The Switzerland agreement - new peace initiative

sharonbn · 10-09-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Communication
Sharonbn:

The "vertical" division of sovereignty for the temple mount won't work. What happens if there is a major earthquake, leaving the PA in control of air space? It might not even take an earthquake since underground construction by the Waqf has already resulted in compromising the structural integrity of the western wall.

There were few key provisions that the parties could compromise on, even at Taba. I am hopeful, but will be surprised if the talsk result in a workable agreement.

1) In case of a "major" earthquake in the midst of Jerusalem, I really believe the LAST thing to worry about will be control of the temple mount.

2) The issue of the construction work of the waqaf is irrelevant to the peace proposal (they ARE doing the work regardless of any peace proposal), and therefore needs to be resolved regardless if the agreement is signed or not.

**Mediocrates** · 10-09-2003, 02:03 PM

You remind me of the terrified dutiful child doing everything for drunken abusive mommy just so she won't go wild and beat your ass.

Sorry, but you do.

Let's slash out a list of the 3 million things Israel should do for the Palestinians because otherwise they might get angry and start swinging their fists around.

Let's jack codependence to a national scale. Let's play 'Imagine what the PLO won't get murderous about and then do that.' But most of all let's just throw up our hands and pretend that a group of people who are completely unable to tell the truth or even make a coherent rational demand or do anything remotely close to running a state not barely out of the Bronze Age will suddenly become this pinnacle this jewel of moderation, tolerance and progressive thought. Yeah let's do that.

Then a unicorn might fly out of my ass.

sharonbn · 10-09-2003, 02:42 PM

Lets kill all of them in a happy bloodfest.
and then basque in the sun with a smile and think happy thoughts.

L@mplighterM · 10-09-2003, 03:20 PM

I donâ€™t think that it would be legal to kill all the Palestinians although it would effectively reduce terrorism. If Israel annexed the WB and GS and then started a civil war that targeted the 73 % that support Arafat, then I think it would wash.

Being a humane nation I believe that Israel will keep on sacrificing its citizen to the barbarian Arab child killers. I suppose peace must prevail at all costs!

20 Israelis get killed and the government bombs an empty camp and targets and kills a couple of terrorists. Life goes on!

NO! Terrorism has to stop NOW!

Lowell · 10-09-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Mil
Two things:
1. Israeli/Pal/Arab conflict is distabilizing the entire region on each and every front.
2. How is Israeli survival at risk?

Political agreenments in history have been done under even more duress, pressure and violence then what's happening in Israel/Palestine.

They were conquered in war to begin with. I do agree that making agreenments with an Arab side is next to impossible (Arabs/Pal regimes are incapable of any serious political diplomatic moves) , however, there are still political solutions to the conflict that would require Israel to make some very painful concessions. Concessions to itself.

1. Incorrect. It is terrorism from Arabs that has kept the Middle East unstable, and only the cessation of terrorism will bring stability.
2. Israel cannot hope to survive as a nation if it must make greater and greater concessions in an attempt to assuage the anger and hatred of the Arabs. No nation has ever survived by making extreme concessions to an enemy, the peace from such is always illusory and short.

To be sure, political agreements have been reached under pressure. Czechoslovakia comes to mind.

Why must Israel be compelled to do the 'next to impossible' in trying to reach agreement with the unreliable Arabs? Why not simply do the more possible and eradicate terrorists in the Middle East? Why are not painful concessions, such as ceasing their terrorism, demanded of the 'Palestinians'?

Lowell · 10-09-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by sharonbn
Lets kill all of them in a happy bloodfest.
and then basque in the sun with a smile and think happy thoughts.

If you're serious...

Miriam · 10-10-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by sharonbn
Leading the new initiative are Yossi Beilin, former Labor MK, now member of Meretz party, and former Palestinian minister Yasser Abbed Rabu. Ynet declines to reveal names of additional participants, but reports that Arafat, Abu Mazen and Abu Alla are aware of the agreement.

Ynet reports that the work on the agreement took 12 months and was financed by Switzerland. International involvement included Japan, EU and the US. The meetings took place in various places in the world, including the UK, Japan, Switzerland and Israel.

Israeli sources involved in the preparation of the agreement told Ynet that these understandings proove that "there is someone on the other side to talk to, and there is something to talk about."

What I fail to understand is that this is Big News... unless Switzerland and the others plan a coup d'etat in Israel, of course. Otherwise, isn't it pure chatter? Is there any conceivable chance of Beilin becoming a leading member of the government within the nearest future?

**Mil** · 10-10-2003, 07:39 AM

Posted by Lowell:

1. Incorrect. It is terrorism from Arabs that has kept the Middle East unstable, and only the cessation of terrorism will bring stability.

Incorrect. Israeli/Pal conflict is very distabilizing to the entire region and if anything each and every Arab government wants it to be over as soon as possible - they just don't know how to achieve it.

2. Israel cannot hope to survive as a nation if it must make greater and greater concessions in an attempt to assuage the anger and hatred of the Arabs.

Actually Israel is surviving pretty well.

No nation has ever survived by making extreme concessions to an enemy, the peace from such is always illusory and short.

Czehoslovakian example does not work here - so lets not use it.

To be sure, political agreements have been reached under pressure. Czechoslovakia comes to mind.

And under violence - lets say Northern Ireland or Nicaragua. Even places like Somalia, former Yugoslavia and even Chechnya.

Why must Israel be compelled to do the 'next to impossible' in trying to reach agreement with the unreliable Arabs?

It doesn't, however, the only way to resolve this conflict is through political means only. The only political weapon at Israel's disposal is unilateral separation.

Why not simply do the more possible and eradicate terrorists in the Middle East?

Don't make me laugh. Terrorism comes from nationalism - how can you eradicate that?

Why are not painful concessions, such as ceasing their terrorism, demanded of the 'Palestinians'?

See above. It's impossible.

**Mediocrates** · 10-10-2003, 07:41 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1008596981749

Barak deplores leftists' 'Swiss Agreement'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tovah Lazaroff and Gil Hoffman Oct. 9, 2003

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

Former Labor prime minister Ehud Barak has harshly criticized the "Swiss Agreement", an alternate peace agreement with the Palestinians penned by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo.

He called it "irresponsible and damaging to the State of Israel," Y-Net reported. He said that if the Labor Party wants to be taken seriously, it cannot be a party to such initiatives that "confuse both the public and our friends alike."

A group of left-wing and Labor politicians left for Jordan on Thursday evening to sign the agreement.

Labor Party sources told The Jerusalem Post that Beilin and Rabbo have been working on their plan for over a year.

Labor MKs Amram Mitzna and Avram Burg are also participating in what is the latest round of an ongoing series of dialogues, and the larger group of Israelis involved also includes Shinui MK Etti Livni.

In late 2000, near the end of former US President Bill Clinton's second term, Israeli and Palestinian officials meeting in Taba, Egypt, came up with an outline of an agreement that roughly called for Israel to cede some 95 percent of the territories, for Arab control of east Jerusalem, and for the right of refugees to return to a new Palestinian state, but not to pre-1967 Israel.

"It is a very serious attempt to bring before the public the possibility of a final contract with the Palestinians ... There are solutions we can live with concerning all issues like borders, water and transportation," said Livni, who did not travel to Jordan with the delegation.

Mitzna told Channel 1, "Both sides have a more mature and better understanding today of the need to return to the negotiating table. The will and the intention is there." He added that when an agreement is ready it will dispel the misconception that the other side is only interested in war.

Livni said that the media published a report Thursday of the groups work before they were members were ready to go public and before all the details were ironed out. She herself disagrees with some of the conclusions, even though she supports the overall process.

In a possible attempt to blunt the impact of the possible agreement, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Wednesday night sharply criticized the Labor party and Israeli leftists for talking with Palestinian officials. Group members, including Livni and Mitzna assume he was referencing their work.

"There is a cynical political attempt by Labor and the Left to topple the government at a time when it is fighting terror," Sharon said. "This must be taken seriously. They did it in a time of war before, and now, too, they are cooperating with the Palestinians in a time of war."

Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres said, in response, that Sharon was interested in unity only through the last election, and that he can speak with whomever he wants, wherever and whenever he wants.

Mitzna said he found Sharon's reaction puzzling. "Maybe he's nervous we will burst the illusion that there is no one to talk with and nothing to talk about. There is no doubt that there is someone to talk with and something to talk about," Mitzna told Channel 1.

The former general quit his position as leader of the Labor Party a few months ago, terming it ungovernable.

Canajew · 10-10-2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by sharonbn
IMO, That is not accurate. the agreements signed between Israel and PA were broken by both sides. So you can say both sides were not willing to go the distance for the sake of peace. [/B]

The agreements were broken by the PLO right from the beginning. Rabin and Peres bent over backwards to reinterpret the agreements so that they could turn around and say the PLO was meeting its terms, and they continued to make concessions in the name of peace. You have, it seesm, bought the lies that the PLO was selling.

An example: when Arafat was allowed back into gaza he was also allowed to bring in a bunch of his terrorist friends from Tunis. Rabin and Peres allowed all but the most aggregious of terrorists to enter, all in the name of peace. Those who were excluded included a palestinian involved in the Olympiuc massacre and one who was responsible for a terror attack targeting a childrens school where over 20 kids were killed.

Arafat smuggled these people into gaza in the trunk of his car. Israel confronted him on it, and for days he denied it. Eventually Rabin made a threat - remedy this or else. Arafat sent them to egypt, but several weeks later, they came back to gaza to stay.

Another example, Arafat was supposed to reign in and arrest terrorists that israel requested it to. this was the FUNDAMENTAL obligation the PLO undertook in the agreement. Israel had solid information in 94 or 95 that the 'engineer' the master Hamas bomb maker, was in gaza. Arafat continued to insist he was in Sudan, even up to the point where the Israelis killed him by blowing up his cell phone on the streets of gaza.

You don't saeem to undertsand that Arafat NEVER abided by any of his commitments, and while Israel may not have continued to make concessions once it was clear Arafat was not doing anything he said he would, this is entirely reasonable and jusitfied, and to imply that the deal failed because both sides failed to live up to theri commitments is fundamentally dishonest.

And are you really of the belief that Rabin and Peres did not meet their conditions under Oslo? by the time it got to Netanyahu, the PA had broken its commitments so many times it made sense that Netanyahu would say "follow the letter of your commitments or you will get nothing from us."

Canajew · 10-10-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
You remind me of the terrified dutiful child doing everything for drunken abusive mommy just so she won't go wild and beat your ass.

Sorry, but you do.

Let's slash out a list of the 3 million things Israel should do for the Palestinians because otherwise they might get angry and start swinging their fists around.

Let's jack codependence to a national scale. Let's play 'Imagine what the PLO won't get murderous about and then do that.' But most of all let's just throw up our hands and pretend that a group of people who are completely unable to tell the truth or even make a coherent rational demand or do anything remotely close to running a state not barely out of the Bronze Age will suddenly become this pinnacle this jewel of moderation, tolerance and progressive thought. Yeah let's do that.

Then a unicorn might fly out of my ass.

I lend my full support to this observation. Denying this is to deny reality, and by denying reality it makes it hard to actually achieve proper objectives IN REAL LIFE.

And I'd put a bet on the unicorn far more readily than on the palestinians becoming a moderate peace loving nation with a functional economy, media and political system. All of this is becomming absurd.

How long will people deny reality because it displeases them?

Lowell · 10-10-2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Mil
Incorrect. Israeli/Pal conflict is very distabilizing to the entire region and if anything each and every Arab government wants it to be over as soon as possible - they just don't know how to achieve it.

Actually Israel is surviving pretty well.

Czehoslovakian example does not work here - so lets not use it.

And under violence - lets say Northern Ireland or Nicaragua. Even places like Somalia, former Yugoslavia and even Chechnya.

It doesn't, however, the only way to resolve this conflict is through political means only. The only political weapon at Israel's disposal is unilateral separation.

Don't make me laugh. Terrorism comes from nationalism - how can you eradicate that?

See above. It's impossible.

Truly? And what is the genesis of the Israel-'Palestinian' conflict, if not the support and funding given the terrorists by Arab nations? Imagine for a moment that the Arab nations had accepted a Jewish homeland in their midst with equanimity and tolerance. There would never have occurred those wars of Arab aggression in '48, '67 and '73 and there would never have occurred the organized terrorism against Israeli civilians, and the Middle East would be a stable, civilized region. But, no, the Arab nations simply couldn't accept a Jewish homeland, even a tiny sliver of one, and when balked in their ill begotten wars of conquest they resorted to the proxy of terrorism to try to get their way.

Actually Israel is not surviving so well, with her economy in tatters and Israelis fearful of riding buses, and with the UN barring her from a presence on committees that even Syria may chair... this you call surviving well? It is the warming water in which the frog sits.

Czechoslovakia, too, was forced into an 'agreement' that divided the land. Somalia, No. Ireland, etc. were never condemned and criticized by the UN and EU and forced into untenable agreements, and much of the trouble in those lands comes from terrorism, too. And I hope Israel doesn't try unilateral separation 'cause she would then be likened to the Serbs.

Ah, I see. The only way to resolve wars is to make political agreements. That is why we are still negotiating with the Nazis... and with No. Korea.

I agree. Terrorism in the Middle East stems from Arab nationalism, and you think they want a stable ME?

True, Mil, the 'Palestinians' cannot be trusted, so why even include them in negotiations? Simply force a solution upon them, not upon Israel.

**Mil** · 10-10-2003, 11:28 AM

Posted by Lowell:

Truly? And what is the genesis of the Israel-'Palestinian' conflict, if not the support and funding given the terrorists by Arab nations?

The true genesis of the Israeli/Pal conflict is two people wanting the same piece of land. There are no two "no's" about it.

Imagine for a moment that the Arab nations had accepted a Jewish homeland in their midst with equanimity and tolerance. There would never have occurred those wars of Arab aggression in '48, '67 and '73 and there would never have occurred the organized terrorism against Israeli civilians, and the Middle East would be a stable, civilized region.

Even if Arabs would have accepted Israel in 48 ME would still not be a peaceful, stable, or civilized region.

But, no, the Arab nations simply couldn't accept a Jewish homeland, even a tiny sliver of one, and when balked in their ill begotten wars of conquest they resorted to the proxy of terrorism to try to get their way.

Before terrorism there was Arab nationalism, then there were wars accompanied by terrorism, and then there remained just terrorism. However, terrorism is fueled by nationalism and of course Arab support of that nationalism.

Actually Israel is not surviving so well, with her economy in tatters and Israelis fearful of riding buses, and with the UN barring her from a presence on committees that even Syria may chair... this you call surviving well? It is the warming water in which the frog sits.

Israel has been in times much worse then this - much, much, much worse times. Plus this is purely 100% politically motivated violence and if anything its politics and only politics that can resolve the conflict. Trust Israel does not care much for the UN or whatever else as long as it has US backing it up where the US will never abondon Israel.

Czechoslovakia, too, was forced into an 'agreement' that divided the land.

Czechoslovakia was not forced into an agreenment - it was informed of the agreenment. Israel would never accept anything of the sort and if anything its nukes will speak as an answer.

Somalia, No. Ireland, etc. were never condemned and criticized by the UN and EU and forced into untenable agreements, and much of the trouble in those lands comes from terrorism, too. And I hope Israel doesn't try unilateral separation 'cause she would then be likened to the Serbs.

No. The Serbs or actually it all started with the Muslim Bosnians invoked ethnic cleansing where at the end Yugoslavia was forced into a unilateral separation by ethnicity. I think Israel should do the same and on its own rules.

Ah, I see. The only way to resolve wars is to make political agreements.

Yes.

That is why we are still negotiating with the Nazis... and with No. Korea.

Actually will never fight North Korea. As far as the Nazis were concerned WWII was one of the few instances when political resolution did not work - even though the allies and the Soviets tried their outmost to find political accomodations with Hitler from 1938-1941. All parties got burned but we should not warry - Arafat is no Hitler and Israel is no Czehoslovakia.

I agree. Terrorism in the Middle East stems from Arab nationalism, and you think they want a stable ME?

Which world government doesn't? The same nationalism that is directed against the Jews would eventually destroy those governments as well. It happened many times over.

True, Mil, the 'Palestinians' cannot be trusted, so why even include them in negotiations? Simply force a solution upon them, not upon Israel.

That's exactly what I said. Lets enforce a unilateral separation of Israel from the Occupied territories, keep Jerusalem, evacuate all the settlements, and build a large barrier with anti-tank mines in the middle - that is the most viable political solution that Israel can undertake and hold the upper hand.

Canajew · 10-10-2003, 11:38 AM

Mil,

I believe that when you ascribe terrorism to Arab nationalism you seriously oversimplify matters. There are several issues that need to be addressed: why did terrorism start? What social factors were present which allowed it to take hold? What allows the perpetuation of terrorism over these many years?

terrorism is not what makes the area unstable, what makes the area unstable also causes terrorism.

What makes the area unstable is a mentality in the Arab world which is largely due to a century of manipulative despotism, directing the masses attention away from the root cause of their suffering towards some other 'moral' issue like Jews in Israel. Incitement has been, and continues to be, one of the most significant factor in perpetuating attitudes which allow for the support of terrorism. And these attitudes are the same ones that destabilize the region. Were the Arabs educated and their governments accountable, were their governments goals development and advancement and prosperity, terrorism would not be such a fundamnetal problem, and the area would be far less unstable.

The reason the area is unstable is becasue you have a bunch of tin pan dictators pursuing their own agendas while at the same time keeping their populations as ignorant and reactionary against external 'threats' as possible.

Jewish nationalism did not lead to terrorism, and this is similar to most other forms of nationalism (not all, but most - and compared to the depths of depravity the Palestinians have sunk - do any others even come close?). Arab nationalism drew on the same base of reasons why terrorism was so quick to thrive, but the one did not really cause the other.

Nationalism is clearly not enough, as nationalism does not necessarily imply an absence of morality, and an absence of morality is certainly necessary to target children in their beds and in strollers on the street. The despots may use nationalism to goad their people into more terrorism, but this is different than saying the nationalism actually CAUSED the terrorism.

sharonbn · 10-10-2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Canajew
And are you really of the belief that Rabin and Peres did not meet their conditions under Oslo? by the time it got to Netanyahu, the PA had broken its commitments so many times it made sense that Netanyahu would say "follow the letter of your commitments or you will get nothing from us." [/B]

Here's an example:
Israel never ever dismantled even ONE settlement. never. not one. I'm not talking about the illegal holdings comprised of one or two caravans that sprung up on every hill since the start of the intifadah. I'm talking about settlements that were formed as part of gov't decision and planning (the last of which was erected in 1998.) From 1993-2003 the population in the occupied territories was doubled (DOUBLED).