uninhibited by the constraints imposed by democratic rule, would find it far easier to contend with Hamas terrorists, while simultaneously concentrating on economic prosperity for his people.

The past decade has proven these assumptions to be naive and unrealistic, as they ignore the fundamental difference between the interests of democratic leaders and those of dictators. In a democracy, the leader is dependent on the will of the people. In a dictatorship, the people are dependent on the will of the leader. In a democracy, therefore, a leader always strives to bring about economic prosperity and peace for his constituents, opting for war only as a last resort. In contrast, a dictator, who lives in constant fear of a popular uprising, must always look for methods of maintaining full control over his people. Such control must be perpetually strengthened by seeking out an external enemy, and mobilizing the people to war, or even better, holy war, against it.

It is for this reason that, while Israel and other countries in the free world sought to strengthen Arafat (believing that "a strong leader will bring about a strong peace"), Arafat exploited this to the hilt by investing every shekel and dollar of Israeli and international aid to encourage the inflammatory hatred of Israel and to construct a terrorist infrastructure. Given a choice between peace and economic prosperity, or tyranny and terror - Arafat always chose the latter.

The time has come for a new leadership, which, unlike Arafat, is interested in improving the lives of the Palestinian people in ways that include building peaceful relations with Israel. The time has come for a leadership that is dependent on the will of its people. Of course, it is impossible to ignore the fact that, after a decade of demonization of Israel and incitement to terror, it will be very difficult to find Palestinian leaders who dare to work openly for genuine peace.

In order to enable such leaders to emerge and to operate free of fear, a period of transition is absolutely necessary. During this period, the foundations of democratic life can be laid in Palestinian society so that the effects of the hateful propaganda and terrorist activities against Israel can be neutralized. At this stage, a widespread international effort should be made to establish the foundations of a modern economy, infrastructure, and welfare services in Palestinian society.

Just as Germany and Japan had to undergo a process of political and economic rehabilitation in order to rejoin the international community following World War II, Palestinian society will need to undergo a similar transition.

A people consumed with hate cannot be persuaded to coexist with another people in harmony; a people with no hope of feeding their families will not adopt democratic procedures. The Arafat leadership is corrupt, despotic and dedicated to Israel's destruction. It is not and cannot be our partner. We owe it to ourselves and to our future to help the Palestinians help themselves. All of us will reap the rewards.

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1020337082500

[takeo]

The plan has some good points, but most others are not acceptable:
"members will be responsible for establishing a Palestinian Administrative Authority (PAA) in the areas under Palestinian control. Israel will not be involved in this process, and will only maintain the right to veto candidates to the PAA in the event that such candidates had been connected to terrorist activities against Israel. "

Only free elections can decide who will govern the PA, israel can not veto nobody, nor can other Arab states decide who will be the leader of the Palestinians. Any plan that is not accepted by the palestinians will not work. A leader not accepted by the Palestinians will not be able to do anything.



"During the Transition Period, Israel will continue to be responsible for security, as well as for the freedom of passage, in all of Judea and Samaria. Israel will have the right to set up transition zones and buffer zones, as well as using any other appropriate method, to prevent the resurgence of terror activities"

This will leave israel the right to abuse its power and it will be perceived by the palestinians as a continuation of the occupation, it will certainly provoke anger AND israel will abuse this power to build new settlements. I can garantee you that no single palestinian will accept this (unless the transition period would be less than a year, with an established date that can not be delayed by israel).


"During the transition period, the coordinating body and the PAA must develop the infrastructure for democratic life among the Palestinians. This must include the formulation of new educational programs, inculcating values of peace rather than of terror; securing freedom of political, social and religious association; and guaranteeing full freedom of speech and press. These three principles must be a prerequisite for all economic and other international assistance to the PAA. "

OK, but the first rule of democracy is that the people can choose their own leader, not Israel or other Arab states. If this is not possible, than we can forget about democracy. However it could be possible to rule out parties who refuse to recognise israel and refuse to stop terror against it, even when a peace-treaty is signed. But anyway, you will not escape from Arafat or barghouti, they will have key-positions in any PA.

"The coordinating body will act immediately to dismantle all Palestinian refugee camps, and normal existence will be offered for those evacuated from the camps. Arab countries, with the assistance of the United Nations, will finance this effort. "

which refugee-camps are they talking about? the ones inside the occupied territories or in other Arab states? In both cases Israel will have to pay TOO and in the first case they will have to be relocated in the occupied territories or in their natal homes in Israel. In the second case they should be offered a choice, recompensation, living in western countries, or returning to their ancestral homes or to the new palestinian state, at least a minority should have the ability to go back to their natal homes in Israel. Deporting people currently living in palestine to other Arab countries will not be accepted by NOBODY.

"An international fund will be established for the creation and financing of industrial zones, infrastructure projects, R&D companies, etc. in the areas under the PAA. "

OK

"After the three-year transition period, free and open elections will be held in the areas administered by the PAA. Israel will then negotiate the terms of a permanent peace with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people. "

Free elections should be the first step, not the last one, they will not accept to be governed during three years by outsiders. Also a transition period of three years BEFORE any final negociation will not work. There can be a transition period of three years, but this should be part of a final agreement that both the palestinians and israel should be forced to implement. An international force presence of un-troops and US-troops is the only garantee for this. No netanyahu's or Yassin's would be able to boycott or delay the process in that case.
Your hate-speech against Arafat can not reveal that he was democratically elected and that he implemented oslo (even if his people not always liked his cooperation with israel) and fought against Hamas untill late 2000 when the prospects of a peacefull solution were slim because israel was not ready to do major concessions or to implement the un-resolutions.

"In order to enable such leaders to emerge and to operate free of fear, a period of transition is absolutely necessary. During this period, the foundations of democratic life can be laid in Palestinian society so that the effects of the hateful propaganda and terrorist activities against Israel can be neutralized. At this stage, a widespread international effort should be made to establish the foundations of a modern economy, infrastructure, and welfare services in Palestinian society. "

You can not force "democracy" upon a people, this has never worked and will never work, certainly not upon a people who has been oppressed for years and was the victim of aggression (unlike Germany or Japan who were defeated imperialist empires).
Democracy means that the people choose their own leaders, whoever this is.

So i will bet my life on it that nor the UN, nor the Palestinians will accept this plan, which is even much worse than Camp david. Some crucial elements are missing, like an international force who should controll the territories militarily, no word about the settlements, and the fact that real negociations would be delayed for three years AND that the palestinians can not choose their own leadership. This plan is only clearly in contradiction to the un-resolutions and is nothing but a propaganda-act to proove the "peace-willingness" of the Sharon-government, a pr-stunt that is needed to polish the image after Jenin. Than he would again have an argument to accuse the palestinians that they don't want peace.
By the way any peace-plan, any solution should and will be agreed upon by the palestinians and the israeli (and international bodies), any solution excluding the palestinians will not work.

Only one good point in this plan: the confirmation that economic devellopment is very important in the whole peace-process.

[Mediocrates]

Do you admit to the necessity of a transition period or simply more of the same "everything instantly infinitely now" pablum?

What if this is the last elections the PA ever holds? Still a good thing? Just let a hundred flowers blossom?

[Mediocrates]

"which refugee-camps are they talking about? the ones inside the occupied territories or in other Arab states? In both cases Israel will have to pay TOO and in the first case they will have to be relocated in the occupied territories or in their natal homes in Israel. In the second case they should be offered a choice, recompensation, living in western countries, or returning to their ancestral homes or to the new palestinian state, at least a minority should have the ability to go back to their natal homes in Israel. Deporting people currently living in palestine to other Arab countries will not be accepted by NOBODY. "


That's the funniest thing I've read all week!!! I laughed so hard I almost wet myself. Thanks for the chuckle.!!

[takeo]

no problem :D
however i didn't know i was so funny, i didn't found the subject very funny... :confused:

There should be a transition period iNCLUDED in a final peace-agreement and plan.

No, it isn't of course, there should be a democratic constitution.

anyway i had a good laugh with this "peace-plan"... (and Sharansky was a so-called "democrat" in Russia, it depends to who it is usefull, free elections, isn't it?...)

[Mediocrates]

What is a free election, what is a constitution? Is the PA excluded as they are from practically any other international monitoring, from election monitors? What about a one party non representative system a-la Iraq.

Why do they need these things when no other Arab state requires or is required to have them. Why not declare Arafat a monarch or president for life? He is after all the ONLY credible Palestinian. What do you hope to gain?

[Mediocrates]

I' still laughing about that one though - that's a good one. Any Palestinian or anyone who claims to be Palestinian - whatever that means , anywhere in the world regardless of how long or under what circumstances are entitled to compensation by Israel, and a plot of land.

What? No pony and a birthday cake too? How about we name a street after them and put their faces on postage stamps. How about we just give them a bamboo rod and let each on give a Jew 10 strokes and a good caining too?

[takeo]

:rolleyes:

What is free elections and a constitution, clearly not what Sharansky proposed and also not the system in most Arab states. They could take an example to Europe or even to the States or Israel. (not concerning their policy but the system). Europe is the most democratic but even the US are better than what is found in most Arab countries. (i don't mean the policy but the legal system)
anyone could take against Arafat, only not Hamas because it refused to participate. Any new party has the right to join the elections. And there should be a legislation that limits the executive power and proscribe elections every 4 or 7 years. Arafat can not be a monarch for life, if people are tired of him or find his policy a mess they should be able to vote against him. In a free palestine this should be possible. During 35 years of israeli occupation (and 19 years of Jordanian or Egyptian occupation) the palestinians however only once had the right to vote and use democratic rights.
But anyway the political system in palestine is none of your business, they have to decide for themselves. after so many years of intifadeh and repression they are not going to accept another tirant, that's the difference with other Arab countries, Palestinians have learned to think for themselves.

if Arafat has to go, OK, no problem, i have criticism on Arafat as well, but that's not upon the israeli to decide, any moove in that direction will make the position of Arafat and his popularity even stronger. and they will for sure never accept a leader appointed by israel.

not anywhere, anyone, only palestinians who can claim they lived in what is now israel and it should be researched what exactly they lost/was destroyed. than they can choose (of course they can't and won't return all to israel, but for sure some of them will and should have the right to do so, there won't be peace by the way without a settlement on this issue, the ones returning should recognise to be a citizen of israel and abide to israeli laws). On the contrary the Jews from Arab countries than can claim recompensation as well or return if they wish so. this is not luxuary but a legitimate demand since numerous years, not any less legitimate than the jewish organisations asking for compensation from Swiss banks for example. i don't think you would describe that as a pony and a birthday cake... (well that money has been abused for other purposes but that's another history, read "the holocaust industry" by another self-hating Jew...(from now on i will use that word instead of "critical Jew" as you will understand it better...)

[Mediocrates]

"(i don't mean the policy but the legal system)"

You mean the Napoleanic code: guilty until proven innocent and no jury trials? Yeah that's evolved.

[sharonbn]

This peace proposition is lacking an inportant point:

During the transition period, The status in the occupied territories should be frozen. This means no new Jewish settlement or expansion of existing ones.
This point is essential to demonstrate Israel's willing to withdraw from the vast majority of the occupied territories (as was usggested by Barak - why oh why didn't they take what he offered them!?)

Also, I believe that dismantling of the refugee camps is not a matter for the transition period (it goes with the same line as the piont above - status tobe frozen.) The fate of the refugees will be determined in the final permannent agreement.

[Mediocrates]

As "temporary" camps like Jenin approach their jubilee (50 years), their status which is unchanged in the all the years they have been under Jordanian, Egyptian, UN and Palestinian control, clearly they should be handled as an internal issue for the PA. Once the Israelis get involved in dismantling the refugee camps there will arise inescapable pressure to take on the refugees themselves.

[Vic]

takeo,

During 35 years of israeli occupation (and 19 years of Jordanian or Egyptian occupation) the palestinians however only once had the right to vote and use democratic rights.

don't forget the British, the Turks...

But anyway the political system in palestine is none of your business, they have to decide for themselves. after so many years of intifadeh and repression they are not going to accept another tirant, that's the difference with other Arab countries, Palestinians have learned to think for themselves.

How do you know? The most popular political figures are Arafat and Sheikh Yassin, not exactly good democrats both of them


But seriously -

- however imperfect, the plan addresses the problems that come out of "top-down" "nation-building" and of proclaiming a state without asking the right questions about the nature of it. The consequences we have seen in the former decade in the fmr. Soviet Union and Yugoslavia: on the whole probably well over a million dead. In other words he describes a process as oppposed to the customary "just clear out" demand (and what, one may ask, will happen the day after the "clearing out"?).

It is a given fact that the major political forces among Palestinians are either PLO-affiliated or Islamist groups, that, once in power in a hastily proclaimed state would be hardly supportive of the rise of political opponents. The methods they are likely to employ against it are not too difficult to imagine and they will be quite efficient.

I remember well my own shock when I learned about Oslo. I was far away from the actual "battle scene", but until then I always considered Arafat no more than a bandit leader with a flair for public appearances. He has never been legitimized by the very Palestinians he claimed to represent. It has disappointed me that even the West seriosly considered - in effect, by force - imposing him on the people it claimed to assist against the evils of an "occupation", well knowing that throwing him and the PLO in the relative political vacuum that existed at that time in the territories was not exactly the ideal prerequisite for democratic elections.

A Palestinian journalist compared the what was going on to a house being build from the roof downwards. A marvellous metapher, I think. The plan is at least a proposal to perform the act the proper way.

You cannot impose democracy, true enough, but you can very well impose the preconditions for it by subduing some of the less benificial political forces and assisting the other ones.


sharonbn,

Also, I believe that dismantling of the refugee camps is not a matter for the transition period (it goes with the same line as the piont above - status tobe frozen.) The fate of the refugees will be determined in the final permannent agreement.

don't you think it's high time to integrate the refugees in the normal society, whatever the location of their residence? I understand the "refugee" status is a serious social handicap for the very "refugees" it is supposed to protect. It may not be the ultimate justice, but it would give them more chances in real life than they have now. For practical purposes - wouldn't it would simply mean giving the current camps the status of normal towns or villages and putting them under the same local administration? Why should a school in the Jenin "refugee camp", essentially a part of the town of Jenin, be run by a different body than a school in Jenin proper, just a few streets away?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Vic
I always considered Arafat no more than a bandit leader with a flair for public appearances. He has never been legitimized by the very Palestinians he claimed to represent. It has disappointed me that even the West seriosly considered - in effect, by force - imposing him on the people it claimed to assist against the evils of an "occupation" [...]
I don’t know where you got this notion of the illegitimacy of Arafat by the Palestinians. This notion is historically wrong. Arafat was the de-facto leader of the Palestinians ever since the foundation of PLO in 1968. This status was formally recognized in 1974 at an Arab summit in Rabat, Morocco, the PLO was recognized as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". Subsequent to this, Arafat addressed the United Nations where the organization was given official observer status.
It is also wrong to view the part of the western world as forcefully imposing Arafat on the Palestinian people. In fact, the opposite was true. In Madrid summit in 1991, Israel, then led by PM Yitzhak Shamir, refused to negotiate directly with Arafat. By doing so, Israel tried to impose a different leadership. The Palestinians responded by making their delegation, led by Hannan Ashrawi, Abu Mazen and Abu Alla, proxies of Arafat. They would come to Tunis before and after each round of talks, reporting to and receiving instructions from Arafat. In 1993, Rabin and Peres realized the absurdness if the situation and proceeded to directly talk with the established leader of the Palestinian people.

Originally posted by Vic
You cannot impose democracy, true enough, but you can very well impose the preconditions for it by subduing some of the less benificial political forces and assisting the other ones.
I disagree with you. History shows repeatedly that any attempt to externally influence the leadership of a nation is doomed to fail in the long run. This was demonstrated in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Lebanon (where Israel attempted to crown Bashir Jumael the president) in Turkey, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, etc. The only exception I can think of is Afghanistan and it remains to be seen how the new government will function.
Currently, the majority of the Palestinians follow one leader – Yasser Arafat. There is no point in attempting to change this via external influence.

I agree that Arafat is a problematic leader to say the least. This is also evident from the words of National Security Advisor, Condoleeza rice, who said that Arafat is “not suited to run an independent [Palestinian] state the way we envision it.” But it is nobody’s business who the Palestinians elect as their leader.

Originally posted by Vic
don't you think it's high time to integrate the refugees in the normal society, whatever the location of their residence? I understand the "refugee" status is a serious social handicap for the very "refugees" it is supposed to protect. It may not be the ultimate justice, but it would give them more chances in real life than they have now. For practical purposes - wouldn't it would simply mean giving the current camps the status of normal towns or villages and putting them under the same local administration? Why should a school in the Jenin "refugee camp", essentially a part of the town of Jenin, be run by a different body than a school in Jenin proper, just a few streets away?
You are, again, missing some historical facts.
Basically, I think you're right. however, you bark at the wrong tree. If the Palestinian people, their leaders and the Arab nations were actually concerned for the living standard of the refugees, the problem could be solved 35 years ago.
The facts are that all these factors, including the Palestinian refugees themselves insist on perpetuating the status-quo and refuse to be integrated with the “regular” societies around them. The is because of two reasons:
1. They fear they will loose their claim on lands and property in Israel and occupied territories.
2. All refugees, their spouses and offspring receive monetary aid and other privileges from UN organizations like UNRWA. They also fear of loosing this aid if they integrate into the societies around them.

So, it is the Palestinians who insist that solution to the refugee problem will be part of the permanent peace agreement.

[Mediocrates]

Elected or representative or not - what is the point in negotiating with someone who won't negotiate and who is incapable of telling the truth? All over the world we see countries that can't really be dealt with: Zimbabwe, Myannamar, N. Korea, Iraq. It's fine to leave them to their own devices as long as we feel comfortable that they can:

do whatever they want to their own people
do whatever they want to their own neighbors

Although to be fair it seems disingenuous to force the Palestinians to be something no other arab nation is or has ever been; democratice. Might as well demand they split the waters.... After all we're dealing with people commonly called "Tribal Warlords" in Afghanistan in the year 2002 so I guess "Palestinian strongman and chairman of the terrorist organization formerly known as the PLO" is not much of a stretch. Let's just recognize that that's what it is.

[takeo]

actually no single war-lord in Afghanistan is recognised as the representative of all afghans, not even a people but a coalition of peoples, while in palestine arafat is the undisputed leader and accepted and choosen by most palestinians.

I agree with most what sharonbaum said.

"Elected or representative or not - what is the point in negotiating with someone who won't negotiate and who is incapable of telling the truth? All over the world we see countries that can't really be dealt with: Zimbabwe, Myannamar, N. Korea, Iraq. It's fine to leave them to their own devices as long as we feel comfortable that they can:

do whatever they want to their own people
do whatever they want to their own neighbors "

As long as they don't attack neighbouring countries and don't commit genocides it's in fact a question regarding only the people involved. Many people in the foreign don't like bush but they are not going to impose another leader. No single country or body has the legitimacy to involve in politics of another country. i have been in Myanmar it is really not any worse than for example cambodia, and about Zimbabwe it may not be a democratic leader but at least there are elections ,what can't be said of many other african countries...


"Although to be fair it seems disingenuous to force the Palestinians to be something no other arab nation is or has ever been; democratice. "

the democratic cuture is indeed not strong in Arab culture but some countries as Algeria or Morocco are beginning to opening up for democracy. democracy in Jordan and egypt by the way is feared by israel or the us because the population is much more fiercely opposed to israel and the us than the current dictators.


about the "house building up from the roof".
your examples in ex-yougoslavia are interesting but false, the problem was not that there was no legal democratic infrastructure, the problem was that the wrong people came to power trough elections, that can happen anywhere (just imagine what would have happened if le pen came to power...) and depend of the ideas of the population.

you can never build up a democracy from below by a military occupation that is resented by the population, for a democracy you need the cooperation of the population, and the population still wants arafat as their leader, and won't change their mind because israel told them so.
The PA has showed its commitments to peace during much of the 90's, even when israel under netanyahu was seriously violating oslo. the intifadeh was not started by arafat (as the first one was neither by the way) but in the streets, and new was that big parts of his infrastructure joined it, he hadn't even the power to stop it. Palestinians prefere Arafat and Yassin because they are faced by a heavy situation that's why israeli voted for an experienced crocodil extremist as sharon. However during the years of the pa they showed great criticism towards arafat, he was supposed to be too much pro-israeli, it is clear they are not going to accept another tirant (p: sheik yassin is considered by some palestinians as a tool against israel, few however want him to be the leader of an independant palestine). He is popular now because israel made him the great evil and imprisoned him, yet i heard that Bargouti is now the second most popular, not yassin.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates (post #57 in thread "Promoting true democracy in the Arab/Muslim world": http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=17037#post17037)
In your earlier post you listed the 7 point plan which is a list of 7 goals. But point 1 is the lynchpin. It implies wholesale replacement of the PA governing structure and probably the people in it. And that goal is to be met by an oversight body made up of Arab states and the US. I would think that Israel's veto is more ceremonial than effective - for if all those neighboring states helped build up the PLO as a proxy army why would they not do the same thing again?The catch is, as far as I can see: "with those Arab states which recognize the State of Israel" :) . AFAIK, Jordan and Egypt are unlikely to do that, in fact they'd want as little (violent) conflict with Israel as possible. Can one predict that the more dubious states would be let out, because they would have to recognize Israel before Israel itself makes the tiniest step?Sharansky has a bold thesis but read carefully. He is not saying build a republic. He is saying create an environment where a representative (democratic) vote would mean something. That is, create an environment where individual wishes would be represented in the political structure. This is the predicate upon which everything else is built. If average Palistinians can have their voices heard then that is the first step. Without this the mad rush for elections and 'democratization' is largely meaningless. Anyone can hold an election (even Zimbabwe or Florida :confused: ) - but the results have to mean something.But this is exactly the right thing! Take small steps, grow a reliable transparent structure the natural way, from "below". Leave the process open-ended and don't expect wonders.

I like the general direction, I don't have enough inside knowledge of the Palestinian society to evaluate the details, and therefore the realism of point 4. Elections are to be held in three years according to point 7 of the plan, yet there are no explicit preconditions for them, which may be a problem, should the interim leadership decide to sit the three years out, make symbolic gestures here and there, and then continue as usual.

(As for Zimbabwe - I love to ask my current countrymen when they get too happy over the intrinsic virtues of Western democracies and their priviledged citizens how many of them would line up for several days and nights, risking serious injuries if not their lives at the hands of security services, for the right to vote for whom they choose. Can you make the same approximation for the US?

If what we have seen in Zimbabwe is not the ideal precondition for democracy, then I don't know what is. Pity the country is left virtually without outside help - another indirect victim of the mass infatuation with the Palestinians?)There must be some Europeans out there who can analyse how Poland & Czechoslovakia avoided reelecting their communist aparatchiks. Is there anything to be learned there? Greetings from "out there" :)

There is a lot to be learned. In fact, many former "apparatchiks" are or have been government members. They caused AFAIK no more harm than other politicians.

The reason is that "developed socialism" was nearly empty of ideology. If a person with genuine leadership qualities wanted to achieve something, s/he would have to become a member of the ruling party, sit in the appropriate meetings, babble something in official speeches etc., but it didn't imply doing smth. completely dishonorable. (Typical Western methods of career-making, such as mobbing and smearing potential competitors for the position behid their backs, are in my experience much more detrimental both to the immediate surroundings and to the institutions/companies as a whole. There is even a study on how much GNP it costs in Germany. I don't remember the numbers, but they were quite impressive). Therefore, some "apparatchiks" were actually much better than their reputation, and the ones who were not were not necessarily per se worse politicians than many of their Western counterparts.

The important thing was the creation of a novel framework: genuine political competition, free media, transparency, etc. An "apparatchik" is defined by the apparatus. Once it is gone, he has to change his ways or take his leave.

This change came at a high price for the general population (economic crisis, crime, general insecurity), and there is still much room for improvement, but it functions.

There is a lot to be learned here. The first things I can think of are a sense of positive identity, motivation and self-reliance.

(Footnote: Czechoslovakia doesn't exist. It split up in the Czech Republic and Slovakia somewhere around 1992. One doesn't hear much about Slovakia, other than crime, I know the Czech situation better and will stick to it.)

Both countries have distinct languages and cultural traditions, even if their borders and sovereignity have undergone many changes in the course of history. They mastered dynamic cultural interactions with their neigbors (Russians and Germans for the Poles, mostly Germans and Austrians for the Czechs) well and still kept a clear individuality. Their recent history had its ugly aspects, especially the collaboration with the Nazis in Poland (the Czechs did offer more resistance, it seems), but they both took great pride in standing up this way or other to the USSR.

The latter served for a yearning to join the West in all respects, to become like it. It may have been partially based on rather naive assumptions, indeed, after the borders opened, private Western businesses rushed in to grab what they could, creating chaos. It took both sides (the closest "Western" neighbor, Germany, was preoccupied with its own "re-unification") several years to realize that a regulatory framework cannot hurt. Still the drive was definitely there, and is getting on the whole stronger with every success.

Self-reliance is what troubles me most when I compare the situation with the Palestinians. Have they actually ever defined themselves as anything else than victims (of the Jews in general, of Zionists, of bad luck or whatever)? Would they be prepared to sacrifice this "star victimhood" and get down to work, a much less exciting task, to sink in the anonymity of other insignificant countries? The obvious losers I can see would be the large emigrant communities, which do rely on the continuation of the conflict for their personal well-being in the West (at least in Europe). Basically, they have been corrupted in a way AFAIK no other group has ever been.

The Poles, the Czechs and dozens of other peoples in the post-Cold War Europe were left to fend for themselves. They had no one to blame, and plenty who tried to take advantage of their difficulties. Some managed it, others didn't, but that would be a different story.

[Vic]

Since this comes up again - Originally posted by sharonbn
I don’t know where you got this notion of the illegitimacy of Arafat by the Palestinians. Do you consider Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", the only solid book on Israel's history I have at hand right now, a reliable source?I disagree with you. History shows repeatedly that any attempt to externally influence the leadership of a nation is doomed to fail in the long run.Why, there was post-WWII Germany (West), for example. Its postwar development was not without problems (the riots of the 60ies, the terrorism of the 70ies, etc.), but on the whole it functioned. 53 years can be considered quite a long run, and there are no signs of decline so far, despite the turmoils of the "re-unification".

But that's actually beyond the point here. The only leadership to be formally influenced from outside is, if I understand this correctly, the one of the interim period. The idea is to create a framework within which an alternative genuine leadership could emerge. I cannot judge the realism of this under the Palestinian conditions. (Both what I see of them in Europe, and one cannot help seeing a lot, and what I hear and read elsewhere - mostly in English - makes me shudder. But then I don't know Arabic, and I cannot judge the situation "on the ground" as opposed to ubiquitous propaganda tours. My own experience as an immigrant to the West tells me to expect some difference between them.) It could be a good choice in many parts of the fmr. USSR and Yugoslavia, if implemented decently.You are, again, missing some historical facts.
Basically, I think you're right. however, you bark at the wrong tree. If the Palestinian people, their leaders and the Arab nations were actually concerned for the living standard of the refugees, the problem could be solved 35 years ago.
The facts are that all these factors, including the Palestinian refugees themselves insist on perpetuating the status-quo and refuse to be integrated with the “regular” societies around them. The is because of two reasons:
1. They fear they will loose their claim on lands and property in Israel and occupied territories.
2. All refugees, their spouses and offspring receive monetary aid and other privileges from UN organizations like UNRWA. They also fear of loosing this aid if they integrate into the societies around them.

So, it is the Palestinians who insist that solution to the refugee problem will be part of the permanent peace agreement. All the more reason to press for a solution, isn't it?

[MGB8]

Wrong, Takeo.

You ignore the examples of Germany and Japan.

By declaring war on Israel (in 2000) and losing, the Judean Arabs have lost any right to self determination until the winning party (Israel) can be assured of their peacefulness.

Thus, Israel has EVERY RIGHT to veto candidates, or deport those who should not be candidates, to examine the books, to monitor the borders etc.

The Arabs of Judea were given a 9 year trial run at having their own state, monitored by themselves, and a democracy. They failed. Israel must now act to ensure that these things are set up in a way that by the time Israel relinquishes control, the threat from these Arabs is greatly reduced.

[MGB8]

Sharon,

Lebanon...what about Syria's control of Lebanon - that seems effective.

Moreover, we are not talking about permanent control, but instead, a boundaried freedom. Like those electronic tags they put on parolees - they can go and do anything they like, but can't leave a sepcified area. Like, in fact, all people subject to laws, since a law is simply a restriction on freedom of action. Regulations on corporations are another example.

No, the Arabs of Judea have had their chance at virtually unboundaried self determination, and they failed miserably.

They are like the managers at Enron and Worldcom and Anderson etc., They need to have their actions limited, yes, for their own good, but, and this is more important, for the safety of Israel.