Sharon's opinion piece in the New York Times

[Vic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/opinion/09SHAR.html



Despite this situation, there is a way forward. First, Israel must defeat terrorism; it cannot negotiate under fire. Israel has made painful concessions for peace before and will demonstrate diplomatic flexibility to make peace again, but it requires first and foremost a reliable partner for peace. [...] This elementary commitment to permanently renouncing violence in the resolution of political differences has unfortunately not been kept by the present Palestinian leadership.

Second, when Israel and the Palestinians eventually re-engage in negotiations, diplomacy must be based on realism. The race to a permanent-status agreement at Camp David and in talks at Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 failed because the gaps between the parties were too wide. The only serious option for a successful negotiated settlement is one based on a long-term interim agreement that sets aside for the future issues that cannot be bridged at present.

In the nearly two years of the Palestinian intifada, the people of Israel have seen Israel's vulnerabilities exploited, its holy sites desecrated and massive weaponry smuggled and used against Israel's cities. For this reason, Israel will not return to the vulnerable 1967 armistice lines, redivide Jerusalem or concede its right to defensible borders under Resolution 242. Movement from a long-term interim agreement to a permanent settlement can only be guided by changes in the reality of Israeli-Palestinian relations on the ground and not by a rigid timetable.

Finally, in order to reach a stable peace there has to be regional scope to diplomacy. In the Six Day War, Israel faced a coalition of Arab states. It is logical that Israel cannot reach a permanent peace with the Palestinians in isolation. Israel needs peace with the entire Arab world. For this reason, Israel has proposed a regional peace conference of like-minded Middle Eastern states that reject terrorism and seek to enhance regional stability. The idea of the conference is based on the principle that eradicating terrorism will set the stage for peacemaking, and not the reverse.

[Iori Yagami]

I`d like to see takeo prooving why all these points are wrong.

[MGB8]

Sharon has done well by going directly to the public.

The only way terrorism will stop is when the users of terror realize that they can gain nothing from it. Until then, it is a useful tool in their eyes.

Frankly, Arafat and the current PA are not worth squat. They have for too long promised their people the whole of Israel, not just the West bank, much less part of the west bank. They can not, by definition, make peace.

Moreover, Israel can not rely on any current prominent Palestinian to prevent terrorist attacks. Because Israel has to protect its citizens, allowing a Palestinian state, with open borders (through which weapons of mass destruction can be smuggled through and inside where terrorist groups can safely build on themselves) withing the next 2 generations is a non-starter.

Unless a thrid party like India wants to set up a police force inside the west bank to seek out and destroy terrorist groups, Israel must do it itself.

What is the point, I ask, of creating a Palestinian state which will be the source of Terrorist attacks (not just suicide bombers but rockets and mortars) - one which will have to be invaded and destroyed quickly after it is created. This will cause much more loss of life. Maybe it is the best option, though, another full scale war, with all the damage that goes with it - "real" casualty numbers and loss of life, not the numbers from the operations in Jenin and Ramallah.

I'm at the point where I don't believe that anything past an autonomous authority is viable for the next two generations, at minimum, if that.

[Vic]

A critical article, offering an interesting perspective:

Resolution 242 is Sharon's new darling

By Akiva Eldar

The answer to all of these questions is hidden in each of the peace plans that have pursued Sharon all the way to Washington. It lies at the basis of the Saudi proposal, the Egyptian paradigm and the document prepared by the U.S. State Department. The common denominator of all of them is their interpretation of Resolution 242: all of the territories (minus minor border adjustments) in return for peace (plus a certain amount of normalization).

Sharon has discovered that the best attack on this interpretation is paradoxically the defense of Resolution 242. He has already reminded Bush and other leaders that the resolution does not obligate Israel to withdraw from all the territories, but rather from "territories." It also does not demand a return to the 1967 borders, but to "secure and recognized borders." Sharon, in fact, is following in the footsteps of Shamir, who realized that haggling over the term "secure borders" had the rare potential for endless negotiations. And in the meantime, until the Palestinians stop shooting, they will be lured into talking about a "long-term interim agreement" - and the government will encourage the Jewish settlers in the territories to grab more land and will pave more roads for them.

Ever since the intifada broke out, the secular Israeli right has cast aside the Zionist-ideological arguments in favor of using Palestinian terror and the personality of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. The Jewish settlers have also learned that since September 11, declarations about "the fight against terror" win far higher ratings in the West than Biblical verses. Blurring the borders by human bombs, between Yizhar and Meggido, helps them recycle the argument that the Palestinians are not content with the 1967 borders.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=174637&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Which makes me wonder why the significance of the "secure borders" argument has been so profoundly neglected before.

[MGB8]

Several reasons.

One is that Israel pretty much had ignored world PR while the PLO had actually hired consulting firms to help them.

Two is that the Israeli government is hesitant to rely on ANYTHING coming from the UN, as it gives the UN more credibility than it deserves.

[Vic]

Originally posted by MGB8
One is that Israel pretty much had ignored world PR while the PLO had actually hired consulting firms to help them.
Any information/sources on these consulting firms? Thanks :)

[Mediocrates]

Check the WSJ middle column first page from last week or the week before - they're main legal advisor in the US is Palestinian American Harvard Grad.

[MGB8]

I don't remember where I heard it either, but I do recall that it was a good source and I was very confident in it. If I have time I'll try to look it up.