Bush backs Sharon Peace Proposal

[Skeptic]

The Palestinians who participate in the Geneva Initiative have realized very well that Israel won't survive with an arabic majority so since they really want a solution they withdrew the right of return from the negotiations.

Actually, when you read the Geneva "agreements" carefully, you'll find out they did nothing of the sort. The so-called refugees ("victims of Arab detention" is a more appropriate term) retain the right to choose israel as one of the places they will "return" to.

You have to understand that if you are interested in those people.

He isn't. He is only interested in the bit about them which can be blamed on the jews. AUP never showed the least interest in, say, the billions Arafat stole from his people, or in the fact that 16% of Palestinians casualties in the so-called "intifada" (terror war of annihilation is a better term) were killed by fellow Palestinians.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I really wonder what z-n and the average American has to win from this situation and I wonder if it is so difficult to see that this attitude causes double the problems it supposes to solve.

Well, I’m an average American and I can’t see that I have anything to win from this situation. Nothing direct enough to enumerate, anyway. What I’m trying to understand is exactly what this attitude is, why it causes double the problems it supposes to solve, and why this sense of tragedy over this announcement.

In a historic break with longstanding policy denounced by Palestinian leaders, President George W Bush today endorsed Israel's retention of settlements in the West Bank in any peace accord with the Palestinians.

Bush also ruled out the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

An elated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his plan to pull back from parts of the West Bank and Gaza, hailed by Bush, would create "a new and better reality for the state of Israel".

For whatever reason, the focus seems to be on what Israel is not withdrawing from, and that takes attention away from the fact that the plan is to pull back from parts of the West Bank and Gaza. In effect, this is a unilateral concession on the part of the Israelis. How can it be seen as otherwise?

The only way I can see this as any kind of tragedy for the peace process is if in the mind of the individual there is a picture of what the end result of that peace process should look like, and this mental image is a prejudice, a preconception that colours anything that doesn’t fit as wrong. What should be remembered is that there are some ten million individuals directly involved, each of whom have equally valid mental images of what the end result should be, all these images are likely to be very different from one another, and none of them are any more valid or realistic than any arbitrary decision until it is agreed upon in good faithby representatives of both sides.

Failing that, and it’s been failing for 37 years now, something still needs to be done. I may not agree that what’s being done is the best for all concerned, (I don’t) but neither am I convinced that it’s in any way worse than the status-quo that’s being maintained in perpetuity. I have my own mental images (plural, some of which are probably pretty similar to your own) of what a fair and just solution might look like, but I’m a realist and recognize that a solution that is not as good as the ones I imagine is still better than no solution at all.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In my opinion it's their obligation towards the Jewish History and the Jewish people to negotiate even with the devil if it's necessary.

I agree. I would only add the further qualifications that the obligation exists only if there is a chance of yielding positive results, and that the negations not close doors to other solutions.

 

[Skeptic]

Sharon has an agenda, most definitely. But mutually respectful, peaceful coexistence with Palestinians obviously isn't on it.

If "respectful, peaceful coexistence" was what the Palestinians really wanted, they could have had it many times--in 1936 (the Peel comission), 1947 (the UN decision) 1967, 1979 (the peace treaty with Egypt asked them to join the negotiations for a state), and most recently in 2000 (offered a state on 98% of the WB and Gaza, with areas inside israel to compensate, and even a partial "right of return").

The result? In every single case, they started a war to push the jews into the sea instead. Get this through your skull, Clancey: the Palestinians simply DO NOT WANT "respectrul, peaceful coexsitence" with israel. They want the jews dead and gone and israel eradicated. It's as simple as that, really. Sharon is hardly to blame for not having "mutually respectful, peaceful coexistence" on his agenda. You might as well blame him for not trying to cure cancer or colonize Mars.

 

[Cleopatra]

It's a travesty of language to call anything from Sharon a "peace proposal".

Sharon has an agenda, most definitely. But mutually respectful, peaceful coexistence with Palestinians obviously isn't on it.

Ariel Sharon is not less patriot than any other Israeli. He is a native Israeli, he was born in the land but he sees things wearing his military glasses. Maybe his generation doesn't bother to live in a military state but younger generations that travel abroad and study in universities in Europe and in the States do mind. They want to live in Peace like normal people. This is not too much to ask.

 

[Cleopatra]

The result? In every single case, they started a war to push the jews into the sea instead. Get this through your skull, Clancey: the Palestinians simply DO NOT WANT "respectrul, peaceful coexsitence" with israel.

But we want it skeptic and we have to persuade them that we want to live peacefully , we have to, we have the power, we have the obligation to persuade them. When we multiply the settlements and we announce our plans to annex parts of the West Bank then we cannot persuade anybody that we want peace.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche
It's a tough question Mycroft, capable of cutting both ways. This much I know: arguments dating back to 13th century, much less biblical times, should carry zero weight as to legitimacy of land claims present tense.

I agree completely. So the next tough question is how far back in history should one go?

For myself, the answer is the beginnings of the Zionist movement, about 1881.

Another tough question capable of cutting both ways. How much weight should be given to religious/cultural factors?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
But we want it skeptic and we have to persuade them that we want to live peacefully , we have to, we have the power, we have the obligation to persuade them. When we multiply the settlements and we announce our plans to annex parts of the West Bank then we cannot persuade anybody that we want peace.

Where is their obligation to persuade you that they want peace?

 

[Clancie]

Cleopatra,

Whether Sharon is a patriot or not isn't even an issue. I'm sure both of us could point to atrocities commited throughout history by people in the name of "patriotism".

Nor is it a generational issue, as many of his generation have worked tirelessly for Israeli and Palestinian understanding in so many ways, against so many obstacles.

Sharon -is- a military man, yes, and his career is chequered with actions that show his hatred of Palestinians.

Sharon's actions throughout his career, including as PM, repeatedly show that he is not a man of peace. He can apparently easily dupe Bush into accepting that they are both compatriots fighting together against terrorism, but the -reality- is that Sharon is bent on destroying Palestinians and any hopes they have for a homeland.

The Sharon Plan has one purpose: to derail the so-called "Road Map" and make way for the destruction of Palestinians...

His plan, like the rest of his career, is not about peace...it is about war.

 

[Clancie]

Mycroft,

Didn't Sharon say they're NOT withdrawing from the West Bank?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Clancie Mycroft,

Didn't Sharon say they're NOT withdrawing from the West Bank?

No, but that seems to be the spin.

In a historic break with longstanding policy denounced by Palestinian leaders, President George W Bush today endorsed Israel's retention of settlements in the West Bank in any peace accord with the Palestinians.

Bush also ruled out the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

An elated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his plan to pull back from parts of the West Bank and Gaza, hailed by Bush, would create "a new and better reality for the state of Israel".

You see, by making the focus on what is not being withdrawn from, you can completely obscure what is being withdrawn from. In the absence of any agreement or assurance from the Palestinian-Arabs, this amounts to a unilateral concession. I may have my doubts about its wisdom, but let’s hope it does produce positive results.

I wasn’t planning on responding to any of your assertions in this thread, but since you addressed me directly, I will.

Could you please document you assertions about Sharon?

 

[Clancie]

Mycroft,

re: the West Bank, I checked, too, and you're right he said they'd return "part" of it (whatever that means). However, he also said Israel would annex 5 Jewish settlements in the West Bank (a typical Sharon tactic, imo,--make a small peaceful gesture followed by a large aggressive one). The really important part of his West Bank statement isn't the little ('give a little something back"). It was that they're annexing large parts of it for Israel--and that annexation was -not- a part of the road map.

re: my observations of Sharon....just look at how he works (read the war crimes indictment--it won't be prosecuted of course, but it contains some good factual information about how he works).

I've been watching him a long time and, as a politician, he operates like a military man. With Bush, in particular, Sharon's typical MO--a superficial "peaceful" gesture to disarm opposition, followed by a vigorous attack--works very well.

He also starts military attacks when others aren't paying attention--a good general's tactic--for example, the heavy Israeli attacks on Palestinian settlements a few days after 9/ll.

Or the attacks that closely followed his first meeting after Bush became President. Bush apparently reassured him that his administration would continue to veto UN resolutions against Israeli military actions (as indeed we did veto one a few days later). Sharon returned home and quickly launched another attack on Palestinians. He is always willing to risk a few days of bad PR in order to further his overall goal.

He will use any provocation to respond with disproportionate force and shows no remorse for innocent civilians who are killed. (His use of "terrorist" is a catch-all phrase that is apparently very effective when communicating with our President).

The only good thing I can say about him is that he's predictable.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by zenith-nadir
And in your Shangri-La world Cleo how many free passes does Arafat and the Palestinian Authority get?

If those who merely disagree with you live on a different world, which earth do you live on? Fullers?

Perhaps you can point me to examples of international lasting peace generated by ignoring one party and implementing unilateral decisions, adversely affecting their land and futures?

 

[Cleopatra]

And in your Shangri-La world Cleo how many free passes does Arafat and the Palestinian Authority get? how many decades get to go by while no palestinian elections ever take place, how many decades get to go by while no palestinian constitution is drafted, how many decades get to go by while the Palestinian Authority lets terror groups roam wild and free? how many different American presidents get to be burnt by Arafat? how many mideast envoys must go visit Arafat's Mukata compound in futility? how many buses and restaurants in Israel need to be blown up by Hamas and Al Aksa? how many decades get to go by Cleo before Arafat and the Palestinian Authority become responsible for their failures or become irrelevant?

So, what are you saying here that Sharon and Bush are not trying to find a viable solution but they are punishing the Palestinians for tolerating Arafat?
You know z-n or maybe you don't know it. Arafat is our man. If he was dangerous we would have killed me long ago but he is not dangerous, he is convenient. No he is not convenient he is the best supporter of Sharon's policy. That's why Ariel turns him the favor and everytime his authority is questioned by the Palestinians he sents the army to his head quarters and he re-baptizes him as hero...

Arafat is old, he will be off the market after some years and tell me what Sharon and Bush who care that much of the weak leadership of the Palestinians have done for his succession? I will tell you what they have done. The have created a strong Hamas to inherit the Palestinian authority and this strong Hamas doesn't negotiate anything you know. So now what? What Sharon succeeds with annexing some settlements? He gives Palestinians more real reasons to refuse to negotiate. Even if those settlements will be annexed, they will never be safe. People in these settlements will leave in fear like caged animals. Did we created a state to live as caged animals?

Well that would be a fair question except before Sharon there was Barak, before Barak was Netantahu, before Netantahu was Peres, before Peres was Shamir, before Shamir, was Begin....there has only ever been one Arafat. So what do you Cleopatra have to profit from completely ignoring Arafat's ten-year destructive policy?

As an Israeli I profited a lot from Arafat's destructive policy and I profited in the field of diplomacy. The Israeli PMs you listed must think alike because none tried to eliminate him. Thanks to Arafat we expanded the settlements, thanks to Arafat the international community tolerates us to violate the international law en masse, thanks to Arafat we have nuclear weapons. Thanks to Arafat Ariel Sharon was elected. He must erect a statue of Arafat on his private island in Greece and worship him night and day.

Now your turn. How your life in your american city will change if Israel withdraws completely from the O.T.?

 

[Cleopatra]

Where is their obligation to persuade you that they want peace?

Frankly I believe that they do not know what they want, they are completely disoriented. A good move it would be for Israel to show them what to ask for but Israel gave the authority to Hamas as present instead.

 

[Mycroft]

and:

The Sharon Plan has one purpose: to derail the so-called "Road Map" and make way for the destruction of Palestinians...

Right now Sharon is proposing withdrawals of settlements. This seems to contradict both these statements of yours. If you could show me specific statements made by Sharon, or whatever evidence you have that supports these statements, I would appreciate that.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Frankly I believe that they do not know what they want, they are completely disoriented. A good move it would be for Israel to show them what to ask for but Israel gave the authority to Hamas as present instead.

I think that’s the first intelligent response I’ve ever seen to that question.

Do you think this is feasible while Arafat is in charge?

How could Israel realistically do this without being seen to control/manipulate the Palestinian-Arabs?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Mycroft

Apparently I wasn’t specific enough when I asked you to document your assertions about Sharon. Let me correct that now. You said:

Sharon is bent on destroying Palestinians and any hopes they have for a homeland.

and:

The Sharon Plan has one purpose: to derail the so-called "Road Map" and make way for the destruction of Palestinians...

Well, I can't read his mind, Mycroft, so I can only infer his motives from observing his actions over a long period of time. Apparently you look at the same actions and have reached a very different conclusion, but these are mine. His pattern, as I said, is quite consistent--and not the behavior of a leader whose goal is peace.

Right now Sharon is proposing withdrawals of settlements. This seems to contradict both these statements of yours. If you could show me specific statements made by Sharon, or whatever evidence you have that supports these statements I would appreciate that.

Here's one AP article that mentions this annexation:

Cowen said the road map did not envision Israel's annexation of five Jewish population concentrations on the West Bank, as Sharon proposed and Bush appeared to back.

Annexing West Bank settlements for Israel

Israel has a greater need for defense than most nations.

One might, with similar reasons, argue that Israel has a greater need for effective diplomats than most other nations.

Here's a source you probably won't like, but I think you'd be hard pressed to contradict their facts:

Human Rights Watch

 

[zenith-nadir]

You know I read some of the posts and shake my head in disbelief. I tire of this debate because no matter how many times the middle east comes up maybe two posters are willing to lay the responsibility on Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. It is always Sharon, the wall, Bush or the illegal settlements...Hamas is in Gaza and the West Bank because of the Palestinian Authority, Al Aksa, Islamic Jihad, Fateh are all in Gaza and the West Bank because of the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians live in poverty and perpetual war because of the Palestinian Authority, 400,000 palestinians were forcibly expelled from Kuwait because of the Palestinian Authority, even Cleopatra, the token Jew from Greece says;

So, what are you saying here that Sharon and Bush are not trying to find a viable solution but they are punishing the Palestinians for tolerating Arafat?

Even Cleo can't blame Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, it is Bush and Sharon punishing palestinians because palestinians tolerate Arafat...Sheeesh...it is like Arafat and Palestinian Authority have magic Superman capes that make them impervious to all responsibility.

In 11 years, (1993-2004) and after several signed peace agreements the Palestinian Authority hasn't had an election, they haven't drafted a constitution, they haven't stopped the incitement, they haven't stopped the terror groups like Hamas....but never mind all that! It's the jews!!!, Sharon and the "evil" settlements causing all the trouble and forcing palestinian mothers blow themselves up....damn those poor old palestinians....if only the settlements and Sharon would go away then Arafat and the Palestinian Authority could do what they have failed to do since 1993....if only Sharon and the settlements went away the Palestinian Authority would magically have elections, stop corruption, stop incitement, stop terror groups, end the call for jihad, draft a constitution and negotiate peace in good faith....ya, sure, I believe that...

 

[The Fool]

You know I read some of the posts and shake my head in disbelief. I tire of this debate because no matter how many times the middle east comes up maybe two posters are willing to lay the responsibility on Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. It is always Sharon, the wall, Bush or the illegal settlements...Hamas is in Gaza and the West Bank because of the Palestinian Authority, Al Aksa, Islamic Jihad, Fateh are all in Gaza and the West Bank because of the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians live in poverty and perpetual war because of the Palestinian Authority, 400,000 palestinians were forcibly expelled from Kuwait because of the Palestinian Authority, even Cleopatra, the token Jew from Greece says; Even Cleo can't blame Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, it is Bush and Sharon punishing palestinians because palestinians tolerate Arafat...Sheeesh...it is like Arafat and Palestinian Authority have magic Superman capes that make them impervious to all responsibility.

In 11 years, (1993-2004) and after several signed peace agreements the Palestinian Authority hasn't had an election, they haven't drafted a constitution, they haven't stopped the incitement, they haven't stopped the terror groups like Hamas....but never mind all that! It's the jews!!!, Sharon and the "evil" settlements causing all the trouble and forcing palestinian mothers blow themselves up....damn those poor old palestinians....if only the settlements and Sharon would go away then Arafat and the Palestinian Authority could do what they have failed to do since 1993....if only Sharon and the settlements went away the Palestinian Authority would magically have elections, stop corruption, stop incitement, stop terror groups, end the call for jihad, draft a constitution and negotiate peace in good faith....ya, sure, I believe that...

Dont lose Heart ZN, your brilliant and incisive reposting of spam news articles and cutting and pasting other people's opinions is bound to win us over eventually...
I have to go out now...as long as that bastard Arafat doesn't make it rain.

 

[demon]

Clancie:
"Sharon is bent on destroying Palestinians and any hopes they have for a homeland."

and:

"The Sharon Plan has one purpose: to derail the so-called "Road Map" and make way for the destruction of Palestinians..."

Mycroft;
"Right now Sharon is proposing withdrawals of settlements. This seems to contradict both these statements of yours. If you could show me specific statements made by Sharon, or whatever evidence you have that supports these statements, I would appreciate that."

From Reuters UK today:
'...Palestinians said bluntly Bush had killed negotiations. Israeli officials say the Palestinians thwarted talks by failing to stop militants carrying out suicide attacks on Israelis.

Informed of Palestinians' reaction, Sharon was quoted by two well-informed Israeli columnists covering his White House visit as saying: "They have a better understanding of the significance of (Bush's) letter than most Israelis. I said that we were going to deal them a lethal blow, and they were dealt a lethal blow."'
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticl...D=4842265&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news

Just in case we hadn't got the point:

'A MORTAL BLOW'

"My plan is tough on the Palestinians. A mortal blow. In a unilateral process there is no Palestinian state. This situation could go on for many years," Sharon said before he saw Bush.'
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticl...D=4844301&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news