The Roadmap to Peace

habilis

Ministry of Re-Education
is looking more like a minefield. As you know, yesterday, a Hamas terrorist blew up a bus, killing 16 Israelis and himself in an obvious attempt to derail the peace process. Then shortly after, 2 senior Hamas leaders and 4 other bystanders were killed in an Israeli rocket attack from a helicopter. This just the latest in the Israel vs. Palestine crisis. I won't be at all surprised to see more attacks today.

The Camp David Accords were a failure. Clinton's middle-east peace initiative failed. Now we're rolling the dice again.

What's the only static component in this dynamic environment? Arafat.

Why is Arafat still alive and running a thugocracy?

Clearly, Arafat brings more and more anguish to whatever country he runs. He brings nothing positive to the people he rules. He is the founder of the Palestinian Liberation Organization(a front organization with close ties and direct links to terror groups of all shape). He has shown time and again to be a failure, been exiled from multiple countries, and is a terrorist. Why are we negotiating with a terrorist or his appointee?

I'll be surprised if peace is achieved through diplomatic means. Especially when you have a direct association between church and state, and the church happens to be ruled by religious fanaticism.

just an observation...
 
Yes, although Abbas is the point man for the US/Israeli/PLO negotiations, Arafat is still calling all the shots and pulling the strings. As long as this man is in control, there will never be peace in the mideast. He is a terrorist, and can not be trusted.

This seemingly never ending cycle of violence will not end until there is a decisive victory of one side over the other. In the efforts to avert all out war, the Israelis haven't been as heavy handed as they could (or maybe should) be.

The Palestinians have a real problem now. If they truly desire peace, then they have to find a way to stop this monster of their own creation, the terrorist organizations who continue to fund/train/arm the homicide bombers. If they are unable to do this, then they really have no power with which to negotiate peace.
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
This seemingly never ending cycle of violence will not end until there is a decisive victory of one side over the other.
I totally agree, but how do you wage war like that? I mean, you know the Palestinians can't defeat the Israelis, so all that's left is for the Israeli's to defeat the Palestinians, which is a dicey situation at best, since they're already defeated. You can just imagine the shrill outcry from the left - they already go nuts when the israeli's so much as breath on a Palestinian.
 
I agree the road map looks more like a minefield than anything else. In fact, every peace process in the Middle East was followed by extremist violence.

Arafat never founded the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. He did declare pro-terrorist stuff about Al-Aqsa and martyrdom (Al-Aqsa is one of the most important places in Jerusalemn for Muslims), but he did not create the Brigades you are talking about.
Arafat did create the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), which is not the same as the PLF. He created this organization in a completely different context as of today, and even though he never said it in public, he has already refuted his past ideas about the use of violence.

I think I agree on the point that Arafat needs to be replaced. The problem is, he's the only legitimate leader to many Palestinians. Time passes by and Arafat is old. So is Sharon. Sharon has not created any Brigade, for sure, he was leading one (unit 101 of Tsahal). His past is not very shiny either. If Arafat is a terrorist (which he is not any more), serpico, you should check what Sharon did in the past.

There is no US/Israeli/PLO negotiation. PLO is a groupuscular organization. Abbas represents a governement, gov. of the state of Palestine. Arafat and him are the leaders of a state, although a state with particular status (check UN sources): a state with no borders.

The road map may live, say, 3 years, like some past peace processes have. The problem is, terrorism and resentment have grown for more than 50 years. It is utopic to think terrorism can stop in a couple of months. Terrorism will not cease either during of after the peace process. Palestine has no means to throttle terrorism, neither moral or material.

I also totally agree with this sentence by habilis: "how do you wage war like that ?" Why talk of victories, defeats, battles ? You cannot have a winner and a loser in a peace process; that resolution of a conflict requires two winners.
 
Oh, I forgot to precise I don't believe in the succes of this peace process, but that was fairly obvious I guess. On this last point, I think we agree, although our views on the conflict are so much different.
 
toast: I must have heard wrong then, I thought the PLO morphed, or gave birth to the PLF and that Arafat's PLO cash supported the creation of Al Aqsa, that's what they said on NPR. Anyway sorry about the incorrect information. I edited it that sentence.

Edit: I deleted this sentence from my original post "He was the founder of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade(homicide bomber gang)"
 
Welllll here we go.

It may be easy for someone to say that Arafat is a thug and that "whatever country he rules" (I didn't know there was more than one) suffers from his rule if you take things in a momentary snapshot view. Without looking at the big picture, it is hard to see what is really going on, especially if you listen to the admittedly calm and collected Israeli talking heads. Arabs are an emotional people and they do not play well on TV.

Let me first say that Israel is a real state, one with every right to exist. The extremist Arab viewpoint that it must be annihilated is wrong and must be disavowed. The fact is that Arafat himself has disavowed it - he has embraced the right of Israel to exist. All Arab states have also vowed to recognize the state of Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

How did Israel become a state? Through the immense largess of the United States. At this point Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, Egypt is second. The amount that those two states receive is more than double the amount of all other states in the world combined. Israel received nearly 7 billion dollars in aid last fiscal year. That is 19 million dollars a day, nearly twice what the Soviet Union used to pump into Cuba. Since 1949, nearly 86 billion unadjusted dollars in direct aid have been given to the state of Israel. See <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm> for details

I do not begrudge the investment. It made it possible for the country to survive and it has a fairly robust economy and decent standard of living. It is the only functional rechtstadt in the region. The only problem is that its idea of rights stops at its borders.

There is certainly the element of religious culture involved in the problem. Both creeds have a Hammurabian code of justice, eye for an eye and all that. They have been involved for so long poking each other's eyes out that no one knows who started what first. The recent deplorable bombing in Jerusalem is retaliation for the summary execution of "suspected" Hamas activists which was a pre-emptive strike motivated by the need to retaliate for the last bombings. Some Israeli Talking Head on "Hard Talk" on BBC said "You can't expect us to do nothing when our citizens are attacked, can you?" Retaliation for retaliation for retaliation.

The growth of movements like Hamas are directly connected to the economic situation in the inner cities. After the Oslo accords, there was a chance to support Arafat and build a civil society leading to a state, but instead he was given a little bit of money and left to his own devices. It was enough money for him to hang himself. Claims of corruption are real, but they are as much the fault of the uninterested giver as the receiver. Tell me that the 89 billion given to Israel didn't end up lining the pockets of the power elite. But the money kept coming. In Palestine it did not and so Hamas and Jihad and Al Aqsa grow.

Arafat is a clever manipulator, not a nation-builder, so why wasn't he given the help he needed. He was hung out to dry.

In the meantime, Israel has continued to colonize the west bank. In spite of the Oslo promise to reduce settlement activity it has expanded in pace. Israel at present controls the water in Palestine, it controls the high grounds and its highways crisscross the territories making simple travel from one village to another an odyssey for many Palestinians. Take a look at the maps on the website of the Foundation for Middle East Peace <http://www.fmep.org/maps/>
Don't forget that every settlement has a highway connecting it to the "mainland" and that highway cuts across farms and properties and in many cases it is fortified and patrolled. Combine with that the fact (yes, fact) that the present government in Israel has the inclination to take over the whole of the west bank and deport the Palestinians to the most densely populated strip of land in the whole world, the Gaza strip and you may understand why these people fight tanks with rocks.

The point is that if you want a viable Palestinian state that can overcome the radicals and the resentful elements that make up Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs, the only way to do it is to build a strong economic base in a Palestinian State (while at the same time controlling the excesses of the Israeli right wing). It will take the concerted effort of the West to invest both economic and mental capital in the Palestinian people. Give the young people in Gaza the opportunity to get and keep a good job, the ability to buy a car (even getting married in this part of the world is impossible without significant cash) and they will reject the bogus claims of the politicoreligionists who presently get them to strap on a bomb and blow things up. The people here are not stupid, only hopeless. Becoming a bomber is a way to secure an income for your family. That is the war to be fought.
(sorry, no website, this is first hand knowledge, it is a fact)

I'm getting too long for this forum. I hope that if you didn't get all the way through that you'll at least see the tag.

Every state has had their Hamas, the Black Panthers, The Red Army Brigade, Bader Meinhof. When a state exists, it can combat and overcome such rogues. If there is no state, there is no hope.

Simply (yes Toast simply because it is a paradigm shift that is simple - the work of course is not) understand that the Palestinians have an inalienable right to their life, their liberty and their pursuit of their prosperity, that Israel has gone beyond the pale in its crackdown and plays the role of tyrant in the region. The US, which created Israel, has a moral obligation to reign her in. Buy back the settlements, let the residents choose to stay in Palestine or go back to Israel. If they choose to stay in Palestine, they do so under Palestinian law, just as do Japanese in the US. Set up a legitimate Palestinian state and support it economically, politically and morally. Whether that includes Arafat or not is immaterial.

PS- yes toast, there has to be two winners and that means someone has to come and show the two how to win/win.

PSS - Al Aqsa brigade could be seen as a necessity in the highly charged factional environment that is the Palestinian society

sorry to be so long winded, and there is still so much more to be said (and done)
 
Arafat never founded the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Founded? No. Supports? Yes. Through money (of which the ties have been proven repeatedly). Same for Hezbollah and Hamas.

pds is right about the Palestinian economic climate facilitating the continued breeding of terrorists, to a degree. I say to a degree because it's the Palestinians own fault... They've continually "elected" Arafat to be their leader, and he's done nothing for them as a people all this time. He's immensely wealthy, but his people still live in squalor. Yet they continue to look to him as their leader. So you have to put a certain degree of responsibility on the people, as they ultimately get what they demand of their own governement (dictatorship or not).

The US took the bold first step in refusing to negotiate with Arafat. Yet, if they are really serious, they have to acknowledge that he still runs the show, even if they aren't dealing directly with him anymore. Until he's gone completely, the Palestinians are royally screwed and can hope for no better than the status quo.
 
Forgot to mention that the establishment of the state of Israel was a pawn in the cold-war balance of power strategy of the West. It is high time for America to revise their worldview and to stop acting like the overachieving bully, expanding old policies and strategies.

Unfortunately Condi Rice is a Sovietologist by trade and the other characters in Washington are old cold warriors unable to make radical (simple;)) paradigm shifts.
 
Forgot to mention that the establishment of the state of Israel was a pawn in the cold-war balance of power strategy of the West. It is high time for America to revise their worldview and to stop acting like the overachieving bully, expanding old policies and strategies.

Well, you can't blame the Jews who survived life in Germany during WWII for not wanting to go back. The UN was at the forefront of establishing Israel, as it was in Europes own interests.

As for America acting like a "bully", I'd argue that America's policies are largely a result of self defense, most of the time. What other country (sans Israel) is subject to as many attacks as America? None.

Unfortunately Condi Rice is a Sovietologist by trade and the other characters in Washington are old cold warriors unable to make radical (simple) paradigm shifts.

That's a completetly ludicrous statement. The Cold War strategy was containment. It worked somewhat for the USSR. That policy does not work in the new world when dealing with the threats of terrorism. The Bush doctrine is the exact opposite of the old cold war containment strategies. There is little that isn't black and white in it (the Saudis seem to be a grey area that needs to be dealt with). MOF, most people (outside the US) are overly critical of the "With us or against us" statements. Not very cold war like.
 
As for America acting like a "bully", I'd argue that America's policies are largely a result of self defense, most of the time. What other country (sans Israel) is subject to as many attacks as America? None.

That is a very interesting statement ... Global control seems to be the the type of self-defense the US is after ... and calling a pre-emptive strike self-defense stretches the definition a tad ... but indeed you said most of the time: what would be examples of non-self defense?
The US seems to be as thorough as a worldwide IRS: if there's american interesets (dollars) incolved then it is in the interest of the national security ... mmmh ... As for America being a bully, well, look at some recent examples of America's problems with authority: they don't accept the UN, they don't accept the International Court, they unilaterally cancel treaties whenever they think it fit ... That is the behaviour of a bully: I'm strongest so I don't take shit fron no-one.

In the light of this behaviour, do you think it's strange when people doubt the noble and high moral motives of US military action around the world?

But this is entirely OT ... :)

Concerning Israel and Palestine, well on the one hand we have a rich and well-organized nation on the other hand we have a poor, oppressed struggling culture, whose rightful territorial claims are violently repressed. The responses from both side are human, all to human ... both feel threatened by the other and retaliate whenever possible ... This is no more a question of self-defense, there is too much aggression from both sides, it is in fact a slow guerrilla-like war. If Palestine had received enough economical and organizational support to build up some sort of society, with a working police force, a public administration etc. and some kind of welfare, then radicalism would have dwindled to acceptable levels. However, Israel conduct often only harmed its own position, almost masochitically provoking and triggering responses, while not at all respecting UN resolutions ... since 30 years IIRC ...
 
That is a very interesting statement ... Global control seems to be the the type of self-defense the US is after ... and calling a pre-emptive strike self-defense stretches the definition a tad ...

Global control? Ah yes. Us Americans are really after control of the world! We're going to start by taking over the entire middle east, then we are going to move through Asia, then on to Europe. We will conquer these countries and claim them for the Ameican Empire!

What a silly notion. America has liberated more countries in it's 200 year history than any other. And out of those countries we've liberated, how many have we "conquered"? One, and it's currently called the State of Texas. We defeated Germany. We stayed long enough to get them up to speed, and we left. We defeated Japan, and again stayed long enough to establish a new government, and left.

What you call a "preemptive strike" (meaning Iraq), I call a necessary operation to overthrow a murderous regime with a deep seated hatred for the US and the means, motive and money to do us serious harm.

You can debate it all day long, but at the end of the day (and the end of the war), the Iraqis are going to be better off.

but indeed you said most of the time: what would be examples of non-self defense?

Well, I believe Vietnam wasn't self defense. It was a strategic war to stem the tide of Communism. North Vietnamese never really threatened the US, only US interests. It was a proxy war at best, to show the USSR that we would not let communist forces overrun non-communist forces.
 
Originally posted by Cat
it is in fact a slow guerrilla-like war. If Palestine had received enough economical and organizational support to build up some sort of society, with a working police force, a public administration etc. and some kind of welfare, then radicalism would have dwindled to acceptable levels. However, Israel conduct often only harmed its own position, almost masochitically provoking and triggering responses, while not at all respecting UN resolutions ... since 30 years IIRC ...

Well put, a slow guerilla war...

The rest is my point exactly. Last year Israel surrounded the PA headquarters, destroyed the police station, blew up the jail and refused to let the elected leader of the PA go to the bathroom outside his office and then said "you stop the terrorists or we won't negotiate with you."

You want them to stop the terrorists? - help them build up their police (and more importantly the civil society) don't destroy their infrastructure.

I don't think the US was brave or bold or forthright to refuse to negotiate with Arafat, they were stupid.

So they got their way, now they have to talk to Abbas, and they are one step further away from dealing with the real operator. Stupid if you ask me.

It is necessary to look at this from the standpoint of the oppressed people. We need to step outside of our northern, judeo/christian cultural viewpoint, forget (for the moment) the history of christian/muslim strife and see that the injured people here are the Palestinians.

They are the freedom fighters striving to overthrow the tyrannical rule of an oppressor.

They are not doing a good job of it, they need our help.

The Bush doctrine is the exact opposite of the old cold war containment strategies.

Sorry, the application of the Bush Doctrine to date is the epitome of cold war tactics, albiet more aggressive and ... bully like. The strategy of the cold war may have been containment but the tactic was to secure the oil - international petro-politics. And I hope that Iraq's as far as it goes, because as much as I think Mugabe should go, it is not America's military perogative. This relates to the topic at hand because if the bully strategy is at play behind the roadmap (allied with Israel) it is doomed to fail.
 
Notice, Serpico, that I sail "control" not conquest. Control over resources, commercial trade agreements, bilateral alliances etc. are forms of control. You discuss whether or not to permit North-Korea or Iran to have a nuclear plant. You have the power to destroy it and probably to get away with it. That is control.

You can debate it all day long, but at the end of the day (and the end of the war), the Iraqis are going to be better off
But that is entirely beside the point! Who are you to make decisions for them? Is it democratic to be invaded and liberated? No. Was it really in american interest to intervene? No again. So what were you doing there? Exerting control. However, accept i tor not: why did the US invade Iraq doe snot help any African country in civil war? Because of Iraq's natural resources and strategical location. I don't think the US want to conquer and colonize Iraq, but to control it and its resources. Not to rob them, but to bind them with agreements and trades. Already now they are bullying Iran not to interfere and shouting down Syria. That's bullies for you ...
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Well, you can't blame the Jews who survived life in Germany during WWII for not wanting to go back. The UN was at the forefront of establishing Israel, as it was in Europes own interests.

As for America acting like a "bully", I'd argue that America's policies are largely a result of self defense, most of the time. What other country (sans Israel) is subject to as many attacks as America? None.

No, I said that Israel has every right (at this point) to exist but it *does* exist because the US invested well over 100 billion dollars (in todays dollars) to keep it alive and to balance Soviet influence in the Middle East.

As an American who has lived outside the country for 20 years I can forgive your feeling of insularity and persecution. Just for a thrill, check out the history of William Walker and the filibusteros in Nicaragua (mid 1800s). It was an eye-opener for me. Betcha never heard of William in high school. ;)

Still, with the exception of 911 and Pearl Harbor, when was America attacked? I don't think you can really count Beirut 82 since the bombers saw us as an occupying power. The Cole? A ... what is that ... a warship? Kenya may have been uncalled for, but then, as Bush has rightly said, this is a war against terrorism. I think France, Italy and Germany may have claim to more skirmishes in that war.

But the country that has suffered more attacks than the US or Israel is Palestine. Count them any way you want, number of dead, events, firepower... well maybe if you count up all the rocks... :D

Israel claims they were struck first, but history shows that the state was born in war, she struck first, and the eye-poking has been going on ever since. Until we realize that we won't have the perspective necessary to do the hard work of healing.

As long as we blame Arafat alone, we are lost before we begin.

I, for one, had hoped that the roadmap, by virtue of its international "quartet" authorship would have been a stronger plan, one that would ask Israel to live up to its existing commitments to scale back its colonial outposts, but it doesn't. In terms of settlement destruction, it takes September 2000 as a benchmark. That was the time when the Palestinians vented their pent up frustration over settlements. So roll back to the time when it was anyway unacceptable? Good strategy

The UN has defined the borders of Israel and by default the borders of Palestine. Israel simply refuses to abide by the decision. Israel agreed to stem the settlement process in Oslo, the famous Land for Peace deal - Israel gives Palestine land and Palestine (the Palestinian Authority) agrees to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. The PA did that and so did Arafat himself. In response Israel accelerated the settlement process under Netanyahu. He stated that there was no way he would back off from the population of the West Bank.

Barak replaced Netanyahu with a platform to bring peace - land for peace. He appointed Sharon as his housing secretary (minister). Sharon pushed settlements at a greater rate and began (accelerated) the demolition of Palestinian homes without due process.

Since Sharon is in charge, will he slow down? No - his idea of land for peace is give us your land, we'll give you peace. He has stated publicly on a number of occasions that it would be best for all concerned to deport the Palestinians on the West Bank and send them to Gaza. He has asked (perhaps not formally) for other Arab states (i.e. Egypt) to give up land in that area to ease the overcrowding.

And Arafat is the problem here???

I am not an Arafatian - he's not a saint by any means. I just want people to see objectively that the side not keeping up the bargain is the Israeli side and that is because they see some "manifest destiny" for them to reoccupy the space of historical, biblical Israel. That is inconsistent with the idea of a two state solution.
 
This is a topic I don't want to get into, except to say that all 3 players need to revise their plans and come to see the other guy's perspective.
 
I often disagree with Arden, but I back up every single pixel of his last post. It's just 100% paradigmatically (;) at pds) correct.

[side note]
Arafat supported Al Aqsa brigades, but he's not the only state who did. Plus, he supported, for those brigades are opponents to his regime as of today.
 
There's some people in this thread that just take the words right out of my mouth, not to mention they are wiser then me in this area.

Yeah but what's so bad about Pax Americana anyway? I'd be willing to give in a little to the European socialists so they can continue to have a 3 month paid vaction a year and work 7 hour days, whatever, if the world was more like us, we'd have less wars, and more prosperity. I don't care what color, race, or creed you are, people gotta learn to stop with the religion and get along, so what's so bad about showin them how - Roman Empire style!

No but seriously though, I hate to sound so, callous.
 
Tarpeian Rock (La Rupe Tarpea)

This is the rock from which traitors were pushed to their death in Ancient Rome
But if you tried that today, I imagine someone in the 3 story building next door
might see you.
Or, the body could land on the hood of a car below.

Yes, executions might be tricky now,
but don't worry.
You can pick-up the discarded leaflets,
and papers,
and wrappers,
while you're here.

-- Baker Pratt
 
Back
Top