Bad Comparison.
If you loan your sister money for her rent and she uses it to terrorize her/your brother and to buy furniture which she puts into his room then you will either stop the payments or put pressure on her or both.
Oh, don’t worry, you will be paying. You, me and all other American tax-payers.
Just think, we paid for the construction of the illegal settlements, and now we are going to have to pay for the destruction of the settlements.
This relationship with the modern-day state of Israel just doesn’t seem to have any advantage for the average American tax-payer.
I think it’s way past time to reconsider this relationship.
Depends how I feel about my brother, I guess. 
Is this “road map” really any different from the outline of the peace that has been pretty obviously the only answer since 1967, if not earlier? End the Israeli presence in the West Bank, make it the new 9or reconstituted, whatever) nation of Palestine, joint sovereignty over Old Jerusalem, good fences make good neighbors? If so, I’m not gonna pay any attention to this until something new physically happens, and if it does, it won’t be because of any US actions - only changes in attitudes and administrations in Israel and Palestine can create the conditions for a true peace.
Perhaps we’ll hear about this being part of Bush’s quest for a legacy as his end of term grows nearer.
Couldn’t agree more. Including, and especially, your last sentence.
But sarcasm aside, I truely would not mind paying to get the settlers out if that was what it took to get a peace plan in place over there. Kind of a trivial analogy, but it reminds me of the time standing in line at the chekout counter when some stubborn person was arguing about whether he got 5 cents too little back in change. I was ready to give him a dollar if he’d just get out of the way and let me get on with my business.
**Problem is, this stance allows a single murderous individual with a death-wish to derail the entire peace process.
**
The vast majority of attacks are done by networks of terrorists who the PA has made no attempt to crack down on.
Secondly, it takes more than one attack to derail the process. Israel endured about 300 attacks between the Oslo signing and the reoccupation of the West Bank. They have a lot more patience than you give them credit for.
**If you are right, then I don’t understand why the palestinians accept to talk.
**
I didn’t say anybody should stop talking. You can talk even while making war. But reciprocal steps have to be taken by both sides in order to have peace. There are some who believe that Israel should take concrete steps while the Palestinians are excused from keeping any sort of agreement. There is no such thing as a unilateral peace.
**Is this “road map” really any different from the outline of the peace that has been pretty obviously the only answer since 1967, if not earlier? **
There are some important differences. For one, this is strictly between Israel and the Palestinians, not part of an overall Mideast settlement. Secondly, it doesn’t call for unilateral Israeli action in exchange for mere promises from the Arabs, as past plans called for. Third, Israel is keeping the Golan and Jerusalem as part of any settlement, and will also be keeping settlements in areas that Jews had a presecense prior to their being kicked out in 1949. For example, there is no way they are leaving Hebron. That’s a 2000-year old community, with the brief exception of 1949-1967.
Regardless of these statements with which, for the most part, I agree. So would you like to clarify your earlier statement “violence negates peace deals”? How much violence is allowable, in your eyes?
Okay, let me clarify.
Violence can continue while both sides are merely talking. But once a deal is struck, any further violence beyond small-scale stuff that is hard to control(such as a settler shooting up a mosque or the occasional attack on a mall by a suicide bomber), negates the peace deal.
It’s hard to say where the cutoff point is, but when Sharon made the decision to reoccupy the West Bank, it was pretty obvious that the attacks had become intolerable. They were happening on a weekly basis. That’s an orchestrated terror campaign.
I think most of us can tell the differnece between a terror campaign like the one waged by Hamas and the actions of a whacko extremist off on his own. The former would end any peace process, the latter would not.
adaher, the new features you describe sound like they simply make this latest plan unacceptable to Palestine, and therefore just another dead letter. What’s the idea here - that a true peace can be imposed by force?
Let me know when something’s changed that can actually make a true peace possible.
The next week is the test.
Israeli officials have stated that some dismantlement will begin within the next several days. If these begin, over the protest demonstrations of 20,000 settlers and settler sympathizers in the streets and most of his own party in revolt around him, then Sharon is serious about follow through.
Hamas has said no dice, they will not begin a cease-fire. If Abbas attempts to use force to stop them, even unsuccessfully, then he is serious about follow through.
Both are putting their own lives on the line for each side has people willing to murder their own leaders over these issues.
What is different? Unlikely the shape of the final agreement in any significant way. What is apparently different is that both sides are at the same time looking beyond the petty issues of a few square miles of land here or there, beyond the immediate personal power issues, and to what is in the long-term best interests of their peoples. We’ll see if that is more than a show of words this week.
I’ll agree with that, DSeid, except that I don’t see how it really matters in terms of success that the front man is now Abbas instead of Arafat. Abbas isn’t going to take the heat or the responsibility if he isn’t really in charge.
As for the plan itself, I’d like to know how there is any possibility that the bulk of the Palestinian people would now be willing to accept a lesser deal than they’ve been offered before, most recently at Camp David. This “road map” seems to be the same old stuff, except with every remaining issue of contention predecided in Israel’s favor, take it or else, instead of negotiated in good faith between people who will still have to live side by side.
Elvis,
“The bulk of the Palestinian people” never turned down CD2. Arafart did without making a counter offer.
Why should the Palestinian side work with this? Because their future is much better with a long term peace than without it. Because if they do not then they are looking at a future of more of the same. Unemployment in excess of 60%. The greatest ambition for Palestinian youth being to kill themselves and to take some Israelis with them. Houses being bulldozed. Being used as pawns by other powers.
With peace they can get to work on building an economy, an educational system, a future of promise. Long term all those “issues of contention” are less important than economic and industrial coventures, investment in educational systems, shared tax revenues, building up a mutually beneficial tourist industry, and so on. They should give up on some hot button issues and parlay them into concessions on these issues of real substance.
Israel should work with this not out of justice but out of informed self-interest as well.
Long term they need each other, and once they have peace those ties will grow. Maybe long term some kind of loose EU-style federation even. But baby step baby. First some real actions to back up the nicey nice words.
I’m well aware that Arafat turned down CD2. But the Palestinian people, the folks who would make any deal either work or not despite their leaders, certainly know what the CD2 deal was, and should reasonably expect that much in any other deal.
You’ve gone on to say that peace is so good that they should be expected to accept anything in order to get it - well, they’ve had decades to think it over already. What’s different now? I asked why the Palestinian people can be expected to accept this and commit themselves to making it work if it’s obviously not the best they can reasonably expect to get. I don’t have an answer yet.
CD2 came and went. Barak made an offer in a different context. That same exact offer won’t be back on the table. They can’t reasonably expect that much now.
By your logic one could (and should) say that the Palestinians had a chance to accept the original partition and so they should reasonably expect as much in any future deal …
And you misunderstand me. I am just saying that there is the reality. I may believe that one thing is “just” and you another, but whatever is just, there is what is doable. Nearly 1967 borders is doable, exactly is not. Shared power over the Temple Mount is doable, all PA control is not. Right to return is not doable, compensation is (although I think that Arab Jews should be compensated for they left behind as well). And giving in on those things would be of little meaning if there really was peace as a result. But tax revenue and investments, educational institutions and building up a tourist industry, these things have long term import without current political prices attached to get out of Sharon’s administration.
You are aware that the Berlin Wall was built by Germans, right?
sqweels
Not only is that unprovable, I don’t see any reason to believe it.
Monty
The problem is that there isn’t really any Palestinian rule for them to be under, and there won’t be until there’s peace, and there won’t be peace while the settlements are under Jewish rule. Sort of a catch 22.
The dismantlement of outposts had already begun.
Most of them are uninhabited though.
An outpost is a small settlement, with no permanent houses, that was built in the last two years. This is what Sharon is going to evacuate*, not the established settlements with the tens/hundreds of residents.
-
- at least at this stage of the process.
DrSeid:
Do mean the removal of all Jewish settlements from the West Bank with the possible excecption of those which hug the Isreli border? Not much differecnce between those and the rest, but I would go along with that. But removing a handful of newly situated trailer homes isn’t going to cut it.
Me:
The Ryan:
Because Reagan might have been able to nip the settlements in the bud, which would have made a peace deal by now much more likely, which would have removed the primary irritant of the Arabs toward the US. But then again, there’s not much point in pursuing historical “what ifs”.
Well, the prospect for peace is, in my mind, now nearly dead again.
Sharon’s move was small, but it was still real action. Presumably to be followed by ramping up to inhabited settlements once Abbas proves his good faith as well. Israeli public opinion would accept removal of all but those large settlements near the border if it was part of real peace and security.
But Abbas has failed on his part. He is not serious about follow through: The Palestinian prime minister has said he would not use force against militant groups under any circumstances. Hard to believe that he can deliver on security if he is unwilling to ever use force against the terror groups. (Maybe if he says please with brown sugar on top?) Hard to have Sharon do more than that small gesture of good faith while Abbas shows that he hasn’t the will to deliver the goods on his side.
Is anyone sure that Abbas actually has the power to take action against the militants? I seem to recall that, over a year ago, the IDF was openly targeting the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, and doing a fairly thorough job of demolishing their capabilities (not hard when your opponent doesn’t have tanks, F-16s, or helicopter gunships). Does Abbas have the necessary muscle to deal with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.?
Early,
Even before the actions on the PA’s infrastructure no one was sure that the PA had the power to entirely contain the terrorists.
But does he even have the will to try? His statements sound clear: No matter how much support he gets from whereever in building up and training his security forces, they will never be used against against the terror groups. He will never dismantle the infrastructure. His plan to deliver a step down in violence is to sweet talk it out of the terrorists. In this case the process continues only at the terrorists’ pleasure. His good faith must be proved with concrete action, some attempt at containing terror other than by whispering sweet nothings. You won’t get more concrete action out of Israel without it, nor should you expect to; the process has to bootstrap.