Israel tells Powell that he should not look at peace plan at Geneva !

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
So I guess the only two groups against this meeting are militant Palestinian groups and Sharon's goverment ! Then again is this anything new here ? Can we finally cut off the foreign welfare checks to that region of the world and let these cluster fucks deal without ? I'd bet as soon as we stop sending checks every first of the month to Israel that they'll somehow magically discover a peace plan that they can live with !


Powell Urged Not to Meet Accord Officials
1 hour, 20 minutes ago


By MARK LAVIE, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Israel's vice premier says Colin Powell should not meet organizers of an unofficial Mideast peace treaty, arguing the Secretary of State would not help the actual peace process.

Launched Monday in Geneva, the informal agreement was the result of three years of talks between former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators working in private without representing their governments.

The U.S. government has been generally supportive of the unofficial Geneva initiative, while insisting that the "road map" peace plan is the only one on the table.

Powell said he would go ahead with a meeting the unofficial plan's architects. The meeting would not contradict the U.S. commitment to the "road map" outlining the establishment of a Palestinian state, he said.

"I don't know why I or anyone else in the U.S. government should deny ourselves the opportunity to hear from others and who have ideas with respect to peace," Powell said Tuesday during a visit to Tunisia.

He added that the meeting "in no way undercuts our strong support" for Israel and the road map.

The accord's organizers flew from Geneva to Washington, where they hoped to meet Powell. However, as of late Tuesday, a meeting had not yet been finally arranged.

Israeli Vice Premier Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that Powell would be "making a mistake" by meeting the plan's organizers, led by former Israeli Cabinet minister Yossi Beilin and Palestinian minister Yasser Abed Rabbo.

"I think he is not being useful to the process," Olmert told Israel Radio. "I am certain of his friendship (to Israel), but I would cast doubt on his judgment in this matter."

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon described the hypothetical agreement as subversive.

The deal proposes borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state close to Israel's borders before the 1967 Mideast war, giving the Palestinians almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and part of Jerusalem.

It calls for the removal of most Israeli settlements there and severely limits the so-called "right of return" for Palestinians who fled or were driven out during the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation and their descendants. It also divides sovereignty in Jerusalem.

The Israelis are concerned that a Powell meeting would lend legitimacy to the accord.

The "road map" leads through three stages to a Palestinian state, but it is a formula for negotiations, while the Geneva Accord spells out solutions to the touchiest issues, such the refugees.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat praised the virtual deal, sending a message to the Geneva gathering that called the accord "a brave initiative that opens the door to peace." He initially had been lukewarm.

Militant Palestinian groups denounced the accord and called the Palestinian negotiators traitors, objecting to concessions over refugees' right of return.

In the Arab world, the newspaper "Oman" praised the accord, describing it as the first true Palestinian or Arab document that gives a comprehensive vision for a solution to all the issues and paves the way for a Palestinian state.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
its unofficial. and palestinian leaders even say even with that unofficial accord and removal of all settlements and giving them most everything they want it wouldn't mean a permanent peace:p i believe the term they used was interim peace:p

Self-appointed Israeli and Arab negotiators, its kinda um iffy showy love fest. the fact is the plo has no intention of dismanteling terror, which destroys any reason for concessions. http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/03/12/031202_cairo.asp
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its unofficial. and palestinian leaders even say even with that unofficial accord and removal of all settlements and giving them most everything they want it wouldn't mean a permanent peace:p i believe the term they used was interim peace:p

Self-appointed Israeli and Arab negotiators, its kinda um iffy. the fact is the plo has no intention of dismanteling terror, which destroys any reason for concessions. http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/03/12/031202_cairo.asp
This is how that last peace plan came about in the first place before a young extremist killed off Israel's only real peace maker. It was done out side the madness of the Middle-East by people who had nothing to gain but peace. Besides what have both sides who are in the thick of it done to increase the feelings of peace among Palestinians and Israelis ? Again the only people oppossed to this are extremist on both sides who depend on this struggle for their own needs. Real people who want peace look for it anywhere they can get it. If Israel wants the support of the Unitied States then they cannot be picky about how we procced down the "Road Map for Peace". They need to not grab the wheel and drail the proccess.

P.S. Israel has a lot of balls to be telling someone like Powell who works for the strong nation which is a world super power on this planet what and where to go and who to meet !

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
The legitimacy of this plan is in the reaction of the extremists opposed to it.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
well, if i nominated myself as representative of the US, and czar nominated himself the rep of the iraqi militants and came up with a peace plan that carved up iraq, it would be legitimized by the reaction of the extremists opposed to it:p
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well, if i nominated myself as representative of the US, and czar nominated himself the rep of the iraqi militants and came up with a peace plan that carved up iraq, it would be legitimized by the reaction of the extremists opposed to it:p
Even the extremists would ignore it! :)
 

groovepapa

Member
May 9, 2001
140
0
0
Yeah man, just put it all down and walk away. There's really no vital US interest in that area. But then the international community starts calling the US isolationists.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: groovepapa
Yeah man, just put it all down and walk away. There's really no vital US interest in that area. But then the international community starts calling the US isolationists.
Apart from Israel/Palestine being the biggest catalyst for terrorism against the US and her interests in the world today. It is in the interests of the US (and everyone else) to get this situation nearer peace.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
The legitimacy of this plan is in the reaction of the extremists opposed to it.
I guess you're saying that the Palestinian militants and the Israeli government are extremists.
A valid thought, and one I agree with.


If Israel has a problem with this other plan, maybe they should try harder for peace in the way thats's been set out.
Arafat seems to think another alternative is not a bad thing, why is Sharon so opposed to it?
 

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
It's simple really...

Most Israelis are opposed to this plan b/c it does not call for the dismantling by the PA of the very terror organizations whose stated mission is the destruction of Israel and who are also responsible for the murder of innocent Israelis. Without this most basic clause, the chance for a lasting peace is very small indeed.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: DBL
It's simple really...

Most Israelis are opposed to this plan b/c it does not call for the dismantling by the PA of the very terror organizations whose stated mission is the destruction of Israel and who are also responsible for the murder of innocent Israelis. Without this most basic clause, the chance for a lasting peace is very small indeed.
It also doesn't call for the destruction of Israel, something many Palestinians want to accomplish. Compromise is a two-way street.
 

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: DBL
It's simple really...

Most Israelis are opposed to this plan b/c it does not call for the dismantling by the PA of the very terror organizations whose stated mission is the destruction of Israel and who are also responsible for the murder of innocent Israelis. Without this most basic clause, the chance for a lasting peace is very small indeed.
It also doesn't call for the destruction of Israel, something many Palestinians want to accomplish. Compromise is a two-way street.
You're completely missing the point. While the accord doesn't call for the destruction of Israel, terror organizations such as Hamas do. What good is a peace accord signed by anti-violence Palestinians, when those who control and perpetrate violence against the innocent will openly reject this agreement and still call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israelis?
 

onelove

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2001
1,656
0
0
ok, pro-sharon folks: why is the plan "subversive" ("...intended to overthrow or undermine an established government")? I don't get why he would use that word... I've not heard anything about the plan that would contribute to an overthrow of Sharon's govt...
maybe just showing my ignorance, but is the only route to peace through Sharon's govt? (lets hope not!)
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
fricking Powell is proving that he is definately "not usefull" to the peace process and is probably just a damn anti-semite terrorist sympathizer. People like this sicken me. Appease Appease Appease.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
From Boston News

The premise of the Geneva agreement is that Israeli surrender will bring Mideast peace. It would require Israel to relinquish land, weaken its security, and yield tangible assets to the Palestinians. In exchange, the Palestinians would pledge to stop killing Israelis. Sound familiar? It's the 1993 Oslo formula all over again: Israel trades concessions on the ground for unenforceable Arab promises of peace.

It is worth remembering that Oslo, too, was showered with acclaim. The world cheered when Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn. It welcomed the PLO's unequivocal promise to forgo its guns and bombs. "The PLO commits itself . . . to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides," Arafat had vowed in writing, "and declares that all outstanding issues . . . will be resolved through negotiations. . . The PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence."

For the sake of peace, Israel paid the steep price Oslo demanded. It recognized the PLO, allowed Arafat to take over Gaza and the West Bank, agreed to the creation of a Palestinian militia, and even supplied that militia with weapons. It was appeasement on a scale far beyond Chamberlain's, but Israelis convinced themselves that it was worth it if it would mean an end to Palestinian violence and bloodlust.

But the violence and bloodlust didn't end. Far from ushering in a new era of peace, Oslo launched the worst decade of terrorism in Israel's history. Successive Israeli governments desperately tried to stanch the slaughter with new and deeper concessions. But that only convinced the Palestinians that the Jews were in retreat, and that hitting them harder would yield even greater rewards.
 

onelove

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2001
1,656
0
0
that quote is from an op-ed piece in the boston news, right cap'n? just to clarify
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: DBL
It's simple really...

Most Israelis are opposed to this plan b/c it does not call for the dismantling by the PA of the very terror organizations whose stated mission is the destruction of Israel and who are also responsible for the murder of innocent Israelis. Without this most basic clause, the chance for a lasting peace is very small indeed.
It also doesn't call for the destruction of Israel, something many Palestinians want to accomplish. Compromise is a two-way street.
You're completely missing the point. While the accord doesn't call for the destruction of Israel, terror organizations such as Hamas do. What good is a peace accord signed by anti-violence Palestinians, when those who control and perpetrate violence against the innocent will openly reject this agreement and still call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israelis?
Does that matter? It's not as if those organizations will cease doing what they do when an agreement states they must cease to exist. They might cease doing what they do if it became pointless though.

The Status Quo has been tried for decades now, it is getting Israel/Palestine anywhere. Take a page from the India/Pakistan situation, even if sh1ts carry out an atrocity, concentrate on Border security, not attacking the neighbour from where the sh1ts came from. It is also time for the Israeli government to get used to the idea of an Independent Sovereign Palestinian State, the biggest issue IMO.
 

onelove

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2001
1,656
0
0
/tongue-in-cheek: so the plan's "subversive"... so anybody that supports it must be... a terrorist? /tongue-in-cheek
this seems like more abuse of rhetoric. Calling an idea subversive is pretty extreme. Maybe he meant to say "threatening to [Sharon's] continued political relevance"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY