Interesting article RE: Israel/Palestine

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
50
91
The road to war in the Mideast


By Jeff Jacoby, 4/4/2002

OU CANNOT make sense of the Israeli-Palestinian war without first making sense of 1993.


That year found Israel in reasonably good shape. Its economy was the most powerful in the Middle East. Its military power was respected and feared. Its enemies in the Arab and Muslim world, which for so long had dreamed of wiping Israel off the map, were at last coming to accept that the Jewish state was here to stay. To be sure, Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization still plotted to ''liberate'' Israel from the Jews, but they were in exile in Tunisia and their political and moral capital were close to nil.

Things were not perfect, of course. The Palestinian intifadah of the late 1980s had petered out, but violence still flared in the West Bank and Gaza, where Israel's military presence - the result of the Arab's 1967 war of aggression - was resented. In Israel proper, Arab terrorism sometimes sent innocent civilians to terrible deaths. Israelis longed for a more normal existence, one that didn't involve such a heavy burden of military service or the onus of ruling another people.

If these conditions weren't ideal, they were stable. Israel could have continued to shun the PLO as long as its charter called for Israel's extermination. It could have maintained indefinitely its tough policy of retaliating fiercely when attacked.

But Israel chose a different course. In 1993, following secret negotiations in Oslo, it embarked on a ''peace process'' designed to elevate Arafat and the PLO to heights of power, wealth, and respect they had never before known. In exchange for Arafat's promise of peace - ''the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence,'' he pledged in writing - Israel agreed to forget the PLO's long history of mass murder and to treat it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. The deal was sealed at the White House on Sept. 13, 1993, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave Arafat his hand and affirmed his new status as Israel's partner in peace.

What followed was unprecedented in the history of statecraft. Arafat and thousands of PLO killers, now reconstituted as the ''Palestinian Authority,'' entered Gaza and the West Bank in triumph. In short order, Israel transferred virtually every Arab city and town in the territories to Arafat's control. It allowed the Palestinian Authority to assume full administrative power over the Palestinian people. It not only agreed to the creation of an armed Palestinian Authority militia, it supplied the authority with weapons. It began paying Arafat a multimillion-dollar monthly allowance and lobbied internationally for additional financial support. It permitted the Palestinian Authority to build an airport, operate radio and television networks, and deal with other countries as a sovereign power.

This was appeasement on a scale far beyond Neville Chamberlain's infamous land-for-peace agreement in Munich. For when it became clear that Hitler's intentions were not peaceful, Britain abandoned appeasement and went to war. But even after Israel saw that Arafat's hostility was undimmed, it went on making one concession after another.

Literally from the day the Oslo accord was signed, Arafat made it plain that his lifelong goal - Israel's liquidation - was unchanged. He reaffirmed the PLO's ''Plan of Phases,'' its 1974 program of eliminating Israel by stages. He repeatedly called for jihad and extolled Palestinian terrorists as ''martyrs'' and heroes.

The starting point of the Oslo peace process, the foundation on which everything else had been conditioned, was the Palestinians' unequivocal renunciation of terror and violence. But instead of ending, the terror and violence accelerated. The Israeli death toll soared. Arab snipers and bombers, many from Arafat's own wing of the PLO, murdered Jews at a faster pace than ever before. And each new atrocity was hailed by the Palestinian media, which poured out a flood of anti-Semitic venom and bloodlust.

Yet the Israeli government never called a halt. Time and again, it responded to Israeli deaths by proclaiming its faith in the ''peace process'' and giving more territory to Arafat. Desperate for peace, the Israelis kept overlooking Palestinian violations and upping the price they were willing to pay for a final settlement. With every new concession, the Palestinians grew more certain that the Israelis were on the run - and that hitting them even harder would bring even greater returns. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat nearly everything he had demanded, including a state with Jerusalem as its capital, Arafat's reply was to unleash a second intifadah, more furious and lethal than the first.

Israel is at war today because it refused to believe that dictators bent on conquest can never be appeased, only defeated. It craved peace at any price, craved it so madly that it was willing to overlook even the murder of its sons and daughters. In so doing, it emboldened the murderers - and achieved not peace but its opposite.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
50
91
I don't know.

You know, one thing I kind of wonder about.

The EU has been very anti-Israel, and their activities against terrorists. I'm not really sure why.

Spain has had military actions against the Basques.

Same for France and Action Directe.

England and the IRA.

Germany I believe has had problems with Communist terrorists (Red Army Faction, IIRC).

Why is it when they do it, it's ok, but when Israel does it, it's not?
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
It's not a worthwhile venture to attempt to persuade people on here that one side is more right than the other. You won't succeed. We all hold very obstinate opinions.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0


<< Why is it when they do it, it's ok, but when Israel does it, it's not? >>


Sadly, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state and not a predominately Christian state. I hope I'm wrong, though.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
how about it's their way of denying they have the same problems at home. self righteousness at it's worst mb?
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
You know, one thing I kind of wonder about.

The EU has been very anti-Israel, and their activities against terrorists. I'm not really sure why.


Often wondered the same. The animosity displayed by the EU towards Israel is most visible.

Germany I believe has had problems with Communist terrorists (Red Army Faction, IIRC).

Yes, and Bader-Meinhoff was another.
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
What do the stories of the Spanish Inquisition, Anne Frank, Corrie Ten-Boom, the passengers on the Petrina, Nazi Germany, Britain's handling of Palestine and the EU's reaction to the current conflict show us about how Europe treats Jewish people? Here at ATOT, Czar is the perfect example of why we should never listen to euro-wieners when we talk about Israel.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
My question is, what's in it for us? What do we gain by supporting Israel? Is Israel important to our national security?
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
If we were smart, we would stay the hell out of it. No world power has ever been able to secure peace in palestine through diplomacy. Rome finally simply slaughtered everyone in 70 AD... and the Jewish people didn't return to palestine in mass until Europe became a hotbead of anti-semitism back in the 30's and 40's. Britain, the greatest world power of its time fled like a dog with its tail between its legs after it tried to force Arabs and Jews to get along. We should mind our own business and let Israel do what it must to secure its borders... even if that means making things so miserable for Arabs that they finally just pack up and leave the place altogether.

The "palestinians" sealed their fate with the US when they danced in the streets on 9/11.
 

Mavrick

Senior member
Mar 11, 2001
524
0
0


<<

<< Why is it when they do it, it's ok, but when Israel does it, it's not? >>


Sadly, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state and not a predominately Christian state. I hope I'm wrong, though.
>>



Well, its sad, but I think it's quite right (maybe not the Christian state thing, but they definitely don't like a Jewish state) :(

Seems like most Europeans think the only place that deserves to be predominant is Europe itself....(they seem do have a lot of problems accepting that US, Japan and China are more powerful than any European country).
 

novon

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,711
0
0
The world is right, and the US is wrong in it's support for this Israeli killing party. Not the other way, yet so many of you still try to rationalize it.

 

Emma

Member
Nov 27, 2001
72
0
0
Here is an interview done on Thursday with a negotiatorwho was in Isreal's Oslo negotiating team:

Dr Ron Pundak served in Israel's negotiating team for the Oslo talks and has been involved in various negotiation processes between Israelis and Palestinians since then.

He joins me now from Tel Aviv.

What -- how do you read what is now going to happen beyond these next new days and weeks of occupation?

RON PUNDAK, FORMER ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATOR: It's very difficult today to predict the future.

It has always been difficult but somehow I think that what we see today -- and I have very -- many difficulties to say it, is that it seems like a pre-plan which was planned by the PM Sharon since day one when he came into power approximately a year ago.

I think from the first day Sharon didn't like the Oslo Agreement, Sharon didn't like the fact that Arafat is staying here in the Palestinian autonomy and Palestinian National Authority.

I think he didn't want to see the PLO leading the situation and if you ask me, I think that our prospects of peace, which is based on the idea of two independent states side by side, based basically on the June, '67 line, give or take, with annexation, mutual exchange of territories, all these things which were the basics of the Camp David second and the Clinton proposal, all of these things are far away of any plan by our PM and in a way he is now executing his plan.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Can it be convincingly demonstrated that Yasser Arafat is indeed the mastermind of these suicide bombings, the master terrorist?

RON PUNDAK: Well, I would say that in my judgment Yasser Arafat has done many, many, many mistakes since we have started the peace process, but I don't think that his mistakes should have led the situation to where we are.

The paradox today is that the one who masterminds most of the attacks is the leader of the Hamas, which is an extreme fundamental Muslim organisation.

This man is now in Gaza, quite free, quite happy and is probably planning more attacks against Israel.

The one with whom we have signed our agreements and we wanted to make peace with him, Chairman Arafat is a prisoner in Ramallah, seized by the Israeli soldiers.

I see a paradox here.

I still believe that the two states and two nations, the majority of the people would like to have peace and I believe that we can do it and here in Israel there are forces which are still working towards this direction, but somehow if this will continue and if this will deteriorate, I am afraid these efforts by the Israeli IDF, which I am also a reserve man of this force and I'm proud of it, but still I think that it serves today interests which are in the long run against the wellbeing and the national interest of Israel.

KERRY O'BRIEN: When Ariel Sharon talks about smashing the infrastructure of terrorism, how can you define that infrastructure?

Can it be defined?

Can it be given a clear shape and therefore destroyed?

RON PUNDAK: I think it's very, very difficult to define it.

I think the infrastructure today is more in the minds of the people, rather than in the TNT here or Kalashnikov rifle there.

I think the Palestinian struggle is a struggle for independence and liberty and it's very difficult to crush it.

You crush 100 you create a new 1,000.

We didn't have so many suicide attackers as we have today when the peace process was quite successful or even was a bit crippled but still was moving onward.

I don't think that sending Arafat back to Tunis or another Arab state will solve the situation.

I don't think that arresting thousands of Palestinians will solve the situation.

I believe that the only way is to go forward with a political prospects.

We have today a dramatic historical change in the Arab world based on the Saudi Arabia initiative, which is speaking about two state solution about normal relations between the Israeli and the Arab states.

I'm afraid that we might lose this chance.

I think that fighting today against the Palestinians unfortunately doesn't lead us anywhere.

At the same time I must admit that we cannot tolerate and we should not tolerate bombs in the cities in the midst of the Israeli cities and allow this to happen, so we are caught in a terrible junction, but the solution is the political solution questioning the so-called infrastructure will crush people, maybe people who are today organised in terrorist cells but actually it will create more and more hatred and that creates more terrorism.

KERRY O'BRIEN: The Americans, the Europeans, the UN, they are all calling for the parties to return to the negotiating table, which in isolation is an easy call to make, I suppose.

But is there any conceivable settlement which would be acceptable to both Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat and to what extent is the history of enmity between these two men over decades distorted the whole picture?

RON PUNDAK: It has distorted but I don't think that anybody who had the clear judgment thought with Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat we can find a final settlement but what we can find is a lull, is a cease-fire, a cooling off period, which would start moving towards a change towards in Israel a democratic system which may be refined and another leader to lead us towards the final status agreement, but I hope that the Americans will be strong enough and together with the Europeans and the rest of the world, if they will not be able to convince the sides to stop the fire and to withdraw the Israeli troops and enter into what we call the tenet and the Mitchell, which are two plans, tactical plans but which will lead us to the kind of cease-fire in the beginning of a political process, hopefully there will be elections in Israel choosing a different way.

The options are there.

The Israeli people are people that would like to support peace but obviously we need both the political and the Palestinian sides, environment, a positive and conducive environment, which would allow us to move forward.