Sharon doesn't really want the violence to end.

Great Debates
1

First Sharon started the whole mess by invading the Temple Mount with a thousand armed bodyguards. Hey, screw the consequences, he got to be prime minister because of it! Seems to have worked out fine for him.

Part Two: Sharon insists that Arafat do more to arrest Palestinian terrorists, and then he bombs the bejeesus out of the PA police so that they can barely even function, let alone crack down.

Part Three: just as Hamas is showing signs of suspending its terror campaign, Sharon drops a bomb that kills nine children. Oops. No more peace talk from Hamas, just dead university students and bus passengers.

Sharon does seem to have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. (Note: I define “victory” as ENDING THE VIOLENCE.)

And now this. Sharon has spent months convincing US officials that Arafat is the problem and that the Palestinians need new leadership. And how do we get new leadership that truly speaks for the Palestinians? Why, through democratic elections of course. But now Sharon’s officials say they won’t let the Palestinians have elections. How logical!!!

Either Sharon is a miserable failure, or he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Sharon should get the Nobel Prize for dead-end politics. Never heard of it? It comes in the shape of a self-defeating vicious circle.

2

I agree with part two, that Arafat’s infrastructure is so torn up that actually accomplishing their goals is very difficult, but I’m not convinced that Arafat would stop the terrorism if he could.

In part three, the Hamas announcement is new to me, but Sharon’s timing would be a bit disturbing if true. I’ll have to do some more digging to see if that was widely known.

3

Part One: he did not ‘invade’ the Temple Mount. He visted a holy Jewish site, and some Palestinians got all flustered about it.

Part Two: Sharon did indeed ask Arafat to reign in his terrorists and arrest those who were on responsible for certain acts. Arafat did not, so Sharon had to act against one of Arafats personal instruments of terror: The PA police.

Part Three: Only a fool would think that Hamas is trustworthy. They have time and again declared their goal to be the destruction of the state of Israel; Time and again they have targetted civilians in terrorist attacks.
Israel has already negotiated a peace deal with the PA. It is up to the PA to live up to their end, which of course they will not, since that entails Arafat surrendering much of his dictarial power. Which leads to:

Part Four: Any elections held now would be meaningless; Arafat and his cronies would simply rig them like they did the last time around.
You do sort of hint at one of the greatest ironies of the entire situation, that Arafat, a known terrorist, was given the Nobel peave prize. Leave it to that goofy Nobel commitee…

4

And, Brutus, your solution to the situation is…?

Sharon’s policies do not lend themselves to any long-term solution, unless they lead to some sort of ethnic-cleansing nightmare. Ditto with deterministic declarations: “The Palestinians will never seek peace, they’ll never keep their word,” etc.

Peacemaking is for the truly courageous. Sharon is wrathful, ruthless and canny, but he is not courageous, nor is he creative. I doubt he sees very far into the future.

Holy Muslim site. The holy Jewish site is the Wailing Wall.

I bet “some Americans” would get similarly “flustered” if, for instance, Saddam Hussein visited the hallowed ground of the WTC. That’s what it was probably like for “some flustered Palestinians.”

OK, let’s examine this again. Exactly who was Arafat supposed to have arrest the terrorists? Or maybe the PA police were supposed to arrest themselves? Arafat rivals like Hamas would have loved that.

By the way, it wasn’t like Sharon first made the crackdown ultimatum, and then bombed, and that was it. No no no. It was more like this: Sharon demanded arrests. Sharon bombed the PA police. Sharon demanded arrests again. Sharon bombed the PA police again. And so on. Over and over, many times. Each time more ludicrous than the last.

Well, my insulting friend, this fool thinks Hamas has always been very up-front about its intentions. When they say they intend to bomb and kill, they do it. They are not known for deception. Please cite, if you can, one single instance of Hamas treacherously going back on its word. In this case, they had said they would honor a unilateral cease-fire if Israel pulled out of the towns. (FWIW, they also honored a unilateral cease-fire that started in December and lasted nearly a month.)

Please provide a cite for your assertion that the last elections were rigged.

So: Arafat is unacceptable, but so are elections? Or are you suggesting that there should be no Palestinian leaders, and that the Palestinians should live completely under the boot-heel of the Occupation? Again: what’s your solution?

Come to think, maybe it’s the Israelis who should hold new elections…

5

While not subscribing to wild conspiracy theories, it does appear to me that Likkud’s refusal to negotiate in the face of any violence whatsoever puts the ability to wreck negotiations straight into the hands of any Palestinian terrorist group, or any Palestinian individual. A single bomb or bullet brings Israel back to a war footing. And as Israel well knows following the assassination of Rabin, even with the best of intentions and intelligence it is not always possible to prevent a terrorist acting alone. Let alone a damaged infrastructure and/or unwillingness to round up suspects. What is the reason for this policy?

6

jjimm: I believe you just answered your own question. Israel is addressing the unwillingness of the PLA to act.

7

I am going to answer the OP, Monty, and my own rhetorical question, with the opinions of Uzi Benzamin, writing today in the Ha’aretz Daily:

8

BTW, I think you misunderstand what I’m saying, Monty. I’m saying even if the PA were a) willing, b) any good, and c) not under sporadic attack by the IDF, it would still be impossible to prevent the next act of Palestinian terrorism. That surely is a strange way to bring peace.

9

I am speechless. If the fact that they say they will kill women and children, and then they do so, makes them ‘honest brokers’ in your eyes, then I do not see any reason for me to stick with this debate.

BTW, Temple Mount is a bit of a Jewish holy site as well. May I suggest you educate yourself on the region a bit?

10

jjimm, that’s a remarkably facile list of excuses from Benzamin.

"…the Palestinian mutiny cannot be suppressed with force;" He starts off fairly accurately, although characterizing the Palestinian conflict as a “mutiny” seems rather awkward.

"…Israel must not cave in to terror;" Does “cave in” mean “completely capitulate to all Palestinian demands”? If so, this is a bit of a strawman in an apologia for status quo, as this is far from the only alternative (and in fact is the least likely).

"…there is no partner for peace talks on the other side;" This is self-serving. Although it’s nice to see Benzamin recognize that Palestinians aren’t a monolithic ideology, it’s also disingenuous to claim, after Israel has been such a large party (along with Palestinian extremists) to the marginization of Arafat and actual moderate Palestinian elements, that there’s no “partner” available.

"…Israeli concessions are perceived as signs of weakness;" Most likely they are, by many. So? False perceptions are only dangerous when they’re unknown. Israel is not weak, either militarily or economically; any mere perception of political weakness can be dispelled by showing committment to a process of resolution which includes a strong Israel as its goal.

"…the core issues - the Temple Mount and the Palestinian right of return - cannot be resolved and a permanent agreement can therefore not be sought;" This supposed intractability, at least as far as right of return is concerned, is a false claim, and the insinuation that these two are the only “core issues” is deceptive as well. All Benzamin is saying here is “but the issues are really hard ones”. Well, yeah. That’s why the situation is not a self-resolving one.

"…unilateral withdrawal would not end the conflict but only boost the motivation of the Palestinians and the Arab world to crush Israel;" A conclusion unsupported by argument, and not valid axiomatically. Also a strawman, as complete and sudden withdrawal is not the only option available to Israel.

"…because of coalition problems and the ideological rift in Israeli society, no government has the power to make unequivocal moves either way;" Wrong. No Israeli government will ever make unequivocal moves which will be universally accepted by Israeli society. This reality is why leadership is difficult, but it is no valid excuse for paralysis.

"…if Israel reoccupies the territories and destroys the Palestinian Authority or, alternatively, if it agrees to withdraw to the borders of 1967, the relationship between Israel and the Arab minority living in Israel would change dramatically, to the extent of an existential threat;" Again Benzamin not only presents two acontextual extremes as the only possible alternatives, he presents a conclusion (dramatic and threatening changes to Israel’s relationship with the Arab minority) without supporting argument.

"…resuming direct negotiations where we left off in Camp David would only give the Palestinians an incentive to keep up their terror campaign;" As opposed to the incentives offered by continued occupation? If true, this assertion amounts to a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” analysis which ignores other costs and benefits of resuming negotiations. But the truth of the assertion has not been demonstrated, and in fact, even if true the assertion cannot be applied a priori to any possible agreement produced by negotiations.

"…if the international community is allowed to sponsor negotiations, dictates would be handed down to Israel that it cannot accept;" Israel, like any other party to any other negotiation, would have to go to the table with both bargaining points and “non-negotiable” items. This is a truism, and is no valid excuse for avoiding the table.

I think the OP is valid to a large extent. ISTM that Sharon’s purpose is to deny and delay Palestinian autonomy, and that he believes the only long-term security for Israel lies in maintaining control over Palestinian territory, which Israel cannot do if the peace process is resumed. NOTE that this is an arguable position, in support of which much historical and tactical data can be presented.

IMO and in the OP’s opinion, this policy may be shortsighted, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as absolutely wrong, any more than it’s plausible to deny the policy’s implicit existence.

11

That’s right. You have captured the absurdity in entering into security arrangements with terrorists. We’ve been asking them to arrest…themselves!

I know someone who made a wrong turn on his way home from work and ended up at a checkpoint manned by Palestinian Police officers. He was an unnarmed elderly man.

Instead of informing him that he would not be permitted passed the checkpoint, they arrested him, and brought him into the villiage, and handed him over to locals who beat him and left him for dead. When they had finished, the “police” then collected the broken body and and brought him back to the nearest Israeli army checkpoint.

The victim miraculously recovered from his injuries.

But the Palestinian Police force’s reputation as a law enforcement organization will require more than a miracle to recover from the beating IT took that night.

12

Withdrawal from debate is not a good argument. You have not answered my question, or provided the cite I asked for.

I think both jjimm and xenophon make some good arguments, but I think Benzamin is making a serious error in assuming that the raft of obstacles in his list are all equally true, and equally unsolvable. Benzamin’s article amounts to nothing more than a tiresome reiteration of excuses, a recipe for hopelessness. Sharon gets a lot of political mileage out of plain despair. But things are not as hopeless as Benzamin would like us to believe. Just a few points:

Believe it or not, there have been some signs of movement on the refugee issue. The Palestinians have been saying recently that the refugees would accept compensation or resettlement elsewhere. (BTW, it offends me when Ted Koppel, apparently anointing himself as the spokesman for the Israeli state, says unequivocally that the refugees can never return. Who died and made him the chief negotiator???)

There have been numerous creative proposals for the disposition of Jerusalem in recent years, including making J. an international city, giving each community jurisdiction over its own holy sites, etc. Clinton proposed that the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock/Wailing Wall complex be declared to be under the jurisdiction of “God.” All of these proposals contain a face-saving element for everyone.

In an issue of The Nation from 2002 (I’m sorry, I don’t remember the date), there was a proposal for Israel to save face by not withdrawing from Palestine voluntarily; rather, they would be made to do so by an international body that would include the United States.

And as for the supposedly intractable divisions among the Israeli body politic: well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there either a majority or a plurality of Israelis that favors independence for the Palestinians? (Dopers who follow Israeli public opinion, please post.) All Sharon has to do is listen to his people, but instead he’s more concerned about placating his strongest supporters, the settlers and the religious fascists. I think the political clout of the settlers has been overestimated, just as the political clout of Cuban exiles had too much sway over US foreign policy until recently.

13

Certainly a hard-line approach was essentially required after Arafat’s rejection of the Camp David deal, but to what degree is it true that Sharon is simply doing more or less what he was elected to do? This question isn’t intended to be rude, but isn’t the discussion basically over a matter of the degree of his conduct, not its fact?

14

Really? The Palestinian negotiating position now includes giving up the “right of return”? This is news. Have you got a cite?

I find this statement incredible : “Hamas has always been very up-front about its intentions. When they say they intend to bomb and kill, they do it. They are not known for deception.”
I know of no instance where Hamas provided warning of its targets so that civilians could get out of the way. Their entire modus operandi involves attacks on innocents without warning. (Being “up-front” about saying that you will murder helpless civilians at any time without warning is not a virtue).
There is no real basis, other than naivete, for suggesting that Hamas was all ready to suspend violence and that the Israeli strike on its leader totally screwed that. If Hamas or any other terrorist group really wanted to make a genuine effort at ending the violence, that wouldn’t have stopped them.

tclouie, I’ll grant you that Sharon’s policies are not working (not that anyone else before him was successful), that some are wrong and damage chances for a peaceful relationship with the Palestinians. But this one-sided diatribe of yours*, which shows a lack of understanding of history and religion in the area does not provide a fruitful basis for debate. Brutus was correct.

*Your complaint about the Israelis demanding Palestinian elections and then supposedly blocking them is weakened by your leaving out this: that Palestinians themselves are making excuses for not holding elections on the same flimsy ground used for not cracking down on terrorism - that they’re under too much pressure from the Israelis. Here’s an item from your link that you seem to have overlooked: “…Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an Arafat aide, said the delegation had told the Bush administration that elections could not be held so long as Israeli troops occupy Palestinian areas and keep the people under a tight curfew.”
I suspect that neither side really wants elections - the Israelis because they think the voting would be rigged and even if it were honest, Arafat might well win; the Palestinian Authority wants to perpetuate its own power and corruption and fears that new leadership might emerge from a genuine election; the U.S. wants Arafat out regardless. It’s a mess in which once again, everyone loses.

15

I didn’t say anything about them giving up the “right of return.” The Palestinian position has been evolving to where compensation or land elsewhere are not such unthinkable options anymore. Here’s an article by a Palestinian-American who most definitely does not approve of the change in attitude:

“The DOP and Oslo II explicitly omit mention of UN Resolution 194. In short, the PLO
has effectively given away the Palestinians’ right of return to areas occupied by
Israel in 1948. The right of return potentially will be applied only to whatever
Palestinian entity exists in the West Bank and Gaza and not to areas within Israel.”

I distinctly remember reading about this new attitude in July, but unfortunately all the news archives are !@#$% pay sites.

By the way, in case you’re interested, here’s an article by a professor who debunks two canards that are frequently repeated here in GD: that Arafat planned the Al-Aqsa intifada, and that Barak’s offer in 2000 was so excellent that the Palestinians were stupid to turn it down. (I can provide even more cites to debunk that one if you want.)

Jackmanii, the part of my cite that you quoted does not indicate any Palestinian unwillingness to hold elections, it is merely a statement of fact: it is impossible to hold elections under curfew conditions. By contrast, the Sharon government does have the power to let elections go forward, but is unwilling to allow them to take place. The most likely reason? Check my OP.

I object to you and Brutus saying I find Hamas to be “virtuous” and “honest brokers.” Those are your words, not mine. You most definitely can trust Hamas, and every other political player, to act in its own self-interest. That has nothing to do with virtue, but it does provide us with a roadmap for future strategy and negotiations. That’s all I was saying. STOP MISQUOTING ME. It’s offensive and insulting to the intelligence, as well as a classic “straw man” tactic.

You still have not provided any cites or instances of Hamas pledging to observe a cease-fire, and then going back on its word. On the contrary, I showed in this thread how Hamas observed a unilateral cease-fire in December and January, until Sharon’s aggressiveness wrecked everything again. (Yes, I provided cites.)

So, there is a precedent. For that reason, I think Hamas probably would have implemented this cease-fire, if it weren’t for Sharon’s pedicidal bomb. AND POINTING THAT OUT IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO AN ENDORSEMENT OF HAMAS, OR TERRORISM.

(And of course I would not argue that the PA is a virtuous, corruption-free entity. However, Israel has more power and therefore more responsibility to end the situation. I appreciate akohl’s contribution mainly because he evidently lives there and is providing first-hand information.)

There you go. I’ve provided five cites in this thread, six if you count the reference to The Nation. Three cites in this post alone. Jackmanii and Brutus have still not provided even one. Funny – whenever I debate Israel/Palestine in this forum, I find myself having to provide tons of cites on demand. Yet my opponents cannot seem to provide even one that I ask for. And then they have the gall to say my cites aren’t good enough, still without providing any of their own. I guess you have to expect that when you’re debating Israel on this board.

“One-sided”? I would argue that events themselves are one-sided. Besides, this is a debate, you’re supposed to take one side. “Lack of understanding of history and religion in the area”? I think Sharon understands even less than I do, which is especially alarming in light of the fact that he lives there and runs the place.

Besides, one of my main debating points has always been that this conflict is not primarily about religion. It’s about economic survival and human rights.

16

Hamas violates ceasefire agreements.
Arafat rigged the elections. Too bad you didn’t follow the news in 1996, or you would have been able to read the source material in CSM or WSJ, both of who now charge for 1996 articles.

Would you also like a cite regarding the religeous significance of Temple Mount?

17

Well ** tclouie **, you better get used to it. After the straw men, the next tactic is sometimes one of attacking you and your motivations for being “anti-Israeli” (with the oh-so-subtle anti-Semitic undertones) - that was one of **december’s ** favourites way back when.

Staying on topic is often the hardest job of all. But try, it’s worth looking at Sharon’s motivations, IMHO.

BTW Brutus, your link to the totally impartial, totally respected and completely creditable Wall Street Anal doesn’t work…

18

okay, wheres december?:wink:

19

Here’s a link for tclouie which includes the prevailing Palestinian position on the “right of return”. There have been no serious proposals on the part of the Palestinians to remove that demand or confine it to the West Bank/Gaza. We can regard that claim as refuted.

For an education which should help to keep you from making statements like “Sharon started this mess”, I suggest starting
with this site.

If the Palestinian Authority genuinely wanted free and open elections, it could declare its commitment to same, call on U.S./U.N. support to guarantee the legitimacy of the process and utilize their own efforts to prevent violence and intimidation of voters from any source. This would place pressure on the Israelis to take steps to ease the military situation.
Don’t hold your breath.

Hamas is supposedly considering a new cease-fire announcement. We’ll see.

Before waxing too indignant about your need to provide cites, tclouie, consider that anyone making extreme statements about one side or another being black or white in the Mideast (december comes to mind) generally gets a vigorous challenge, is called on to provide reliable cites and has their more foolish pronouncements thoroughly demolished. “Four legs good, two legs bad” is rarely a tenable position on the SDMB.
London_Calling, who should know better by this time, is referring to a thread from last fall* in which he made smarmy and undocumented claims about Jewish media domination causing undue influence over American news reporting. When asked to back up his insinuations, he ducked out of the discussion.

*for some reason a link to this does not work, but you can find it by searching in GD under the name portajon and going back a year. Look for the thread “US support of Israel”.

20

The piece is entitled, “A Question of Blood,” written by Dan Gordon. It appeared in The Jewish Journal on May 29, 2002.
Dan Gordon is a former sergeant in the IDF, the author of five books, and a screen writer. He was in Jenin on April 16, and was told a story by Dr. David Zangen, chief medical officer of the Israeli paratroops unit that bore the brunt of the fighting in Jenin.

Dr. Zangen said that the IDF not only worked to keep the Palestinian hospital opened, they offered the Palestinians blood for their wounded. The Palestinians refused because it was Jewish blood!!

The Israelis, who could not have been faulted for saying, “You don’t like it, do without…,” instead flew in 2,000 units of blood from Jordan via helicopters. In addition, they saw to it that 40 units of blood from the Mukasad Hospital in East Jerusalem went to the hospital in Ramallah and that 70 units got to the hospital in Tul Karem. And on top of that they facilitated the delivery of 1,800 units of anticoagulants that had come from Morocco.
This information was later confirmed by Col. Arik Gordin (reserves) of the IDF Office of Military Spokesman, who supplied the exact number of units and the names of the hospitals to which they were delivered.

Dan Gordon concludes thus:
“So the question to ponder … is how do you negotiate with a hatred so great that it will refuse to accept your blood, even to save its own people’s lives? How does an international community vilify a nation that offers its own blood to its enemies, while its own soldiers lie dying, and that, when faced with race  hatred that brands their blood unfit, diverts military flights to bring blood more suitable to the taste of those who would destroy them?”