Ben-Eliezer expected Interim Peace Plan

[Gatorade]

In the Jerusalem Post today they had an article on what they think the the Binyamin Ben-Eliezer interim peace plan will look like that he will be presenting to the Labor Party central committee.

His Plan (not official but this is what expected and organized for simpliticy) :

1) West Bank

The Palestinian Authority can declare a state on 60-65% of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip.

2) Settlements

Israel will evacuate all the settlements in the Gaza Strip, and all isolated settlements in the West Bank. Major settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley would remain under Israeli sovereignty temporarily.

3) Jerusalem

The Palestinians could set up a municipality in east Jerusalem, but Israel would maintain sovereignty until a final peace deal is reached. The status quo of the Temple Mount would remain in place during the interim period. The parameters of the final peace deal would be agreed upon before the interim agreement is implemented.

4) Refugees

Ben-Eliezer interem peace plan will not address the refugee issue, because he does not accept their call for the Palestinians to have a limited right of return.

--------------------------------------
What is the ramifications of making Palestine a state? If there are bombings in the future coming from the Palestine nation, what future international issue will there be if Israel has to go back in and get the terrorists since the PA doesn't prevent them and in some cases encourages them?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sharonbn]

It seems reasonable plan to me.
However, I fear this will never be acceptable for the Palestinians. Thus this plan takes more of the shaps of a unilateral action than an agreement.

This does not merit the plan as not relevant. IMO, Israel should declare that peace agreement with the Palestinians is not achieveable in the foreseeable future. At least until Arafat is replaced (not by Israel! by the Palestinian people themselves) and the Palestinians foresake their "right of return" claim.

Under this declaration, Israel should draw a comprehensive, long-term (10-15 years) interim plan for the co-existence of Israel and a Palestinian authority. In this context, the so-called "Ben-Eliezer" plan seems like a good enough outline.

I would add a declaration-of-intent from Israel, saying it expects the final permanent peae agreement will be similar to the Barak-Clinton proposals of July 2000 summit. This declaration is meant to ease the worries of the Palestinians that the interim plan is intended to become the final plan.

Also, after the declaration and publishing of the interim plan, Israel should further declare that "we gave up on Yasser Arafat and his leadership. While we do not intend to impose new leadership upon a foriegn nation, we expect the Palestinian people to take action and replace him with a more reasonable person. Until such an action is taken, Israel will not negotiate on the final solution."

[Mediocrates]

Certainly in 10-15 years they would have new leadership by default. And while it's probably neither practical nor advantageous in the long run to attempt to establish a puppet PA government it IS true that the Israelis have some influence and choice in who they deal with and how. Perhaps selective carrots and sticks to specific factions who demonstrate cooperation is a better approach. They are never going to find a Palestinian version of themselves in the PA so they may as well get used to dealing with the least worst among them.

[elena_m]

"will be similar to the Barak-Clinton proposals of July 2000 summit"

have we forgotten that the PA refused to accept the 2000 proposal..

the above plan seems like more of the same

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by elena_m
have we forgotten that the PA refused to accept the 2000 proposal..

the above plan seems like more of the same

Arafat refused to accept the 2000 proposal. Once he is replaced by a more reasonable person, the negotiation can re-commence. I assume the final aggreement will be similar to the 2000 proposal.

[elena_m]

my apologies
but any sane more reasonable person would as well refuse

[Mediocrates]

Why? Because refusal is the official policy perhaps? The PLO has managed to convince the West that inaction is the same as action. Clearly the only thing that will ever bring the PLO to the negotiating table is the reality that there are no longer any other options. The PLOs collaborators in Europe and the mid east must work to convince/persuede/arm-twist the PLO that all other alternatives cannot be supported and until the PLO actually sits and bargains then the PLO cannot be supported either.

For example - some of the EU apologists here will delude themselves into believing that all EU money is accounted for and that it is used only for official purposes. OK let's have an audit of that get the EU to impose restrictions on the PLO if they are caught with their hands in the till. While it may play well with the Red Bandana crowd in the cafes I doubt seriously whether the typical EU'er wants 10 or 20% of the money they give to the PLO to be used to kill people, even if they are Jews.

For example, no matter how moderate they wish us to believe they really are there are significant factions in Iran that openly support with money and materiel terrorist armies in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. Let's impose targetted sanctions against Iran in response. Let's pressure them between the West on one side and Iraq on the other.

For example let's reduce the status of our military technology transfer operations to Saudi Arabia. They are the recipients of weapons technology that isn't even available to the US's own air force a-la the recent transfer of specially designed and built F16s. Let's hold up some maintenance material normally used to keep those fighters airworthy.

No one ever comes to bargain willingly so let's remove all other reasons not to.

At that point the Israelis and the PLO can discuss what they are willing to give up on with the full knowledge that there is no other opportunity to get up from the table. And when or if that process is signed off, make it enforceable. I suspect that even the PLO would begin to negotiate if they realized that their weapons funding was cut off and that their European and Arab masters had an interest in making them make progress.

[elena_m]

your argument being that should they be forced to the bargaining table then negotiations will occur

have you learnt nothing from the past

should a "fair" proposal be presented negotiations can occur

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
should a "fair" proposal be presented negotiations can occur
Most people would say that offering the Palestinians a 98% solution is MORE than fair.

The reason Arafat refused the Israeli offer, was that the offer did not include a guarantee of the destruction of the State of Israel, which is a pre-prequisite to any agreement from Arafat.

And, btw - while I support the immediate removal of Arafat from leadership, I predict that if Arafat is left alive, he will serve as the de facto policy-maker for any future Palestinian leadership, which will function merely as a mouthpiece for Arafat.

[elena_m]

July 8, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/08MALL.html?searchpv=day01

Fictions About the Failure at Camp David

By ROBERT MALLEY





ASHINGTON — A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat gathered at Camp David for what, in retrospect, many consider a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. From right to left, hawks to doves, comes unusual harmony of opinion both here and in Israel: Camp David is said to have been a test that Mr. Barak passed and Mr. Arafat failed. Offered close to 99 percent of their dreams, the thinking goes, the Palestinians said no and chose to hold out for more. Worse, they did not present any concession of their own, adopting a no-compromise attitude that unmasked their unwillingness to live peacefully with a Jewish state by their side.

I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose — and considerable harm — in adding to their real mistakes a list of fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David summit.

Myth 1: Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions.

Mr. Arafat told us on numerous occasions that he had not wanted to go to Camp David. He thought that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had not sufficiently narrowed the gaps separating their positions before the summit, and once there, he made clear in his comments that he felt both isolated from the Arab world and alienated by the close Israeli-American partnership. Moreover, the summit occurred at a low point in Mr. Arafat's relationship with Mr. Barak — the man with whom he was supposed to strike a historic deal. A number of Israeli commitments, including a long-postponed Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and the transfer to Palestinian control of villages abutting Jerusalem, remained unfulfilled, and Mr. Arafat believed that Mr. Barak was simply trying to skirt his obligations. It also took a genuine leap of faith — for Mr. Barak as for the United States — to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues — territory, refugees, or the fate of Jerusalem — having previously been discussed by the leaders.

Myth 2: Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations.

Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past — whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective.

To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?

In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third- holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a "satisfactory solution," leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.

Myth 3: The Palestinians made no concession of their own.

Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises.

If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.

The facts do not indicate, however, any lack of foresight or vision on the part of Ehud Barak. He had uncommon political courage as well. But the measure of Israel's concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point; it must be how far it has moved toward a fair solution.

The Palestinians did not meet their historic responsibilities at the summit either. I suspect they will long regret their failure to respond to President Clinton — at Camp David and later on — with more forthcoming and comprehensive ideas of their own.

Finally, Camp David was not rushed. It was many things — inadequately prepared for, perhaps; too informal, possibly; lacking proper fall-back options, without a doubt — but premature it was not. By the spring of 2000, every serious Israeli, Palestinian and American analyst was predicting an outbreak of Palestinian violence absent a major breakthrough in the peace process. The Oslo process had run its natural course; if anything, tackling the sensitive final status issues came too late, not too soon.



The gloss that is put on the past matters. The way the two sides choose to view yesterday largely will determine how they choose to behave tomorrow. And, if unchallenged, their respective interpretations will gradually harden into divergent versions of reality and unassailable truths — that Yasir Arafat is incapable of reaching a final agreement, for example, or that Israel is intent on perpetuating an oppressive regime. As the two sides continue to debate what went wrong at Camp David, it is important that they get the lessons right.

Robert Malley was special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He is joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by elena_m
your argument being that should they be forced to the bargaining table then negotiations will occur

have you learnt nothing from the past

should a "fair" proposal be presented negotiations can occur

That's nonsense. That's what bargaining is. A common misconception among the PLO's apologists is the "everything, instantly, NOW" syndrome. This is manifest in the view that the PLO really only has to make unilateral demands and sit back and wait for compliance. That is not negotiation. Other than "everything, instantly, NOW" what exactly has the PLO proposed? Another common mistake of the PLO's view of the world is to confuse the goal with the process. The PLO sees no process only the goal. And the goal is absolute. Except of course for the FIRST UN resolution, the one guaranteeing a Jewish state. If you can GUARANTEE a Jewish state then we can negotiate. If not, if you simply resort to table pounding and making vague threats of Palestinian hegemony then I guess you'll continue to sit in squalor. I'm sorry if that offends your delicate Canadian sensibililities, but there it is.

[elena_m]

"NOW"... I suggest you reread the Robert Malley piece

the picture isn't as preety as you'd like to depict

as for your "canadian sensibilities" comment....do you expect a similar childish rebuttal on my part?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
July 8, 2001
[url]Fictions About the Failure at Camp David
By ROBERT MALLEY
I think that something you will learn very quickly is that when you copy-and-paste an opinion piece like the one above, then there is always another opinion piece that supports the opposing point of view.

Here's Dennis Ross who was also there, at the center of the Camp David talks, who tells the press in a live interview about the lies and myths spread by the Palestinians about what happened. Of course, Ross' account shows your article to be entirely false.

Myths of the Intifada
by Fred Barnes
Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/168lewqp.asp)

"PALESTINIAN and other apologists for Yasser Arafat have propagated three myths about his failure to reach peace with Israel. And only now--two years after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed because of Arafat's intransigence--is the truth becoming known. This is mostly thanks to Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator for both the first Bush administration and President Clinton...

Arafat said no and didn't make a counteroffer. Instead, in September, he started a violent new intifada, or insurrection, against Israel. But the myth, persistently voiced by such Arafat sympathizers as James Zogby of the Arab American Institute and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, is that this was the final peace proposal. It wasn't...

In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state, refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included...

"Then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give," Ross said. He rejected the idea Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and other religious sites. He rejected the scheme for refugees and what Ross called "the basic ideas on security . . . So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him, he rejected." How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened...

But by late 2000, Ross said, Americans had learned Arafat's negotiating style. Any formal offer would be taken as the floor for further negotiations requiring more Israeli concessions...

Ross stayed behind to make certain the Palestinian negotiators had gotten "every single word." They had. A footnote: Ross insists the Palestinian negotiators were ready to accept the offer. They "understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted [Arafat] to accept it." He refused. Why? Ross believes Arafat simply doesn't want to end the conflict with Israel. His career is governed by struggle and leaving his options open. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," Ross said.

What's important about the history of peace talks in the Middle East is what it tells us about Arafat. The inescapable conclusion is that he will never reach a settlement with Israelis leading to two countries, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. The Israelis? An honest recounting of the Clinton-led peace talks shows they were willing, though hardly eager, to make substantial concessions to reach a settlement."

[Gatorade]

Setting the Record Straight

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/ross.htm

Dennis Ross who was there has some interesting quotes

"In the case of the Palestinians, the Palestinians actually said they thought the Israelis could go into the low 90s, in terms of percentage of territory, and they talked about Israel needing the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem."

" Arafat did make a request for more time to prepare, but then he would not do anything to make preparation possible. He would reveal nothing to us, on the one hand, and his negotiators all hardened their positions during this very period of time, on the other hand."

"[Arafat] met frequently with the President alone, and in those meetings, he wouldn't reveal himself. He would repeat all the old formulas, or in some cases, unfortunately, he created new mythologies.

One of his new mythologies that he created at Camp David was, "There's no temple in Jerusalem. It's only an obelisk." When you question the core of the other side's faith, that is not exactly an indication that you are getting ready to try to end the conflict."

It is a long article and to be fair I cannot do justice by quoting a couple short quotes.

[Mediocrates]

elena

I think we can all agree that prior agreements are largely dead. Resurrecting them is fruitless and certainly dredging them up to assume one can point fingers is utterly a waste of time.

My point is that typical PLO stances are very simple to summarize. They amount to "give us everything we've ever demanded and don't come back until you do. In the mean time we'll escalate the pressure by attacking you and then claiming there is nothing we can do to stop it."

In the past, Sharon demanded quiet periods before negotiations and then retracted it. Now the Israeli government has stated a willingness to negotiate with someone however Sharon has said emphatically that the Israeli government cannot trust and cannot neogiotiate with Arafat under the current organization of the PA. It is incumbant on the PA to do two things:

1) Decide to negotiate credibly
2) Find someone who can and will negotiate credibly

National leaders, representative or otherwise don't necessarily have to be the bodies around the table - that's what professional diplomats are for.

[elena_m]

past agreements are irrelevant in some context but I refuse to stare at a simplistic overview of a past....

that the Palestinians did not make concessions is a known manipulation of the actual accurance....


Sharon is not a capable voice for the issue concerning peace...Arafat neither

in my opinion the international community should directly get involved....it failed to build the structure 50 yrs ago we can only hope that it can draw the lines appropriately this time....

the 2 sides have representatives that are fueled by yrs of hate...they are not representive of the people ...they merely represent the fear of said people

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by elena_m
that the Palestinians did not make concessions is a known manipulation of the actual accurance....

the 2 sides have representatives that are fueled by yrs of hate...they are not representive of the people ...they merely represent the fear of said people

1) Which manipulation would that be - what has a PLO concession been? ?Would that be a vague claim not to stand for the destruction of Israel? OR do you mean something concrete?

2) The hue and cry of the defenders of the PLO is precisely that Arafat WAS elected and they he does, for better or worse represent what they want. So we're left with both dealing with him and not dealing with him. He claims to speak for all Palestinians yet when asked about imposing anything, his response is, "I can't control those people, don't blame me". But when the US and Israel say that he can't be dealt with, the response from the PLO and from Europe and from the West is "you must, you can't impose your own leader."

3) Certainly the unity government in Israel has about an 80% approval rating. None the less about 2/5ths of those polled by HaAretz stated that unilateral action is probably necessary to restart the peace process. Of course that says nothing about what the peace process actually is.

[elena_m]

But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel.

They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs.

They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967.

And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees.

No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises.

Comments by; Robert Malley was special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He is joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow.

[NewsGuy]

Consider these facts:

"In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state, refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included...

"Then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give," Ross said. He rejected the idea Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and other religious sites. He rejected the scheme for refugees and what Ross called "the basic ideas on security . . . So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him, he rejected." How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened...

But by late 2000, Ross said, Americans had learned Arafat's negotiating style. Any formal offer would be taken as the floor for further negotiations requiring more Israeli concessions... "

About Dennis Ross

For more than twelve years, Ambassador Dennis B. Ross played the leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process and in dealing directly with the negotiations. A highly skilled diplomat, Amb. Ross was this country’s point man in both the Bush and Clinton administrations for exploring all avenues and approaches to settling this age-old conflict. As the architect of the peace process, he was instrumental in assisting the Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement, and he successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997. He facilitated the Israeli-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together. Mr. Ross has been credited for managing the peace process through periods of crisis and stalemate...

[elena_m]

It is now known globally that the tally was 91% .... considering the gent is quoted at 97% his interpretation of the truth is questionable

[Mediocrates]

As I said before that is a bargaining stance. What did the PLO/PLFP/Hamas/PIJ neogtiators bring with them other than the faint echoes of Khruchev's shoe pounding on the table? When your response merely need be the sound of an explosion I guess it doesn't matter much the subtleties.

[elena_m]

don't present a question in which an answer has already been posted...

i refuse to repeat myself

should you see no concessions by the PA even after one of the Camp David representatives states otherwise than that's an issue in itsellf.....

[Gatorade]

"But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel."

A quote from Dennis Ross

"Bear in mind that in the Clinton idea, both sides were asked to give up fundamental animating beliefs. For the Israelis, all of Jerusalem, including the Arab part, would remain Israel.

They had to give that up as part of the Clinton ideas. Jewish Jerusalem, east and west, was going to be united. Jerusalem would be larger than ever from a historical standpoint, at least in terms of being recognized, but they would not have the Arab part of Jerusalem. Also, the Jordan Valley, which had been defined by the Labor Party as being critical to Israel's forward defense, they were not going to hold it forever. They were going to have to give it up.

So they were asked to give up what I would call the two myths that had been so fundamental to their own ethos, and the Palestinians were being asked to give up the myth of right of return , which is so fundamental to their ethos. In the end, Barak was prepared to do what was required of him. Arafat, at least from our judgment, was not ."


Bottom line in my view is that there won't be a deal until Arafat is out of the picture. He has been able to sit on the fence for too long has shown time and again that he wants to stay on the fence and keep his people in chaos so he will stay in power.

[elena_m]

it sounds like convenient gossip considerring the latest rhetoric coming from Sharon...

who were these 2 Palestinians?
what were their names?
were they quoted as such?
has anyone asked them if it actually ocurred?

etc and so forth

to declare someone said that.....
holds no weight

[Gatorade]

Fair enough. You can disregard it. I shouldn't have included it as evidence since I don't know the names of the guys names.

The reason Sharon was able to come to power was because the Palestinians rejected peace proposal in 2000. They had the framework for a sovereign state on the table, refused to make a counter offer, stormed out of negotiations and intentionally turned towards a policy of terrorism and violence.

Since the Israelis could not make peace, they elected someone who was going to act strongly to defend them. And, Sharon has done just that.

If and when the Palestinians and Arabs sincerely accept the idea of peaceful co-existence and return to the negotiating table, Sharon will either make peace with them or get thrown out of office. That's the beauty of democracy (and a particular strength of the Parliamentary system with its mechanism for a vote of not confidence).

How long ago was Arafat elected? When is his term up? His power resides from unrest. If he wanted peace, he could have it or be working toward it.

[elena_m]

no no no

Israelis voted for Sharon because the man's little visit to the Temble escalated a bombastiic terrorist response by the Palestinians...

agression via tit for tat erupted at such a scale that Israelis made it clear that their vote was one for force

[cerulean]

Originally posted by elena_m
no no no

Israelis voted for Sharon because the man's little visit to the Temble escalated a bombastiic terrorist response by the Palestinians...

agression via tit for tat erupted at such a scale that Israelis made it clear that their vote was one for force

It's been clearly documented that the intifada did not result from Sharon making a brief visit, approved in advance, to the Temple Mount.

But wait - a few minutes on the Temple Mount is justification for continuous terrorist action since then?

[elena_m]

clearly documented?

where?

thankfully there are many Jews who state otherwise.

Apr 1, 2002 -

In the biblical myth of the exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, commemorated during these days by Jews the world over in the holiday of Passover, the Egyptian Pharaoh is repeatedly presented with opportunities to free the slaves and end the plagues that God is besieging Egypt with. Each time, until the last, his "heart hardens", sometimes on its own and sometimes his heart is caused to harden by God (and what this says about God, and his portrayal in the Pentateuch has been the subject of speculation by biblical scholars through the centuries). In the end, Pharaoh would relent and free the slaves, but only after many lives are needlessly lost, in the plagues and in a futile attempt to recapture them, when the waters of the Red Sea close on the pursuing Egyptians. This myth, a foundational tale of Jewish religion and culture, is being played out again, with Ariel Sharon in the role of Pharaoh.

Perhaps the main difference in this analogy between Pharaoh and Sharon is that Pharaoh at times realized that freeing the slaves was his best course of action, then reconsidered. Sharon is steadfast in his determination to fight to maintain the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and full Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. He appears to have no regard at all for the lives of Israelis, civilian and military, that this will cost, his pronouncements of "security" and response to attacks on civilians notwithstanding. It is surely clear to all that any cost in Palestinian lives is meaningless to him.

In what might be the most comical, if it were not so horrifying, aspect of the current state of affairs, the United States has been quite clear in asserting Israel's right to "self-defense". The Bush administration seems to be, in such a statement, ignoring both the mushrooming instability throughout the Middle East that Sharon is causing as well as the fact that these actions have brought only more suicide bombings, more insecurity, more death and destruction on the people of Israel. Apparently, Bush's definition of "self-defense" includes suicide.

This is a moment of the most severe peril in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Sharon government has made it clear they are unwilling to discuss a negotiated peace through its complete dismissal of the recent Arab League proposal, and the subsequent invasion of Palestinian cities (currently spreading out from Ramallah to Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Qalqilya) is raising the rage and despair of Palestinians to levels so high that they are unprecedented, even in this long and bitter conflict. Suicide bombings and shooting attacks by Palestinians have become daily occurrences and have raised the level of Israeli anxiety and anger to similarly high levels. This not only raises the real possibility of an explosion in the region so great that the horror of it cannot be imagined (particularly if Yasir Arafat should be killed), but, even if the worst does not immediately occur, that the level of hatred will get to such a point that any reconciliation will become virtually impossible for the foreseeable future.

The danger of the moment should not be underestimated, but the situation is far from hopeless. The international community, even including the US, has made it clear that it will not accept Israel re-conquering the Palestinian territories, and it seems that even Sharon is aware that it is only a matter of time before he is forced to withdraw again. Yet, as we have seen in recent events, Sharon is only put off by such pressures until the time he feels he can get away with more of the same again for a while. As people continue to mobilize within Israel and Palestine to break this vicious cycle, it is perhaps most important that we, in the West and especially in the United States, raise our voices, mobilize, make a loud call to our elected officials and fellow citizens for the US to act to change its Middle East policy. Only in this way can Israel be sufficiently pressured to get serious about ending its 35-year occupation.

A Jewish Voice for Peace has been engaged for some time in a campaign to suspend US aid to Israel until it ends its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. This is the lever that the US has to get even the Sharon government to relent. We invite all of you to join us in this campaign, and to raise a similar call in your own organizations and communities.


Mitchell Plitnick Newsletter Editor Jewish Voice for Peace
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
thankfully there are many Jews who state otherwise.
Another tedious copy-and-paste job devoid of any independent thinking from elena...

Well, "thankfully", there are Palestinians who state otherwise. Here's my own copy-and-paste contradicting yours. I hope that sooner rather than later, you'll start learning that your copy-and-pastes of entire opinion pieces are really useless:

Did Sharon Spark the Riots?
By Marshall Roth

Today, months after the violence started, media outlets still cavalierly refer to the Intifada as being "sparked by Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount."

However, Palestinian Minister of Communications Imad el-Falouji has testified on numerous occasions to the contrary -- admitting that the Palestinian Authority initiated the violence that began in September 2000.

Here is a report from Al-Ayyam, the Palestinian Authority daily newspaper (December 6, 2000):


Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications Imad el-Falouji confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had began preparations for the outbreak of the current intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself. Mr. Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this intifada as a culminating state to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

Indeed, Palestinian violence had already begun before Sharon's visit. The prior week, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside of Israel. The morning before Sharon's visit to the Mount, a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, used his automatic rifle to murder his partner, and then wounded another Israeli policeman.

The Palestinian Minister reiterated his remarks in Newsday:


Palestinian officials contend that Palestinians rose up in spontaneous anger in September when Israeli hard-line politician -- and now Prime Minister-elect -- Ariel Sharon visited the disputed Jerusalem holy site known to the Jews as the Temple Mount and to Palestinian Muslims as... the Noble Sanctuary.

But, in remarks reported by the Associated Press, Falouji said it was a mistake to think that this was the cause for the uprising. Instead, He said, it was planned after the failure of last summer's failed peace summit at Camp David, MD, which was brokered by then President Bill Clinton... He said the uprising 'had been planned since Chairmen Arafat's return from Camp David, when he... rejected' American pressure for Palestinian concessions as part of a peace deal.


The rioting that followed Sharon's visit was not spontaneous. When Sharon ascended the Mount, he saw the mounds of boulders which had been prepared in advance for pelting Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall below. The next day, the preacher at al-Aqsa mosque called at prayers to "eradicate the Jews from Palestine." Official Palestine television began playing over and over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-93 showing young people out in the streets throwing stones. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street.

More evidence comes from the semi-governmental, Beirut "Daily Star" (March 3, 2001):

A Palestinian Cabinet minister said on Friday that the five-month-old uprising against Israel had been planned since the Camp David peace talks failed in July, contradicting past contentions of a spontaneous outburst from Palestinians on the street. Imad Faluji, the Palestinian National Authority's Communications Minister, said during a PLO rally in Ain al-Hilweh refutifada, in which more than 400 people have been killed, was planned.

It is time for the media to stop referring to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as "sparking the Intifada".

[elena_m]

"Another tedious copy-and-paste job devoid of any independent thinking from elena... "

i've always found such rebuttals humourous..to classify one as independent because the lady or gent reiterated in his/her own fashion instilled beliefs that are held by many

one must redundantly reuse words as there own projected ideas while really merely waiting for another to declare brilliance for such a cleverly crafted presentation


how easily you belittle
it s quite funny in that ironic sort of way

and had you read my post properly.....I never stated that the uprising occurred as of the day Sharon visited the temple....I stated that it

"escalated a bombastiic terrorist response by the Palestinians"

considering you've presented yourself as intellectually superior you should have noticed the distinction

[sharonbn]

elena,

91% was what was offered by Barak at July 2000 in Camp David.

97% was the Clinton plan brought to the table on December 2000.

You quoted Robert Malley saying the Palestinians "accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. " and "accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem"

WHERE is this territory that Malley speaks about? is it less than 9%? less than 3%?
Did the Palestinians or didn't they agree to the 91% Barak proposal or 97% Clinton proposal? there can only be one answer to that!
The historical fact remains, that in both times, Arafat turned the proposals down.

you say: (post #8)
"should a "fair" proposal be presented negotiations can occur"

You mean to tell me that:

1. Anything less than 100% is unfair?

2. a Difference of 9% between official Israeli proposal and official Palestinian proposal - that is a good enough reason to abandon the peace process and initiate violent campaign against Israel?

------------

On Sharon's visit to temple mount in Sept 2000:
I agree with you that this action was a provocation by Mr. Sharon. but I ask again - is this a good enough reason to prolong the campaign for 20 months?

[Gatorade]

I am not sure what we are even debating.

Elena said she doesn't think Arafat or Sharon are capable of making peace.

So she agrees that Arafat isn't capable. If she believes the are equal in blame, I believe she is mistaken. So maybe that is what we are debating.

I guess we are debating if Sharon is capable of making peace. As I said before if Sharon is incapable and the Palestinians want peace, Sharon will be voted out.

But look at some history and it shows, even if he isn't the best man for the job for peace, Sharon is capable - he helped dismantle settlements in the Sinai and was involved with the peace treaty with Jordan. When Zinni went to Israel earlier this year, Sharon agreed to a cease fire. The Palesitnians continued their terrorist bombings, but the Israelis refrained from responding in order to give Zinni a chance to negotiate with the Palesitnians. Then, the Palesitnians carried out the Passover massacre, and Israel decided that enough was enough.

[Jorge]

Much has been made about the supposed outright rejection
of Israel's proposals by the palestinians but "it ain't necessarily
so" .

There weren't really any formal israeli proposals at Camp David II,
the way Mr. Barak and his enourage told the story, there were
only ideas put on the table, with the proviso "what if". Regarding the Clinton plan, with all its common sense, it was just the plan
of Bill Clinton and not formally accepted by the israeli government
of the time.
Even if no agreements were reached at Camp David, there was no break in the negotiations at various levels and another round was held at Taba. By then it was pretty clear to the palestinians that Mr. Barak had no chance of being re-elected and that the majority of of israelis were behind Mr. Sharon's views. In short there wasn't much point from the palestinian point of view, to agree to proposals that weren't proposals and that, in any case, wouldn't have been approved by the israeli Knesset or through a plebiscite.
The election of Mr. Sharon by such a substantial majority
meant, in the eyes of a large number of palestinians, that the road of negotiations was blocked and that the only alternative
was the road of violence. The problem by then wasn't about
93,4% or 91,2%, it was distrust about whether negotiations
would ever lead anywhere.
It could have been that, had the palestinian leadership
acted with moral responsibility, the second intifadah would not
have attained the intensity it took. As it was, the success of Hamas and other terrorist organizations in igniting israeli
public opinion, on one hand and the success of the israeli right
wing in imposing its guidelines to the army reprisals,on the other hand, proved too strong for a weak leadership as that of Mr.Arafat's.
To picture the recent history of the conflict in terms
of continous peace efforts by israeli governments and continous
refusals on the part of the palestinians is far from being a reliable
account of the events. After all Israel did not comply qith the Oslo agreements regarding dates of implementation and the freezing
of settlements.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Jorge
There weren't really any formal israeli proposals at Camp David II,
the way Mr. Barak and his enourage told the story, there were
only ideas put on the table, with the proviso "what if". Regarding the Clinton plan, with all its common sense, it was just the plan
of Bill Clinton and not formally accepted by the israeli government
of the time.
Where does your information come from? I have certainly heard Barak himself state repeatedly on US television that there was a formal proposal and that Israel did accept the Clinton proposal.

And this is supported by Dennis Ross who, like Barak ,was also personally present at the negotiations. According to Ross and Barak, what you stated is simply not true.

Do you have a source to support your claims?

[Jorge]

quote from NewsGuy:

Where does your information come from? I have certainly heard Barak himself state repeatedly on US television that there was a formal proposal and that Israel did accept the Clinton proposal

a) Israel never accepted the so-called Clinton Plan; this plan
included far reaching concessions from the israeli side regarding,among others the division of Jerusalem, the creation of
a Palestinian State and the closure of a number of settlements;
you must be aware of the israeli position on these points.
Had Israel agreed on any or all these points, they would have been binding for the next government. Mr. Sharon claims
(and he's legally right in this) that since no formal israeli proposals
were then made he's under no obligation to use them as starting points should negotiations reopen in the future. The issue is not
so much what Mr. Barak might have said or not said in private
talks. During the election campaign he repeatedly denied having made any formal proposals regarding Jerusalem and the resetlement of refugees. ( Sorry, my sources are the same as yours: TV and radio interviews; I'll try to dig some written material). The issue is that, according to the israeli rules, any proposal would have to be ratified first by the israeli cabinet,
which was not the case; furthermore there was consensus that
due to the sensitive nature of the issues, they would have to be
put to the Kneset or even better, to a plebiscite. It was clear to
everyone that, given the political atmosphere of the time there was no chance that those concessions could have been approved.

[Gatorade]

Jorge,

Can you please put double spaces between your paragraphs? It would make it easier to read your thoughts.

Barak publicly said he was willing to go along with the Clinton Plan

Newsweek May 6, 2002 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/744508.asp#BODY) interviewed Barak said:

Following Camp David, there were more contacts. Then in December, Clinton proposed new terms that went beyond Camp David. He added another 2 to 3 percent to the Palestinians. We had a lot of reservations but were ready to accept if the other side was ready. But once again they said “no.”

By then it was pretty clear to the palestinians that Mr. Barak had no chance of being re-elected and that the majority of of israelis were behind Mr. Sharon's views. In short there wasn't much point from the palestinian point of view, to agree to proposals that weren't proposals and that, in any case, wouldn't have been approved by the israeli Knesset or through a plebiscite.

If the Palestinians really did accept the proposal and only rejected it because they thought the Israelis cabinet would have rejected it, the Palestinians made a huge diplomatic error. They could rightfully claim they want peace and Israel rejected a reasoanble offer that an Israeli PM accepted. But they didn't take this approach. They rejected this offer and it is pretty reasonable to think they rejected it because they didn't like what was in the proposal.

[kauffner]

Originally posted by sharonbn


Arafat refused to accept the 2000 proposal. Once he is replaced by a more reasonable person, the negotiation can re-commence.

These days, Arafat is just a weathervane. What happens in Iraq and Iran is what will make or break the peace process.

The U.S. liberation of Iraq is scheduled for early next year. Once U.S. troops are in Iraq, the regime in Iran will have to pipe down, if it survives at all. The overwhelming majority of Iranians have always voted for the most moderate candidate who is allowed to run, so the Islamic republic is built on a brittle base. Ordinary Iranians don't have the animus toward Jews that Arabs do. (Even for the current Iranian regime, America is the great Satan; the emnity against Israel is several notches lower.)

After Iraq was defeated in 1991, we had about five years of peace before the evildoers were able to make a comeback. A stronger dose of same medicine will likely have a bigger impact.

[kauffner]

Originally posted by Jorge
By then it was pretty clear to the palestinians that Mr. Barak had no chance of being re-elected and that the majority of of israelis were behind Mr. Sharon's views.

This isn't a sensible reason for Arafat not to put forward a counterproposal. If Arafat had put forward a reasonable proposal, it would have changed the dynamic of the Israeli election. What's more, it would have made it a lot harder for the U.S. to support Israel. I am sure Arafat knows this, even if you don't.

To the Arabs, Jerusalem is what this war is about. It is also the rock on which Clinton and Barak stubbed their toes on at Camp David. Jerusalem has been a majority Jewish city since the 1860s, so turning it over to Arab soveriegnty would be a hard sell in the West. Journalists may be so militantly secular that don't even know what the Temple Mount is, but anyone who reads the Bible isn't thinking of Jerusalem as a Muslim city.

To sell the Palestinain position in the West, the PA tells people that the issue is Jewish settlements on the West Bank. This fiction would be difficult to maintain if Arafat had actually presented a document spelling out what he wants. This way, he is free to be all things to all men.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by kauffner
This isn't a sensible reason for Arafat not to put forward a counterproposal. If Arafat had put forward a reasonable proposal, it would have changed the dynamic of the Israeli election. What's more, it would have made it a lot harder for the U.S. to support Israel. I am sure Arafat knows this, even if you don't.

True. After the failure of Camp David, polls conducted in Israel showed that 65% of Israelis supported the ideas put forward by Barak. Based on these polls, Barak continued the talks (while Israel was under Palestinian fire) in Taba. The support gradually declined as the violent continued.

Originally posted by kauffner
To the Arabs, Jerusalem is what this war is about. It is also the rock on which Clinton and Barak stubbed their toes on at Camp David. Jerusalem has been a majority Jewish city since the 1860s, so turning it over to Arab soveriegnty would be a hard sell in the West. Journalists may be so militantly secular that don't even know what the Temple Mount is, but anyone who reads the Bible isn't thinking of Jerusalem as a Muslim city.

I believe the refugees "right of return" is the most hard to crack issue and where the biggest gap lies between Israel and PA. Until the Palestinians abandon this demand, no lasting peace can be established.

Originally posted by kauffner
To sell the Palestinain position in the West, the PA tells people that the issue is Jewish settlements on the West Bank. This fiction would be difficult to maintain if Arafat had actually presented a document spelling out what he wants. This way, he is free to be all things to all men.

Oh so TRUE!!
Never in the history of the conflict did the Palestinians put forward THEIR proposal for permanent peace agreement, specifying borders of the Palestinian state.
In all the negotiations in Madrid, Oslo, Wye, Cairo, Camp David and Taba, the Palestinians always took the passive stand, responding to the various proposals presented by the Israelis.

Shlomo Ben Ami, the prominent Israeli negotiator during Barak's ministry said in an interview to Haaretz paper that the one most frustrating issue the Israelis encountered in Camp David and after it in Taba was the lack of any initiative from the Palestinians.

In Camp David, Clinton had an idea to try to break the ice between the parties: He suggested a role play: Let the Israelis be the Palestinians and vice versa and each side was to draw their ideal solution from this perspective. The rules of the game were that the proposals are not binding. This rule was supposed to free the minds of the participants from possible future ramifications. According to Ben Ami, the Israelis fully participated in the game and found it was an eye-opening experience. This is was also the case for Clinton, who later commented that in this game he was able to see what was Israel’s absolute red lines and what was open for compromise. Watching this game, Clinton started thinking about what was to become “The Clinton paper” that was presented in Dec. 2000.
And the Palestinians? After reluctantly agreeing to play as Israelis, their solution was full 100% withdrawal from occupied territories.

[Jorge]

. I remarked on 05-10 that no formal proposals were made
by the Israeli side at Camp David II and later at Taba.
In spite of the critical comments that this remark provoked no one came up with any evidence on the contrary.

Regarding my point that Israel never formally accepted the Clinton Plan, I must thank Gatorade for quoting Mr. Barak telling in Newsweek :
[COLOR=blue]We had a lot of reservations but were ready to accept if the other side was ready. But once again they said “no.”

That is, they were ready to accept but, in the end and for the reasons stated, they didn't accept.
Looking in retrospect I don't think that what was said or not said at Camp David was particularly important. It's just that people keep pounding on and on about this "rejection by Arafat of Israeli proposals" as another instance of palestinian malevolence.

Gatorade makes however an interesting point when he remarks that (quote):

[COLOR=blue]If the Palestinians really did accept the proposal and only rejected it because they thought the Israelis cabinet would have rejected it, the Palestinians made a huge diplomatic error. They could rightfully claim they want peace and Israel rejected a reasoanble offer that an Israeli PM accepted. But they didn't take this approach. They rejected this offer and it is pretty reasonable to think they rejected it because they didn't like what was in the proposal.

I agree entirely that it was a huge diplomatic error; even if there weren't any formal proposals the palestinian leadership should
have shown a more cooperative spirit and at least obtained international credit for their position. There are some reasons for this lack of spirit; the Palestinians didn't really want to go to Camp David, the conference was badly prepared, the Agenda wasn't clear and both Barak and Clinton were in their way out. But Mr. Clinton wasso persistent that in the end they agreed to go. By then the palestinian streets were starting to burn
and there was widespread disillusion abou t so many conferences and so few results. If Mr. Arafat had been a leader of more stature he would have confronted the maximalists in his side and gone along at least with the spirit of Camp David; a true leader must show the way and not go with the herd. By not doing so,the extremists filled the vacuum and the intifadah started rolling.

A few weeks later,Mr. Sharon came to power, he also lacked the courage to confront the maximalists in his side and continue
the negotiations. The intifadah changed into a snow ball that kept growing and growing. Sad story!.

[Mediocrates]

"I believe the refugees "right of return" is the most hard to crack issue and where the biggest gap lies between Israel and PA. Until the Palestinians abandon this demand, no lasting peace can be established."


I believe this is a newly made up fake issue the PLO whipped up when it became clear that the UN was going to keep these people behind wire forever. Any historian will tell you that many many mass migrations in the last 150 years can be interpreted as one country exporting their unemployment to some other country. I believe this is the heart of the 'right of return'. The PLO and its extra-Palestinian Arab masters want to use their own underclasses as human wave assaults against the Israelis and the West. It solves two problems:

1) They move their less than employable, less than educated populace to another country where if we are to believe anything the UN and PLO say would simply become another dragging anchor on someone else's economy and society.

2) They get to transplant a potentially militant population into the heart of the enemy and become an unmovable fifth column.

The PLO doesn't want these people because they can't afford, on their own to manage them. Unless the UN, the US and the EU intends to permanently manage the camps to the tune of nearly US$700 million/year (and for UN money, 50% is American supplied). I doubt this will be the case for after all the good salon Marxists in Europe understand how much money they're paying to keep the Palestinians in squalor they will abandon them after they acquire a modicum of independence. So the PLO sees clearly that if they have any chance at all to develop an economy they won't be able to do it with all of those poor people. Why not dump them on someone else?

I wonder (not really) if the PLO when it becomes independent, will allow the OTHER 4 million Palestinians living in other Arab countries an around the world to come to Palestine. By their own publications there is no such thing as a Palestinian citizen of another country - that flies in the face of their made up fake diaspora. So one can see, eventually, an independent Palestine filled with free Palestinians AND not so free Palestinians of indeterminate status AND 2/3rds of all the Palestinians in the world living in camps in other countries and in indeterminate status as well. The PLO's world view is Palestine for the PLO and everyone else is someone else's problem.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Jorge
Mr. Sharon claims (and he's legally right in this) that since no formal israeli proposals were then made he's under no obligation to use them as starting points should negotiations reopen in the future. The issue is not so much what Mr. Barak might have said or not said in private talks.
No, Jorge, I think you are mistaken. There were formal proposals made both by Israel and by the US, which were documented, according to Dennis Ross, who states that he personally made sure of that.

However, there was no formal AGREEMENT between Israel and the Palestinians, and this is why Sharon is under no obligation. The Palestinians simply rejected the 98% solution and now that offer is, rightfully, no longer on the table.

As for your other point that any such proposal would need to be approved by the cabinet, the entire Knesset and even a Plebiscite, you are almost correct. Proposals do not need the approval you mentioned. Again, it is an agreement that would be subject to the approval process you described, before it is put into law.

It was clear to everyone that, given the political atmosphere of the time there was no chance that those concessions could have been approved.
Well, Barak thought there was a good chance of having the deal approved, if the Palestinians were also ready to accept it.

As history has shown, it wasn't the "political atmosphere" that was to blame -- it was the non-stop acts of terrorism and suicide bombings, along with Arafat's rejection of peace, that derailed an agreement.

I think it's fair to say that the Israeli voters did not vote for Sharon because they thought Sharon had a better peace plan than Barak. Instead, they were driven to understand that Arafat would reject ANY peace agreement, and there would be no end to the Palestinian terrorism. Therefore, Israelis preferred Sharon's approach of requiring and end to terrorism before any more "painful concessions"would be presented.