Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Israelis Compete on Peace Plans

  1. #1
    Senior Member NewsGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,821

    Israelis Compete on Peace Plans

    While Palestinian groups like Hamas have announced this week that terrorist attacks will continue, Israeli politicians have been busy preparing new plans for peace.

    In what was described as a "stormy" meeting of Israel's center-Left Labour party, 2 peace plans were discussed, while former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered his plan, as well.

    The first peace plan was introduced by Defense Minister Benjamin "Fuad" Ben Eliezer. The basic framework is one the minister has iterated previously, including:

    1. The creation of a de-militarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

    2. Israeli control of the aerial space over the future Palestinian state.

    3. Palestinian sovereignty over east Jerusalem.

    4. A third-party governance of Jerusalem's holy places.

    The second plan was presented by Chaim Ramon, a political rival of Ben Eliezer and contender for leadership of the Labour party:

    It was very similar to that of Ben Eliezer, with one major difference:

    Ramon urges Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the Palestinian territories, dismantle the Gaza settlements and create a unilateral separation from the Palestinians by building an international border.

    Ben Eliezer oppsed the concept of a unilateral withdrawal without a political agreement, because he believes that such a withdrawal would be seen by the Arabs as Israel folding in the face of Palestinian terrorism and violent resistence.

    Meanwhile, a third peace plan by Ehud Barak was announced, which includes three principles:

    1. Continuing the war on terrorism by striking back whenever terrorism occurs. He emphasized battling terrorism specifically and not the Palestinian people.

    2. Leaving the door open to political negotiations under the Camp David 2000 guidelines, with no preconditions other than a complete cessation of terrorism.

    3. Unilateral separation from ther Palestinians, presumably by building an international border.

    Earlier this week, Prime Minister Sharon clarified his peace plan, which includes:

    1. An end to Palestinian terrorism.

    2. A reform of the Palestinian government to eliminate incitement, transfer of funds to terrorist groups, public accountability for the use international funds and an end to Arafat's brutal and corrupt dictatorship.

    3. An interim agreement under which Israel would withdraw from Palestinian territories and Palestinian control would be restored, like before the recent explosion of Palestinian terrorism.

    4. At the end of the "interim" stage, a fully independent Palestinian state would be created with full diplomatic and trade relations with Israel.

    * * *

    Which peace plan is your favorite?

  2. #2
    Vic
    Guest

    This one

    - with modifications:
    http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...=&threadid=606

    Here is a surprisingly good analysis, given the source:

    http://www.ramallahonline.com/module...ticle&sid=1083 (Polite interpretation: How to get rid of Arafat and his cronies, but not too openly and without giving power to the Islamists?)
    Last edited by Vic; 05-15-2002 at 08:17 AM.

  3. #3
    gev
    Guest

    Re: Israelis Compete on Peace Plans

    Actually, NewsGuy i dont agree with your descriptions,

    my understanding was that there were two peace plans offered:

    Ben-Eliezer Sharon and Netanyahoo all agree that currently there is no one to talk to in the other side, they all offered the same peace plan: wait until we have a partner we can talk to and then go about to evacuate all settelments and building a de-militarized palestinian state. in the mean time there will be buffer zones that everyone talks about but nothing is done on that direction today.

    Ramon and Ehud barak offered that in the mean time that we search for a partner, we will not stay in the teretories that are to be in the Palestinian state, we evacute all isolated settlements and build a border.

    I think that we should evacuate some isolated settlements and start building the border that on the one hand, stop palestinian from attacking Israel, and on the other hand give the military an easy entrance to crash any terror organizations and activity.
    I think this is possible only if we evacuate some settlements for the protection and security for all israeilies including remaining settlers.

    as I see it there are two options:
    use all military efforts to guard one border
    or guard many "little borders" those of isolated settlements, scutter the military forces in the teretories - this makes our military vulnerable for garrilla attacks as there were recently in blockades, and make it a passable border to israel for suicide attacks.

    so the only option is unilateral withdrawal if we want the best security for Israel.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Any political solution that leaves off the status of Jerusalem is bound to fail. They MUST have a plan to deal with the division, apportionment, whatever, of Jerusalem.

  5. #5
    cerulean
    Guest

    Ross: Arafat said Temple was in Nablus

    Arafat's one novel idea during his participation in the "peace process" was that the Second Temple was in Nablus. I'm not sure where he thought the First Temple was.

    http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...=1021378903175

  6. #6
    elke
    Guest
    I myself saw Dennis Ross make the statement that the only contribution Arafat made to the negotiations is that the Temple was actually in Nablus, not in Jerusalem. This was on, I believe, MSNBC (may have been Fox).

    Dennis Ross did not seem amused by this. He said that many of the Palestinian negotiators who were part of the team wanted to accept the deal; but Arafat overruled them. For a soft-spoken man like Ross, he seemed awfully TO'd!

  7. #7
    elke
    Guest
    I think it's very interesting that various Israelis are competing on peace plans, while the Palestinian leadership has relinquished their responsibility for the mess, by relying on the "Jordanian/Egyptian", "Saudi", "American", etc...

    If they trust these countries to solve their problems for them, how ready do they think they are for statehood. THAT's the scary part.

  8. #8
    gev
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    Any political solution that leaves off the status of Jerusalem is bound to fail. They MUST have a plan to deal with the division, apportionment, whatever, of Jerusalem.
    I agree that in the negotiations of the final agreement Jerusalem will be discussed of. but now, when there is no partner on the other side, and the Hamas and otther Terror groups are not stopping or being stopped by the palastanians, it will be wrong to put on public discussion because of two reasons:

    1. The Terror groups will try to show this as another winning on their side - Terror works.
    2. The Israeli general public has now a more militant and emotions and frustrations on the palestanian and can now deny a plan, which in the future will agree upon (when there is no terror attacks and an authority that can be trusted)
    Last edited by gev; 05-15-2002 at 12:56 PM.

  9. #9
    L@mplighterM
    Guest
    I would favor something along the following although not necessarily in that order except for # 5.

    1. An end to Palestinian terrorism.

    2. Continuing the war on terrorism by striking back whenever terrorism occurs. He emphasized battling terrorism specifically and not the Palestinian people.

    3.A reform of the Palestinian government to eliminate incitement, transfer of funds to terrorist groups, public accountability for the use international funds and an end to Arafat's brutal and corrupt dictatorship.

    4.An interim agreement under which Israel would withdraw from Palestinian territories and Palestinian control would be restored, like before the recent explosion of Palestinian terrorism.

    And somewhere in the future………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.


    5.At the end of the "interim" stage, a fully independent Palestinian state would be created with full diplomatic and trade relations with Israel

  10. #10
    Senior Member NewsGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,821

    Re: Re: Israelis Compete on Peace Plans

    Originally posted by gev
    Actually, NewsGuy i dont agree with your descriptions,

    my understanding was that there were two peace plans offered:

    Ben-Eliezer Sharon and Netanyahoo all agree that currently there is no one to talk to in the other side, they all offered the same peace plan...
    Not exactly. Although there are some similarities between all the plans, the main difference between Fuad's plan and that of the Likud, is that Fuad is talking about a final agreement, while Likud is offering an interim agreement.

    Anyway, I agree with you about not scattering the IDF across the territories. Instead, they will need to dismantle some Israeli settlements and also dismantle some Palestinian settlements to create a border that is straight enough (without zig zags and pockets), so that it can serve as a defensible international border.

    This unilateral separation must not be done in a way that appears to be a shameful retreat like in Lebanon. Whatever military and political actions need to be taken by Israel to avoid the appearance of a rout, need to be taken.

    Then, I would recommend that Israel not enter into ANY formal agreement with the Palestinians. Let them declare an independent state, and then if they want to have relations with Israel, they will need to pay whatever political price Israel demands at the time.

    Part of this deal needs to be a UN guarantee of automatic military sanctions on the Palestinian state if it is not kept de-militarized, and it must include the right to send in UN weapons inspectors, including Israeli and American team members.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616

    Let's be clear

    These are not peace plans so much as truce plans. Real peace comes from negotiated agendas backed up by force. If that's too harsh for some of you here then you don't deserve a place at the table.

    Any plan has to include the following:

    A way to distinguish success from failure
    Priorities
    Timelines
    Action Items
    Penalties for non action

    If there are any open switches then both parties have to be willing to either turn their backs and isolate one another or drop the whole thing and go to war again. Make no mistake about it, this is a war and open issues will not simply go away on their own by fatigue or time or demographics.

    First off - this is a Palestinian issue so anything and everything not related directly to the Palestinians should be ignored. Such as Saba Farms and the Golan.

    The Israelis should put up a phased approach settlement withdrawal from Gaza followed by a phased approach settlement withdrawal from the W.B. Each settlement area should have a start-end timeframe around it. Next the plan has to have a legally binding agreement on border permiability through the Green Line. This is in fact highly negotiable - the problem that the PLO has with it is the execution. Well tough darts - it can take hours to cross beween Mexico and San Diego too - them's the breaks in the real world. Call up your Saudi friends to give you some development money so that your economy isn't based on no/low skilled day labor in Israel and tax revenue sent to you from the Israeli government. Movement between the countries is controlled by work visas and permits. Not automatic entry in either direction. Israeli arabs will retain their citizenship unless they choose not to in which case they can either become permanent residents with Palestinian passport with no right of reversal, or they can become Palestinian nationals living under guest worker rules in Israel or they can leave.

    The 200,000 settlers will be compensated to move back across the Green Line.

    The borders between the WB and Israel should be on or near the Green Line. The borders between Gaza and Israel should be on or near the Green Line as well. The roads approaching the borders need to be fortified on both sides the way that tank traps are built into some Swiss roads.

    Then there needs to be ancilliary agreements about ingress/egress/airspace between Gaza and WB. These need to be monitored by a third party like a US AWACS plane or special third party border patrols for those roads.

    Then there needs to be negotiated settlement on water sharing. Not one party ownership or the other but sharing. Anyone who's had to do this in the real world understands that drawing a line in the sand and saying "you can't have any" is idiocy and nonsense. Hand in glove there has to be negotiated settlement for environmental renewal of Gallilee so that it doesn't become a contaminated sludge pool. This means that BOTH parties have to work to keep it clean even if that means BOTH parties have to go Syria to make them stop dumping.

    Take 'right of return' off the table. Period. If you want a country you'll do this - it's just that simple. Or sit and stew about it - your call, Jihad man. Take it off the table. It's a ploy anyway.

    The last issue is Jerusalem. For better or worse no one is leaving Jerusalem. Get used to that idea. No is leaving Jerusalem. You have two choices -divide it which is stupid because then there are other groups like the Christians and the Armenians who are left out of the process plus it really doesn't solve the problem since the parties REALLY can't be physically separated from one another. There is, after all a REASON they built the al Aqsa mosque on top of the Wailing Wall. So the city has to be shared like a natural resource with specially controlled residency and travel permits. That is, people and groups cannot live wherever they want in Jerusalem without some kind of permit process. This will avoid the intentional accidents like 50 ultraorthodox families suddenly moving to East Jerusalem or 50 'activist' families suddenly needing the top 10 floors of a building that's a shooting gallery into a Jewish school and so on. Trust no one. Jerusalem will clearly need a tripartate police force: One Israeli one Palestinian and one third party. My recommendation would be rotating the job through the permanent members of the UN Security Council where any disputes are subject to vetoes by any member. Perhaps a non aligned force like ANZAC or SEATO could be used instead. Almost anything except UN Blue Helmets or an Arab coalition (if such a thing exists) or the French Foreign Legion would be worth considering.

    The plan must have an exit clause to contingencies of terrorism.

    The transition plan should run no more than 5-7 years.

    This is the plan they should put up for discussion. And anyone who can't negotiate around this proposal, or won't, or doesn't want to should be removed from a position of power. Government changes on both sides are not immunized - that is, the plan survives changes in government.

  12. #12
    Pathfinder
    Guest
    Originally posted by gev


    I agree that in the negotiations of the final agreement Jerusalem will be discussed of. but now, when there is no partner on the other side, and the Hamas and otther Terror groups are not stopping or being stopped by the palastanians, it will be wrong to put on public discussion because of two reasons:

    This is exactly the key. There can be no settlement with Arafat and his cronies on the other side of the table. It is like two men making a wager. One man puts his money on the table while the second man keeps his in pocket saying: "Don't worry, after the bet is over I will pay up." Which man is the fool.

    Sharon is on the right track in refusing to deal with Arafat. Israel has only two real choices:
    --Some form of Unilateral Withdrawal and fortification of borders

    --Continuation of current course of fighting the terrorists and waiting for the palestinians to develop some leadership that is effective and trustworthy.

    The first is not very attractive and the second doen't seem very likely right now.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Back to Basics: The Question of Land for Peace
    By NewsGuy in forum Free for Webmasters!
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 10:07 AM
  2. is peace really possible?
    By ayesha in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 203
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 08:48 PM
  3. Land for peace?
    By ibrodsky in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09-29-2002, 08:13 AM
  4. All peace plans have flaws...
    By Adversary2Arabs in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-24-2002, 07:36 PM
  5. What are peace agreements actually worth?
    By NewsGuy in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-03-2002, 12:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •