Israeli Peace Proposal-Dead on Arrival?

Great Debates
1

According to the radio news on Wednesday evening PM Sharon had made a speech to a pro-Israel group in the US by video link on Tuesday or Wednesday in which he launched a trial balloon for the terms of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The basic points were:

(1.) Israeli settlements on the west bank would not be removed.
(2.) Palestine would be made up of the patchwork of unconnected townships now under Palestinian control.
(3.) Israel would not under any circumstances deal with Arafat.

I have not seen anything on this in the papers or on the radio news. Was the Wednesday night report accurate? If so. is this sort of a plan practical or do-able?

It seems to me that even as a trial balloon first proposal this thing is dead on arrival. The Palestinians are not likely to accept any of the points. Every thing I have heard indicates that any Palestinian State must be made up of the whole West Bank with out Jewish settlements embedded in the territory. Right now Arafat is the only Palestinian leader accepted by the Palestinian population and there is no one to replace him. Any replacement would be regarded as an Israeli puppet and the equivalent of Quisling. A puppet’s consent to these, or for that matter, any terms for peace, would be rejected by the Palestinians.

Assuming that these are the points of a proposal made by Sharon, by making the proposal has Sharon yoked himself to so untenable a proposition that he cannot shift his ground so as to work toward a geographically unified Palestinian State and the removal of West Bank Jewish settlements and Arafat as the Palestinian head of state?

Does this proposal just confirm suspicions that Sharon’s government has no intention of letting go of the West Bank and will not accept any solution that involves Israel letting go of the occupied territories?

2

No more than any of the Palestinian positions of “must be …” Each side is stating their starting points. If either side is unwilling to move, then any peace plan is DOA. Certainly Sharon represents a particular Israeli POV, one that is less likely to deal land for peace than was Barak’s administration, one that will be less likely to trust a PA to be a security partner. There is very little hope for either side to move enough to satisfy the other at this point in time.

3

Are these the actual points he made or some interpretation of yours?

I’m not asking that just for the sake of it. Of course, it’s obvious that’s it’s an interpretation. You could also be perfectly right when stating that whatever Sharon said, it was the equivalent of “made up of the patchwork of unconnected townships”. But honestly, reading your post, I’m unable to tell what Sharon actually said, hence I’m unable to make my mind about it. No offense, but I like to make the interpretation part myself, even though perhaps I would ultmately agree with you…

4

As I understood it, the report was that the Palestinian State would be made up of the areas now under Palestinian control. The announcer went on to say that this referred to the some 41% of the occupied territory over which the Palestinian Authority now exercised jurisdiction. It was my conclusion that this was a patch work of townships based on a map that appeared in TIME Magazine within the last few weeks. Sharon may have meant the West Bank and Gaza. I could not tell from the news report.