According to an article on www.msnbc.com, Israel has begun moving out of Bethlehem in order to meet a “Key Palestinian
demand for cease-fire”.
It seems that if a truce does come into effect, there may be a chance of peace talks again. I am in total support of peace talks as opposed to violence, but how will more talks help the situation? They already tried it in 2000, and those didn’t help much…opinions please!
Moderator’s Note: I added the words “(the Middle East)” to the thread title since there are, I suppose, any number of things with which we aren’t really getting anywhere.
One change in the situation is that the current administration is now involved. When first taking office, I think it’s reasonable to say (without intending to start a debate or make a partisan political comment) that Bush and team took an arms length approach. My own guess is that they didn’t see the opportunity for a quick solution and figured the chance of failure and resulting political downside was too great. Regardless of why they didn’t get involved earlier, events now have forced Bush to be involved.
Maybe both the Palestinians and Israelis are coming to realize that all victories are phyrric ones.
No.
(i’m not so good at this “debating” thing!)
No.
(i’m not so good at this “debating” thing!)
Driving to work this morning I heard that Yassir Arafat was offered a very substantial portion of the things the Palestinians were asking for during the last round of peace talks (WRRK Pittsburgh quoted it at ‘95% of what he wanted’).
I’ve been searching to see if I can find exactly what ‘he wanted’ and what the ‘95%’ was, but I haven’t been able to find a conclusive list.
Does anyone here know what the ‘offer’, if there ever was an ‘offer’, was during the last round of peace talks, and if so why it was rejected?
It just seems that round after round of peace talks keep failing and since both sides say they want peace, I’m wondering what exactly the sticking points are and whether this 95% claim is truthful.
My understanding is that Arafat was offered almost everything he wanted outside of Old Jerusalem. (No new settlements, transfer of police authority to Palestinians…)
The sticking point was control and access to Old Jerusalem with holy sites for three major religions. Israel wanted to maintain control while promising full access. That wasn’t enough.
It seems reasonable to me, Israel maintaining control but allowing full access to the Palestinians. I suppose though that they have a different perspective - as their religious beliefs center around it and mine do not.
I’m quoting from Michael Kelly’s column of March 13th at TownHall.com because he sums up the situation nicely:
I guess the real question to whether or not the peace talks will ever work is whether or not enough can be done to please Arafat.
It seems that he has rejected every compromise put before him, so lately it seems like what Arafat wants is for there to be no Israel at all.
If that’s what he really wants, then I don’t think he’ll ever get it. And if there’s going to be war for as long as Arafat doesn’t get what he wants… there’s going to be war for a long time.
Anyway this is just my $.02 having relied only on the information I can get from the TV and radio news.
As leader of the PLO, Arafat would have to go against the PLO charter to accept anything less than the destruction of Israel.
If Israelis used language as some do here, as evidenced by the abortion debate, they would refer to the PLO as the AIO - the Anti-Israel Organization. And quite frankly, they would be more justified than the pro-lifers in such a distinction.
On the other hand, you must remember that while a majority of Palestinians support Arafat, the more militant factions are outside his control. It is these factions that drive the majority of the Palestinian violence. So even if Arafat agrees to compromise (accept less), that does not necessarily lead to peace in the middle east.
Good point. Now, it seems that the US is becoming less and less dependent on the Middle East for oil. The US supports Israel, but if our ties (oil) to the Middle East decrease, how will our relationship with Israel change? If there are more talks, and for some reason, they do not help the situation and the fighting becomes worse than ever, how will the US’s standpoint change? I have no doubt that the US will be in support of Israel, but how will that affect the situation?
Bingo.
Well-put, AZC. In point of fact, if Arafat agreed to accept less then the Charter calls for, I’d imagine he’d be assassinated.
What it would do us all well to remember is that there are quite a few “Palestinians” who have no interest at all in peace. Not peace for land, or for guns, or for Israeli blood. No peace with Israel, period.
And - before you yell at me - while there are some Israelis who are similarly disinterested in peaceful co-existence, consider the percentage of radicals on each side.
I’m amazed how often this is germane: Israel’s Prime Minister said, “We’ll never forgive the Arabs. We can never forgive them for making us kill their children.”
Sharon didn’t say that… Golda Meir did. In 1972. My point is that the current “crisis” is not really anything new… it’s simply more of the same. Or, if you’d prefer, it’s the same stuff, different day.
Remember all those stories about how the heroic young kid who knows its wrong to fight screws up his courage and fights the schoolyard bully because the bully won’t let him have it any other way? That’s what’s happening in the Middle East, but the world isn’t ready to let Israel answer her attackers they only way they’ll listen.
Yes - in my analogy, Israel is the weakling and the PA is the bully. Not because the PA is stronger - it isn’t - but because its more willing to be violent. The PLO and other anti-Israel Arab groups have always been willing to do things that Israel considers beyond the pale. That is their only advantage. And when the rest of the world is finally willing to sit back and let Israel deal with her enemies on their terms (like Israel did in 1948. And 1967. Etc…), you’ll see an end to the current “crisis.”
It should also be pointed out that Israel was attacked three times before it took the 1967 territories, so I somehow don’t think that this will end the violence.
Arafat is a terrorist and a thug, and the U.S. is making a big mistake in dealing with him. He routinely gives speeches in English calling for peace with Israel, then he gives a speech in Arabic on the same day calling for more terrorism. Remember those female suicide bombers? That’s a direct result of Arafat giving a speech a couple of weeks ago in which he praised women for becoming martyrs.
Arafat has unilaterally broken 64 different cease-fires with the Israelis. Why people continue to deal with him is baffling.
This is true, but the ‘end of the crisis’ you speak of is not being prevented only because the rest of the world is unwilling to ‘sit back and let Israel dea with her enemies on their terms.’ If a solution is to occur as you say it can, then it also depends on whether or not parts of the world acknowledge the fact that they need to ‘sit back and relax’
While one can attribute this to morals or some-such, I think it has more to do with Israel being a state. The ethics of the elected government has to withstand scrutiny of the ethics of their actions, which limits more radical actions.
While I won’t argue any of these specific statements, I don’t think it is constructive. Arafat is in a very difficult position. He wants to remain at the table, and to do so, he has to tone down his rhetoric and act civil (in english). But to retain the support of the Palestinians and any sort of legitimacy (remember, he isn’t elected), he has to play the hard line (in arabic).
Why deal with him? Who else is there? He is the only chance to any sort of “class action” settlement. Otherwise, you have to deal with each of the radical groups, not to mention all of the more peaceful majority. If the Palestinians were truly united behind him, the whole situation would be much closer to resolution.
To watch the slaughter of (mostly) innocent Palestinians? Doesn’t sound like much of a solution to me.
AZC, you don’t mean to tell us that you think the “slaughter of innocent Palestinians” is what Israel is after, do you? Hell, the use of the word “slaughter” is wholly inappropriate in this case; it doesn’t describe a single military action Israel has taken.
Ever.
Let’s skip the rhetoric, shall we? :rolleyes:
sdimbert,
No, Israel has not, which I explained.
Perhaps you can tell me what you meant when you said:
Hopefully, I simply misunderstood your point.
And I see I screwed up your handle on an earlier post. Sorry 'bout that.
First of all, don’t worry about my name. I’ve been called worse than that. 
Second of all, I said, “…when the rest of the world is finally willing to sit back and let Israel deal with her enemies on their terms (like Israel did in 1948. And 1967. Etc…), you’ll see an end to the current ‘crisis.’”
I meant exactly that.
The US has a policy which seems sensible to me. It’s become a bit cloudy since September, but basically, according to the US Government, Terrorism is a crime. Not statemenship. Crime.
The Middle East is a murky issue, because it involves a recently-formed independent nation (Israel) and an emerging nation (“Palestine.”)
Now, for the purposes of this post, I am going to put aside my feelings on the legitimacy of “Palestine” as a nation-state. Suffice it to say that Israel has demonstrated a willingness to allow autonomy to the PA. That’s enough for me.
The problem is that the PA is not acting like a nation. When nations have grievences against other nations, they use two tools: diplomacy and war.
War has rules. And the PA doesn’t follow them.
Blowing up civilians on a bus (7 more, this morning, BTW) is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism. It is crime, not statemanship.
Somehow, the media, in it’s well-meaning search for equity, has fooled the world into believing that the PA is a legitimate nation acting legitimately based on legitimate grievances.
When I said that Israel should be allowed to retaliate “on her terms,” I meant that she should be allowed to punish the criminals perpetrating the crimes.
OK, I think I see your point, and I did misundertand it. When you said:
I took the word “their” to apply to their enemies, not to Israel. So I thought you were arguing that Israel should be allowed to wither down to the level of the Palestinian terrorists, and the rest of the world should just sit back and relax about it. Hence my use of “slaughter”. Sorry 'bout that.
I generally agree with your last post, but I’m a bit concerned by:
I do think it is fair to say that the Palestinians are a legitimate group with legitimate grievances, but are easily maligned in the media due to the illegitimate tactics used by their most radical minorities.