Sharon Goes Public with Peace Plan

**NewsGuy** · 12-08-2002, 12:01 PM

Excerpts from:

Sharon Goes Public with Peace Plan
(An IsraelForum.com original)

Full Story at: http://www.israelforum.com/dynamix/page.pl?sn=123

Ariel Sharon's opponents have often accused him of having no political plan. Consequently the Prime Minister, they claim, is forcing a military solution where one does not exist, thereby fanning the flames of Palestinian hatred and terrorism. So when Sharon last week presented a detailed peace plan adopting President Bush's vision for the Mideast, fear spread like wildfire through the ranks of Israel's Arab enemies and Leftist opposition.

[...]

The plan originates with President Bushâ€™s vision for a new Middle East, which would ultimately include a Palestinian State that would coexist peacefully alongside Israel.

[...]

The first step, according to Bushâ€™s vision and Sharonâ€™s plan, is a total cessation of Palestinian terrorism. But what happens after this first step is where Sharonâ€™s plan and Bushâ€™s vision begin to diverge. The Bush plan, later echoed in the Quartetâ€™s â€œroadmap for peace,â€ proposes a strict time-table for moving to the next step. Sharon, however, disagrees and insists that progress to later steps be a function of each side fulfilling their obligations. In other words, if the Palestinian do not stop terrorism completely, then Israel would not be obligated to make further concessions, which include withdrawing IDF troops from the West Bank and freezing all settlement construction.

[...]

Other highlights from Sharonâ€™s peace plan include a fundamental change in the Palestinian government, including a shift to democracy that would preclude Yasser Arafat from holding real power. Instead, Arafat would be designated as a national figurehead, while practical control over Palestinian affairs would be entrusted to a Prime Minister.

[...]

As part of the Palestinian reform that would precede democratic elections, Sharon proposes that the various Palestinian militias that currently make up its police and paramilitary forces would be reorganized. At the moment, the Palestinian security forces are thoroughly infested by Hamas operatives and other terrorism troops, leading Sharon to conclude that a thorough cleanup is necessary.

At the same time, a special Palestinian Ministry of the Interior would be established to collect and remove all illegal weapons currently held by Palestinian citizens.

[...]

While Arafat and his warlords plundered the international aid intended to supply humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people, the newly reformed Palestinian government would be required to conduct its financial affairs openly and with full accountability.

[...]

Likewise, the Palestinians would no longer be permitted to use EU money to recruit, train and arm suicide bombers, as has been the Palestinian norm in the past few years. The use of EU foreign aid to pay for the murder of innocent Israelis is currently accepted by the EU, and so, the new peace framework would require a fundamental change for the terrorism-funding EU, as well.

[...]

The official Palestinian campaign of incitement must stop, under Sharonâ€™s plan for peace. He believes that the systematic indoctrination of Palestinian children through anti-Semitic and terrorism-supporting messaging is a basic problem that stands in the way of peaceful coexistence.

[...]

Once the Palestinian meet the conditions set forth in Sharonâ€™s proposal, Israel would then withdraw its troops from predominantly Palestinian areas, dismantle some settlements, initiate political and economic cooperation with the Palestinians, and recognize an independent Palestinian state that would be demilitarized.

[...]

As a veteran statesman, Sharon acknowledges that there are no quick military solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore, he has come to believe that the only roadmap to peace is one which is gradual and dependent on reciprocity and fulfillment by both sides.

While he knows that he will face an uphill battle to free the peace process from the constraints of an automatic time-table, he is also well aware that progress in the Middle East can only be measured by deeds, not words, as has been proven by the failure of the Oslo agreements.

* * *

What do you think? Is this the peace plan that will ultimately end the Arab-Israeli conflict?

L@mplighterM · 12-08-2002, 04:55 PM

I had written a lengthy response to the article but I trashed it.

There are elements surrounding Israel that donâ€™t want peace. Thatâ€™s etched in stone!

If Sharon believes that the conflict stems from land issues heâ€™s wrong.

Perhaps its difficult to believe that there people in this world that dislike Jews to the point where they get enjoyment from killing them. These individuals get enjoyment from killing a 2-year-old Jewish child or a Jewish pregnant woman.

My wife bought me a used copy of the book that led to the â€œDeath Wishâ€ series starring Charles Bronson it cost her four bits+tax . Loved the movies(watched them several times my favorite part is when scum gets killed) and I loved the book!

In the book it portrayed the Arabs as being collaborators of the Nazis. Bronson(the character) also killed six neo Nazis that were killing an old Jewish man. The book was published back in 1970.

The Arabs are the New Nazis and they are going to attempt to kill every Jew and they wont stop until they succeed. Bush wont stop them nor will Sharon each generation will bring a new lot.

Addendum:

Book was published in 1975.

wellofvow · 12-08-2002, 11:01 PM

I am your typical "Middle Israeli" (hope you read Friday Jerusalem Post). We have been burnt so many times by "peace plans", "even-handedness", pressure from other countries trying to dictate to us our rights to defend ourselves, UN shenanigans - the list is interminable - that nobody had better expect that the Palestinians or the Arab world will pay attention. THEY DO NOT WANT PEACE. It's just as simple as that. All efforts will fail.

The military option that has Leftists so hysterical is the only alternative to genocide. The Europeans are such hypocrits that they should not be taken seriously in their pious meddling. Europe will fall next after Israel in the new Arab conquest.

I think that Sharon is trying one last time to send a clear message that Israel will tolerate no more duplicity. It is LONG overdue that the Palestinians make the FIRST effort. No more repetition of "promises". Just do it. In the near-decade since Oslo, they have violated every single responsibility placed on them, with not a murmur from the rest of the world. They turned down the insane Barak plan, and immediately started mass murdering Jews as never before. Again the world was silent. It should have been crystal clear for years already that THEY DO NOT WANT "PEACE". They do not want to be part of the world, they want to be the dictators of the world.

If the world does not meet head-on the Armageddon that the Muslim sector is forcing us into (and yes, I am saying put an end to negotiations that one side has absolutely no intention of honoring, and permission for this is written in their Koran). it will be the end to the world as we know it. Bloodbaths, end of democracy, women are objects to bear male fighters, you know the drill.

Moskal' · 12-09-2002, 03:07 AM

Arafat would be designated as a national figurehead,

I really wonder why. This man was a head of the terrorists for years. He was one of the most corrupted leaders in the Middle East during the years PA exists. In civilized countries people like this man are being persecuted by law.

Even if Arafat would be stripped of official powers, as a head of the state he would rapidly gain power, so that the parliament and the prime minister would become Arafat's puppets, not vice versa, just like it is in PA or Iraq today. There are not many examples of democracy in the Arab World, and the chaotic society of PA will not make it possible for some years (or decades)

It would be sad if the roadmap plan would be realized. But it never will be so, as the arabs will never stop terrorism if they are not made to.

I do not think this Sharon's plan would bring an end to the conflict, as arabs do not want peace, but land for peace. And peace is, unlike land, something not eternal. We gave them autonomy for peace. Now we have to pay peace again. Time will come, and we'll have nothing left to pay the barbarians off.

L@mplighterM · 12-09-2002, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by wellofvow
I am your typical "Middle Israeli" (hope you read Friday Jerusalem Post). We have been burnt so many times by "peace plans", "even-handedness", pressure from other countries trying to dictate to us our rights to defend ourselves, UN shenanigans - the list is interminable - that nobody had better expect that the Palestinians or the Arab world will pay attention. THEY DO NOT WANT PEACE. It's just as simple as that. All efforts will fail.

The military option that has Leftists so hysterical is the only alternative to genocide. The Europeans are such hypocrits that they should not be taken seriously in their pious meddling. Europe will fall next after Israel in the new Arab conquest.

I think that Sharon is trying one last time to send a clear message that Israel will tolerate no more duplicity. It is LONG overdue that the Palestinians make the FIRST effort. No more repetition of "promises". Just do it. In the near-decade since Oslo, they have violated every single responsibility placed on them, with not a murmur from the rest of the world. They turned down the insane Barak plan, and immediately started mass murdering Jews as never before. Again the world was silent. It should have been crystal clear for years already that THEY DO NOT WANT "PEACE". They do not want to be part of the world, they want to be the dictators of the world.

If the world does not meet head-on the Armageddon that the Muslim sector is forcing us into (and yes, I am saying put an end to negotiations that one side has absolutely no intention of honoring, and permission for this is written in their Koran). it will be the end to the world as we know it. Bloodbaths, end of democracy, women are objects to bear male fighters, you know the drill.

Thereâ€™s a high percentage of Muslims/Arabs that donâ€™t want peace and they create a stumbling block for the ones that do. This isnâ€™t a matter of a few apples spoiling the whole barrel.

There was no acceptance from Islam for the creation of the State of Israel and nothing has changed. I can certainly see why a politician would give his electorates hope but in the end itâ€™ll turn out to be false.

I suppose that the Israeli government has to show that itâ€™s trying to bring an end to the occupied land issue even if it knows itâ€™s futile. At this point it would be impossible to find an impartial body to arbitrate an end to the issues at hand.

Perhaps the best way would be for the Arab states to reasonably spell out exactly what they want and for Israel to do the same and then settle it with a roll of the dice. Actually there are precedents for that because there have been several instances where two parties had the same amount of votes and it was settled by cutting a deck of cards.

Heads I win tails you loose!

I know full well that if the Palestinians won it would just be a matter of time before they wanted to roll the dice again. At that point I would level them!

phgnome · 12-10-2002, 08:16 AM

What makes you say that -- that the majority of Arab/Muslims want to kill ALL Jews?

L@mplighterM · 12-10-2002, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by phgnome
What makes you say that -- that the majority of Arab/Muslims want to kill ALL Jews?

Statistics!

reason · 12-10-2002, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Statistics!

Provide them!

L@mplighterM · 12-10-2002, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by reason
Provide them!

They've been posted on this forum several times and in any event it's common knowledge.

Look for them yourself if you want to disprove my post.

Jorge · 12-10-2002, 12:03 PM

NewsGuy asks in the opening post of this Thread:

What do you think? Is this the peace plan that will ultimately end the Arab-Israeli conflict?

My right-wingers fellow Forum Members have nothing to worry about. This so-called "Sharon's peace plan" will not lead to peace, not even to an agreement, not even to a provisional Palestinian State. It will result in nothing more than continuing the present situation for as long as the present coalition of right wing parties is in power in Israel.

To call the speech at the Herzeliya conference last week a "peace plan" is the overstatement of the year. It's not a peace plan, neither a war plan, not even a plan at all; it's just an exercise in wishful thinking whose philosophical basis is the .E.H.W. Principle, that is : If E.H.W. cars could fly (because if Elephants Had Wings, we could put cars on the back of flying elephants)

Let's take the following as an example:

In other words, if the Palestinian do not stop terrorism completely, then Israel would not be obligated to make further concessions, which include withdrawing IDF troops from the West Bank and freezing all settlement construction.

The main perpetrators of terrorist attacks are Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and similar groups. These groups are not interested in peace, not even in agreements leading to it; they are not and they don't wish to be partners in any negotiations. As far as they are concerned, terrorism is the main strategy conducing to blotting out Israel. There's absolutely no reason to hope that they will stop their murderous actions in order that negotiations could be started. This is obvious to anyone, so obvious that it hardly needs repeating. And yet, in spite of this being so obvious, Mr. Sharon's proposes to put the whole initiative in their hands: "withdrawing IDF troops from the WB and freezing all settlement construction" is dependent on whether or not they "stop terrorism completely".

The terrorist organizations mentioned above are not interested in stopping settlements, on the contrary, if settlements proliferate, it is increasingly difficult to
establish a closed border between Israel proper and the territories, thus facilitating terrorist attacks. Mr. Sharon's government has not been particularly inclined to construct such a separation border and it's been dragging its feet about it, precisely because it would put the settlements in "the other side of the line". He doesn't even mention a closed border in his so called "master plan", even if it is undoubtedly a partial solution to stop attacks inside Israel.

The terrorist organizations mentioned above are not interested either in a withdrawal of the IDF from the territories, on the contrary, the IDF presence is a source of daily suffering and humiliation of the population at large. The continued presence only increases the number of potential recruits for their gangs.

If the said terrorist organizations could be persuaded to disband and if elephants could flyâ€¦ But this is not all, other conditions would have to be met before starting "the IDF withdrawal and freezing all settlement construction"

To be continued...

**NewsGuy** · 12-10-2002, 01:33 PM

Jorge,

Good, I see that you picked up on some of the subtleties.

For the most part, I agree with you, something that is unusual.

I, too, don't believe that any plan that requires the Palestinians to stop murdering Jews is likely to be implemented. I've come to believe that terrorism is a cornerstone of Palestinian culture and abandoning terrorism is impossible from the Palestinians' point of view. For example, in the past, when the Tenet and the Mitchell plans were the hot topic of the day, Sharon asked of the Palestinians to stop terrorism for 30 days before Israel would start concessions. As we know, the idea of the Palestinians stopping terrorism for 30 days was ridiculed by the world, because they knew that is impossible for a leopard to change its spots.

So then Sharon proposed that the Palestinians stop terrorism for 7 days before Israel would start concessions, but that too was viewed as a crazy idea. After all, how can one expect the Palestinians to stop the massacres of Israelis for 7 days? So that idea was scrapped, too.

So then Sharon proposed that the Palestinians not be required to stop all terrorism, but only to give it a 100% effort. That, too, was also seen as an impossible requirement, and the rest is history.

Now, the point I am getting at, is that you excuse the Palestinians by saying that the terrorism is being committed by only by Hamas and the other Islamic terrorism groups. Well, that is the wishful thinking that characterizes many Leftists, and is simply not true. The Karine 'A' incident and the evidence captured at the Muqata proved, complete with Arafat's personal signature that was found on authorizations to pay for suicide bomber supplies, that the truth is otherwise.

Apart from that, people like Barghouti, Jibril, Dahlan, and the hundreds of Palestinian policemen who murdered Israeli citizens in Gush Katif cannot be excused as Hamas operatives. In reality, ALL the Palestinian factions and their warlords are actively trying to destroy any hope for peace.

And apart from the terrorism groups, let's look at Palestinian society itself. The Palestinian people are those who comprise Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. The Palestinian "street" overwhelmingly supports terrorism at the present time, according to their own polls.

For these reasons, the blame for refusing to stop terrorism does not lie solely with Hamas. It is the clear choice of the Palestinian people.

And this is the real reason that I agree with you that Sharon's plan is not likely to result in progress. He is asking for something unrealistic, which is that the Palestinians be required to stop terrorism. It is, indeed, unlikely that the Palestinians will change their basic culture and join the rest of the civilized world, at least not in this generation. Maybe some time in the future, inshallah.

Originally posted by Jorge
To call the speech at the Herzeliya conference last week a "peace plan" is the overstatement of the year... If E.H.W. cars could fly (because if Elephants Had Wings, we could put cars on the back of flying elephants)

Right, if elephants had wings, if Palestinians could stop mass murdering Jews, it's all the same -- a fantasy. But then again, I find it hard to believe that Israel will recognize a Palestinian state unless terrorism stops.

But it is a mistake to say that the problem is with Sharon's plan, or that it is not a plan at all, simply because you (correctly) think that many Palestinians will not stop their terrorism.

**Mediocrates** · 12-10-2002, 01:41 PM

I would have to say this plan is irrelevant. There will be no definable 'peace' merely an accpomodation with varying degrees of violence. So all one need to is accept but not state some level of that and proceed from there. The word itself is misleading. There is no peace only an amelioration of bloodshed, a partial ceasefire.

I would have to say that they should agree to the vague outlines of this and continue with the program of decapitating the terrorist leadership.

L@mplighterM · 12-10-2002, 07:45 PM

The old west wasnâ€™t a place of peace it was a wild untamed land. There was a gun called the Peacemaker it was a .45 caliber six-gun. The weapon eventually tamed the land and brought order and justice.

Israel will never taste an everlasting peace the most that the country can hope for is a temporary reduction in terror attacks. A stalemate will never be reached with the Arabs/Muslims.

Since the onset of civilizations thereâ€™s been battles to end all wars but everlasting peace has always been elusive. Humanity is always in a state of war continuously preparing for a fight that may or may not come.

The thing that separates Muslims/Arab Fundamentalists and their supporters from the rest of us is that they make heroes out child killers. Yesterday Arafat released a statement that incidents like that (in the WB and GS) were acts of self-defense.

Jorge · 12-12-2002, 12:37 PM

From Lamplighter #13:

The old west wasnâ€™t a place of peace it was a wild untamed land. There was a gun called the Peacemaker it was a .45 caliber six-gun. The weapon eventually tamed the land and brought order and justice.

Funny you mentioning the Old West. I assume that, as the analogy goes, the israelis are the white nice guys and the palestinians the red-skined bad ones.
The red Indians were the bad ones because they fought against those bent on taking away their land. The white settlers were the good ones becauseâ€¦ becauseâ€¦ I suppose there was a reason, may be someone could tell me.

Anyway, with the help of the good old .45 gun and the always opportune arrivals of a platoon of the US Cavalry, the settlers "brought order and justice".

Those Red Indians that survived were transferred to out of the way reservations, the land was tamed and, after nearly a century of good behavior, they were allowed to build Casinos and conduct other civilized gambling activities, to effect economic development of the territories.

It is really quite an inspiring legend, its lesson being, for us israelis to heed, that in the end the good ones always win. In our case the more so, because instead of Cavalry we have tanks and helicopters. We have also the moral justification that our forefathers were here before their forefathers, a point the American settlers obviously couldn't make.

I wonder if, on the lines of General (res.) Sharon's Peace Plan, there was once a General Custer's Peace Plan. " When the Red Indians cease all hostile acts, depose their arms and introduce reforms in the managing of their tribes, we'll reopen Peace Talks. We will be willing to negotiate with their democratically elected Tribe Councils, the matter of self-rule inside the reservations. The Tribe Councils will then proceed to confiscate all illegal weapons from the Indians; they will also insure that school-children will not be exposed to any comments that may be considered derogatory concerning their fellow white Americans and the US government".

**Mediocrates** · 12-12-2002, 01:02 PM

Or you could think of the real story of the west which was a messy mixture of criminals, deputies, robber barons, government agents, the army where on an average day the last man standing in fight was made tomorrow's marshall and was just as likely to rob you the day after that. BTW the West, The 'Frontier' was officially closed in 1876 by the Federal govt. This was only 7 years after the East West railroads were joined in Promontory Point, Utah.

Dodge, Boot Hill, St. Jo, Kansas City, Denver... were all large towns, small cities that had city problems. St. Louis had a population of 350,000 in 1880. The relative number of white 'settlers' compared to the Native Americans was enormous.

The story of the Native Americans forced migrations is largely a story of big money and land purchases to facilitiate the construction of railroads. It has little to do with people, except in Oklahoma. Arkansas and the Texas panhandle where huge Federal tracts were expropriated and then flipped to whomever could make a claim. It also in part, in the SW around Utah, Nev, and Arizona had to do with silver mining.