It really depends on the sityuation the PA released most of it’s militant prisoner a little time after the start of the intifada. The answer would depend entirely on the politcal situation that existed. IIRC correctly thre is a prison in the OT for such prisoners which is run by the UN and the PA.
Why should Israel have to? That land was acquired legally, according to the rules of war, as a result of a war that Israel launched against nations that were plotting its demise. Anyway, if you’re going to redraw the borders, the sensible thing to do is return the land to the nations from whom it was conquered. How is giving land back to, say, Egypt going to do anything to help the Palestinians?
Jeff
Errmm, ElJeffe according to the rules of war you can’t obtain land by war (ref: UN Resolution 242). Israel can’t have the land without giving FULL citizenship to the people there.
A couple of times Arab states have offered peace and recognition based on the return to the 1967 borders, but Israel has rejected it.
What will that solve? Hamas wants all of Israel – not just the WB and Gaza!
Back to the original question. Sharon is not reknown for his great diplomatic subtlty. Sharon offered a carrot, the beginning of setlement dismantlent. It was a small start but real action. Abbas answered his response to Hammas’s refusal to willingly step down the violence: he said that he would never use force against the terrorist groups. He declared himself to be impotent. Sharon’s answer is “Well, then, we’ll need to do it ourselves won’t we?” His diplomacy is to answer a fist with a bigger fist, a sword with a bigger sword. Logically the Palestinian people would realize that every terror act only results in a more dire situation for them and that reining in the terror would result in a future of promise. But this isn’t logical; it is fueled by hate. And retaliation fuels that hate.
My take: act against terrorist whenever you can
Back to the original question. Sharon is not reknown for his great diplomatic subtlty. Sharon offered a carrot, the beginning of setlement dismantlent. It was a small start but real action. Abbas answered by his response to Hammas’s refusal to willingly step down the violence: he said that he would never use force against the terrorist groups. He declared himself to be impotent. Sharon’s answer is “Well, then, we’ll need to do it ourselves won’t we?” His diplomacy is to answer a fist with a bigger fist, a sword with a bigger sword. Logically the Palestinian people would realize that every terror act only results in a more dire situation for them and that reining in the terror would result in a future of promise. But this isn’t logical; it is fueled by hate. And retaliation fuels that hate.
My take for Israel: act against terrorists whenever you can, based on incontrovertible proof of real imminent danger, and arresting and trying whenever possible rather than “extrajudicial executions.” Continue the process of settlement dismantlement, slowly, and thus put the pressure on the various Arab powers (more than the impotant Abbas) to put the squeeze on Hammas. Do not the terrorists force your hand in any direction.
For the US: Pressure Abbas to put his promise into an attempt at action. Even a miserable failure of an effort to contain the terrorists would help the process bootstrap. Just asking Hammas nicely is signing the roadmap’s death warrant.
Uh MC, care to support your statement of
?
Because the best I have is http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
Bolding mine.
So support or retract.
This is clueless even for you. I was talking about the linked picture not illustrating or “demonstrating” your point, not your point lacking relevance. You linked to a blog showing a photo of Palestinians waving around a severed arm that they pulled from the wreckage of an Israeli missle strike, and article who’s title was “These Aren’t Savages?”
Your point was that many Palestinians hate Israelis, which, while I don’t doubt, is not particularly illustrated by that photo. Like Sullivan, you apparently didn’t bother to check what the photo was actually of, which only goes to show how much thought you put into illustrating your points. But, ten points for linking to a site filled with juicy racist commentary! And ten more points for appropriating the word “savage” as a subtle nod to… well lets not go there.
2002:
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSMideast0203/10_peace-ap.html
1971:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=2053
You have a good point, Apos. I had carelessly assumed that the Palestinians in the photo were cheering an Israeli body part. I was wrong.
Though the “savages” comment on your misposted link indicates a prejudice on the part of the blogger link.
It’s actually backfired somewhat, as it illustrates instead the ghastly result of IDF actions in the OT.
The recent Saudi plan (your first link) also called for The Right for Return as a prerequisite … a killer of any deal. And comes rather late in the game. But true, Israel going back to complete pre-1967 including Jerus’lm was held to be met with pan-Arab peace. And true Israel did, and would continue to, reject that at this point in time.
The Jarring initiative does not however count. It was for a peace between Israel and Egypt. That has been negotitiated and achieved you know. It was not for the West Bank.
Could it be time for an international peace-keeping force?
How would an international peace-keeping force prevent terrorist bombings?
We can argue about oo killed oo until late in the night, but despite the fact that Israel is more than justified in taking out terrorists (or, at least as justified if not more than even the U.S. strike in Afghanistan), only one thing really matters: whether or not the majority of Palestinians continue to support groups like Hamas or turn to moderates. If there is widespread tolerance of these groups, they will continue to exist no matter how many leaders and organizers are killed. Only if the people can be made to see that Hamas are totally ruining their chances for prosperity and peace and liberty will groups like Hamas die, because their srtength is in their ability to manipulate the public. If the public turns on them, they will be choked to death. Short of an incredible international military operation to wipe out the terrorists, disarm the country, and then police it, I just don’t see how anything is really going to change. It’s all about the Palestinian street, which, unfortunately, is not a promising prospect.
Interestingly, a surrprisingly high number of Israelis think that the recent retaliation strikes were a bad idea: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/06/13/israelis/index.html
I may be pessimistic, but I doubt you find that high of a percentage of Palestinians who think that Hamas’ murder of civilians are likewise a bad idea.
Israel was attacked four times by neighboring Arab states before it acquired temporary occupation of the additional lands of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. It was again attacked in 1973, a surprise attack, which was just barely defeated by Israel. If Israel did not have the settlements in that land, it is very possible they would not have been able to withstand this attack, and there would be today no Israel, which is what Hamas wants. So, understandably, Israel is hesitant to give up the settlements.
However, just a few short years ago, Arafat was offered just that with practically everything the PA demanded. Arafat rejected the offer immediately, returned home, and began another round of intifida.
In one of the greatest mistakes the world has made, Arafat was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 (jointly) for the Oslo accord, an accord in which he had no intention to follow. It is Arafat which is financing, aiding, and abetting the Hamas. I think Sharon’s error is not eliminating this cancer from society.
I just saw on CNN an American citizen, of Arab descent, state that Sharon’s offer was meaningless, as Arafat stated, just a movement of a few settlements. Sure, Israel is supposed to give up all of its settlements immediately and leave itself more helpless against another Arab attack. In the first place, it is the PA which has to reign in terrorism first. Then Israel can give up its settlements. The fact that it has vacated some of them without any quid pro quo shows the good faith of Israel. Where is the PA’s good faith?
As far as the “right of return” is concerned, the Arabs who left Israel left voluntarily. They did not want to be caught in the midst of another Arab attack against Israel. Many Arabs did stay and are Israeli Arabs. What about the Jews who lived in that portion of the land allocated for the Palestine state? They were forced to vacate. What about their right of return?
Barbitu8,
Do you really think that the settlements increase security? I would beg to differ. They are a security risk requiring significant exposure of Israeli Defense Forces and put children at risk as hard to defend probable targets. That argument held some water when the threat was a traditional military one through Jordan, but not now. Retreat behind a secure wall would be much more secure. Pitiful as a longterm solution, but more secure.
And I think that you should do some research on the circumstances under which Arabs left their homes. Some left voluntarily; some were not directly threatened but had reason to be afraid; and some were the subject of directed efforts to drive them out. The same was happening to Jews in Arab lands. The difference is that the Jews were absorbed into Israel and have no desire to return to their countries of origin at this point and the (now) Palestinians wanted to go back and were kept in camps as pawns. I maintain compensation to both as part of a real settlement.
No way the PA can totally rein in the terror groups first; the process had to bootstrap in babysteps on both sides. But as soon as Abbas said that would never do more than ask Hammas pretty please the fragile process died.
Israel is a very small country with many neighbors with hostile intent. With 1967 borders, Israel could be easily split in half in a matter of hours by an armored attacking force from it’s neighbors.
To go back to 1967 borders would expose them militarily to a quick splitting of Israel and an ensuing drive into the sea. Of course, they’re relatively exposed as it is, but those borders just make it worse.
Exactly my point, ** Senor Beef**.
I didn’t say that the PA should rein in the terror groups completely first, but it hasn’t even made a token effort to do so. Abbas said he would not use force, only say, “Pretty please.”
From The Siege, by Conor Cruise O’Brien (1986);