The cease fire that never was.

Great Debates
1

Was the spurned agreement of Land for Peace the last chance the Palestinians had for self determination on their own land?

Has Israel had enough with Arafat and the PLO as far as willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in negotiating a lasting and peaceful resolution?

Is the current Israeli government instigating the PLO into a final showdown by aggressively seeking out and killing Hamas activists as well as making highly inflamatory moves which include bulldozing Palestinian stuctures which border immediately on Jewish settlements as well as stepping up aggressive settlement construction where it is most visible and most likely to anger and incite Palestinian aggression?

In short, is Israel baiting Palestinians in order to force their hand and subsequently cripple (militarily) the PLO and other hardline Palestinian factions in the area for a much needed respite from these daily skirmishes and suicide bombing?

2

No. The Hamas terrorists were planning a terror attack.

See here: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/07/17/News/News.30631.html

3

I think that being a tiny country surrounded on all sides by your enemies is a lot different from being the mightiest nation on the planet, protected on all sides by oceans, Canada and Mexico.

As Americans, we don’t have to worry about being blown up by terrorist bombs or attacked by machineguns as we drive to work. Because of that, I think the attitude of many Americans is “why is Israel so mean to the Palastinians?”.

In any event, I think it is a personally reasonable strategy to entice your enemy to a battle on your terms so you can engage and destroy them. This is especially valid in the case of terrorists where their operations are conceiled.

4

If I were surrounded on all sides by enemies I think I’d try to make nice. Because they don’t have a hope in hell of destroying their enemies - all they’re doing is accumulating more.

5

That much is clear.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not about to sing the praises of the PLO and their supporters. I’ve very little sympathy for the stupid and short sighted way they have handled themselved with regard to establishing a peaceful co-existance with an essentially peaceful nation. Israel’s Arab neighbour states have much to answer for as well, though most have tried to make amends in the past decade or so. Still, as one Israeli cabinet member said, “We are surrounded by cordial enemies.”

My OP asks whether or not the latest round of Israeli actions, with respect to Palestinians in general and PLO and Hamas specifically, is an attempt to get them to escalate their attacks to a higher level. High enough so that the world opinion about “Israel picking on the poor Palestinians” is reversed. Or at least tempered so that Israel can escalate military action to a level that ensures greater sercurity at least within its borders without being viewed as the bad guy.

6

There was a pretty interesting article in the Washington Post this morning with information that apparantly didn’t come out durring the negotiations at Camp David.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9673-2001Jul17.html

It certainly brought a bit of clarity to a very confused understanding on my part.

7

Why not? If history has shown us anything, its that most Arab nations are fairly inept at modern warfare.

Besides, you’re assuming that Israels enemies want to make nice.

8

I’m assuming that the more this goes on the less they want to.

9

It has been said before, but it is worth repeating. It is a circle of violence. The region is so disputed and so crowded that every action brings a response. No one anywhere can even pretend to know the whole story.

The situation, as it stands, is of a shattered Israeli Left and of a Palestinian peace effort laughed off for a year of intifada. Both sides have become reactionary, and that is what each side needs least.

This current circle of violence is because the cease fire was a temporary agreement not designed to be a lasting peace. Nothing has changed on either side of the Green Line. The Israelis still expand their settlements and clamp down on the territories. The reactionary Palestinians instigate terror attacks and attacks on settlers as retribution. The cycle continues.

It doesn’t matter who is ultimately “right” or “wrong” in this matter (although the violence always is claimed to be based on that). Both parties are in the same region. Only mass deportation, genocide or coexistence will solve any violence. Guess which one it is our job to support.

It is said that only Nixon could go to China. Well, only Sharon (or another Likudnik) can generate a lasting peace – the Israeli left could carry no mandate from the right for a far reaching agreement in the current environment. Similarly, only a popularly supported Palestinian leader can agree to that and lead his people into such an accord.

What needs to be done? This is IMHO, derived from an article in Ha’aretz a couple of months ago.

Obviously, the cycle needs to be broken. Obviously, both parties need to have something tangible as a measure of goodwill. Both parties need to negotiate from a position of strength, and with a popular mandate. The Israelis, having most of the power, should be in a position to precipitate this.

It would start with a complete withdrawal to pre-1967 borders with the exception of militarily important sites (early warning sites along the Jordan and the Golan) and Temple Mount. Abandon settlements entirely. Get the rabbis onto this plan. The Orthodox “Two Banks of the Jordan” settlers are outnumbered by the Israeli Army protecting them, and thus endangering Jewish lives. That breaks Jewish law – the rabbis should condemn this.

Next, seal the borders tightly. This is impossible at present due to the necessity to open borders for settlers. The Palestinians have a “homeland” and no settlements. Furthermore, security is increased for the Israelis.

You can now have a stable negotiating ground after a few months of no violence. The Israelis have gained security, the Palestinians a “homeland.” Issues left are refugees and Temple Mount. Those can be negotiated without pressure of violence.

Ah, you say: What if there is violence? The Israelis declare a unilateral recognition of Palestinian independence. They treat the Palestinians as a neighboring enemy, not the current grey zone situation. Cut off their water, cut off their power (now provided for by Israel). Israelis feel that they have a carrot (security) and a stick (exit strategy for dealing with more violence as always). Palestinians now feel that they have a carrot (a cohesive homeland) and a stick (violent uprising as always).

That is my proposal. Call me George Mitchell or Colin Powell if you wish, or just call me buttnugget.

10

edwino:

Do you realize that those are exactly the issues that Arafat refuses to negotiate on at all? It was over these issues, not the ones you mentioned in your earlier post, that the Camp David negotiations broke down, leading Arafat to resort to renewed violence.

11

cmkeller,

I firmly believe that most of the year of past protests, however, have not been instigated by events on Temple Mount (nor on events about the refugees). What they have been instigated by are acts of Israeli “aggression” in the territories. These include bulldozing houses and farms which may serve as shelter for snipers. Also includes road closings, bisecting and trisecting Gaza due to security needs, and large armed escorts accompanying a few hundred settlers as a constant reminder of Israeli power in the territories.

While the Palestinians will claim that the original impetus for the Al-Aqsa intifada grew out of Sharon’s stroll on Temple Mount, I think only the naieve still believe that. Give them a cohesive homeland as a measure of good faith while serving your own interests as well by clamping down the borders. It is one giant chip off of the table. It will also give Israel a moral leg up – they offered the olive branch.

The quote I heard is that Arafat was unable to negotiate on Temple Mount due to the pressure of “1 billion Muslims” behind him. When his population is happy and his immediate needs are met (no assasination by unhappy constituents) will the needs of the rest of the Muslim world really weigh so heavily?

12

edwino:

Not by events on those, but as a pressure tactic by Arafat to get further Israeli concessions on those. He thought Barak was another Peres, willing to do, say or give anything just to have his picture in the dictionary under “peacemaker.” He was wrong.

And was all this really going on under the Barak government prior to the onset of the “Al Aqsa” intifada?

Agreement there.

And they did offer that, at Camp David. Arafat was unwilling to accept it unless it also included full sovoreignty over the Temple Mount and full “right of return” for Palestinian refugees.

Simple answer: yes, because the PLO was not created by the Palestinians - it was created by the Arab League as a vehicle for advancing Arab interests in the territory once known as Palestine. It was other Arab governments that provided Arafat and his cronies with shelter, money and munitions for decades before they acquired their tinge of legitimacy at Oslo. Arafat knows what side his bread is buttered on…it’s on the side of his patrons, not on the side of those who consider him their patron.

In addition, you seem to assume that if the Palestinians have territory they can call their own, the radicals who’d be willing to kill him for making concessions will no longer object. This itself is false.

Chaim Mattis Keller

13

cmkeller

Do I believe that Arafat consciously started the uprising of the last year? Yes. Do I believe that he has the power to stop it? Unclear, but probably no. I also believe that anything that goes on in that region depends perhaps less on the internal politics on either side of the Green Line and more on the world opinion, with the Arab League on one side and the US and whoever this week supports Israel on the other. I think this is because of the worldwide importance of the region, as well as of course the foreign aid to both sides.

IMHO we are faced with three options.

  1. Do nothing. Eventually, a large enough terrorist event will cause a full declaration of war. If there is no war, we go through another decade of intifada before world opinion is so far against Israel that they cannot do anything but negotiate. The Palestinians have the upper hand, because they are perceived as the oppressed minority. Israel gains nothing, except perhaps a multinational peacekeeping force to keep them out of the West Bank. See how well the situation is working on the Lebanese border? I see the same thing happening on the West Bank and Gaza.

  2. Go in there and kick out Arafat because after all, he is a terrorist and has been promoting violence. Demilitarize the West Bank and Gaza by force and start from scratch. Has this ever worked in the history of humanity? I have a guy at my work advocating this strategy – I keep telling all that it will be good for is many dead Palestinians, many dead Israelis, and a unified Arab block against Israel (who may have lost any kind of support from the rest of the world as well).

  3. Take the bull by the horns and seize peace now. This will require hard decisions on both sides, but if the Israelis take action in good faith, the Palestinians should be expected to follow. Or at least this is what the Israelis can claim. Don’t give Arafat a chance to ask for more. This is not a negotiation. Make a unilateral move – expect the Palestinians to follow. Negotiations on the rest of the issues will begin once the Palestinians get the #1 Israeli issue off of the table (ensured security).

I understand the history of the PLO and of the Arab League. I understand Arafat’s personal history. Unfortunately, however, it does not diminsh from the universal right of people on that land for self-determination and self-governance. The past is moot, despite how checkered it may be.

There will always be radicals in Palestine, though. I agree with you there. At least if he is popular, though, he will be less prone to coup and assasination. It will increase stability. Even if he does go, it will promote further governance towards peace, perhaps (look at Nasser).

Comments?

14

ed, how is your Option #3 any different than the 98% offer that Israel has already made? I mean, it cost the man his job, for goodness sake. His offer, an attempt to “seize peace now” was so generous that his constituency voted him out of office in a landslide.

How many times must one side make an overture?

15

Seems to me that, according to this article:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/010724/5/7w7o.html
Israel, with it’s recent actions, is arguably attempting to insight unrest among the two main Palestinian factions - the Hamas and the PLO. One would think that if the Hamas did manage to unseat Arafat and his PLO cronies then any tennuous agreements that Israel may have had with the PLO will be right out the window. As such, Israel would be free to respond to the militant Hamas with impunity and largely with favourable world opinion.

16

It is not just an overture, nor is it an offer. It is a recognition that the situation right now is at an impasse. It is an acknowledgement of the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland. It is a permanent seizure of the moral high ground. It is doing what is decent and probably quite belated. And, it will ensure security for Israelis and prevent more needless deaths on both sides.

The 98% offer was extended by Barak. As far as I’m aware, it is no longer on the table. My plan also makes no decision on Temple Mount or on refugees. It leaves those out of the picture, to be conditional on Palestinian reciprocation.

Sorry I haven’t been responding here so often, I’m stuck in hella work nowadays.

I’ll try to be more attentive.

17

Edwino -

I understand what you are getting at but agreements are only as good as the parties who agree to them.

I see no evidence to suggest that the radical Hamas will be shamed into a peaceful coexistance with Israel even if Israel does as you suggest in option three. You see, Hamas has no support from the western world and thus has nothing but scorn for their opinion. Having the rest of the western world, along with Israel, puff up with indignation at their refusal of this Isreali overture would mean no more and no less than it does today. Hamas has a single minded objective and that is the complete dismantling of the state of Israel. If you take a quick read of the article I provided in my previous post you will see that they are even at odds with the PLO and Arafat. More importantlly, Arafat admits to having no control over the Hamas within the occupied territories (or elsewhere). Whom do you suggest Israel negotiate with if Arafat admits no control over Hamas? Now I realize that he is very likely being two faced about it - fueling Hamas on the one hand while trying to pacify Israel and the US on the other - but how does one deal with a party who:
a) refuses responsibility for at least a part of his own people, and then,
b) exagirates his own importance by declaring himself the representative of 1 billion arabs?

I think what you suggest is certainly admirable but hardly practical or realistic given the present situation.