BUT CAN YOU HELP?
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic
LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO
CA 93794
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
It's on the Breaking News Sidebar
Posted on 10/13/2003 8:24:22 AM PDT by anotherview
Oct. 13, 2003
Ministers steer clear of 'Geneva' deal
By GRACE B. MCMILLAN
Not a single minister in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet is expected to support the Geneva Initiative hammered out over the weekend by a team of Israeli leftists and Palestinians in Amman.
Former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, who initiated the plan, had expressed hope of attracting support from Shinui and Likud MKs. The two sides in Amman agreed to bring the deal to their governments for approval.
But Shinui leader Yosef (Tommy) Lapid released a statement criticizing the initiative and National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Partitzky, who considers himself the most dovish minister, said he also opposes the plan.
"Every effort must be made to encourage dialogue with the Palestinians but this must be done by the elected government and not a gathering of failed politicians like Beilin, [Amram] Mitzna, and [Avraham] Burg," Lapid said. "The Geneva Initiative entails far-reaching concessions that should not even be made at the end of negotiations and certainly not at the beginning. The Palestinians accepted the 'road map,' making many more concessions, and there is no reason for Israel to give them up. In the end, [the initiative] is an irresponsible move, even from the point of view of those who seek peace."
The farthest Left Shinui MKs, Ilan Lebovich and Eti Livni, were involved in earlier stages of planning the Geneva Initiative, but have not seen the final result and have not yet decided whether to back it.
Pallies want two things from Israel:
3. OBJECTIONS ALL AROUND TO LEFT-WING "SURRENDER" AGREEMENT
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has dismissed out of hand the "agreement" reached between left-wing Knesset members and PA leaders. He told his aides that he would ordinarily not even relate to the matter, but he doesn't want "anyone in the world to fool himself into thinking that it could ever become a basis for a future arrangement with Israel."
The agreement itself, Sharon says, is a "catastrophe." Labor Party leaders Amram Mitzna and Avraham Burg, together with initiator Yossi Beilin, are planning to sign the agreement "on behalf" of Israel.
The agreement stipulates that the Temple Mount and most of the Old City of Jerusalem will come under Arab control. The Western Wall will remain Israeli, as will Zion and Dung Gates - but the other city gates will be under Arab control. Jews will be permitted, according to the agreement, to "walk freely" from Jaffa Gate to the Jewish Quarter.
Furthermore, the cities of Ariel and Efrat, as well as most other Jewish communities in Yesha, will be dismantled and evacuated, according to the agreement. All in all, 100,000 Jews are to be evacuated from their homes, according to Beilin/Mitzna/Burg.
The PA negotiators did not give up on the so-called "right of return," contrary to what has been publicized; the terms state that "Arab refugees" will be able to live in Israel, but only with the agreement of Israel. Hisham Abdel Razek, one of the PA leaders who took part in the talks with Beilin's group, denied openly that his side had made any concessions on this issue. The Beilin/Mitzna/Burg agreement states that Israel will agree to absorb 30,000 Arab refugees in an arrangement known as "reunification of families." The three left-wingers agreed that Israel will build two cities in the PA entity - in the Negev/Gaza and in Shomron - to house a half-million refugees.
Likud MK coalition whip Gideon Saar called the agreement "insane and ridiculous," and expressed sorrow that prominent Israelis would lend a hand to such a thing during wartime. "It goes much further than even the Clinton plan did," Saar said, "in that it gives up uninhabited Israeli territory in the Negev in place of the small amount of Yesha that they 'allow us' to keep. It's unbelievable that Israelis would make such an offer. I asked one of those involved: If you're already giving up Israeli land, why not give up land that is inhabited by Arabs [such as Um el-Fahm]? He said that this cannot be done because they're Israeli citizens - so I asked, 'and the people of Ariel who you wish to evacuate, they're not Israeli citizens?!'"
Saar further said that the agreement is financed by foreign sources in Europe. He charged that it harms Israeli interests in that it once again puts Israeli concessions on the table even though it's clear that the other side will never implement whatever 'concessions' they supposedly agreed to. "Who could ever imagine, with the arms-smuggling going on now in Rafiach, that we would not control the borders?" rhetorically asked Saar.
Justice Minister Tommy Lapid of Shinui also had harsh words for the agreement, saying that it does not achieve even one concrete concession towards Israel: "We'll evacuate 22,000 Jews from Ariel, take in thousands of Arabs, divide Jerusalem and give up the Temple Mount - all because Beilin and Mitzna have nothing to do in the opposition! ... Everyone here is sick of terrorism, but to give up everything in advance and to say that this is how to solve the problem is totally irresponsible. The only people who can sign such a thing are those who bear no responsibility for the results."
Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, of the Labor Party, is also against the left-wingers' agreement. He called it "fictitious and strange, bad in both content and form."
Minister Uzi Landau (Likud), speaking with Arutz-7 today, said that the agreement serves the interests of only one side, "the enemies of Israel... The Israeli signatories must be condemned from every quarter." He said that following the stinging failure of the Oslo agreement, "the left should have performed harakiri (ritual suicide) on itself, but instead, it continues to drop more Oslo agreements on Israel."
We'll evacuate 22,000 Jews from Ariel, take in thousands of Arabs, divide Jerusalem and give up the Temple Mount - all because Beilin and Mitzna have nothing to do in the opposition! ... Everyone here is sick of terrorism, but to give up everything in advance and to say that this is how to solve the problem is totally irresponsible. The only people who can sign such a thing are those who bear no responsibility for the results.
I know you have a strong dislike for Minister Lapid and Shinui, but you must admit he has a great concise summary of this so-called agreement.
I don't think you'll find anything about reciprocity in the road map, it's only inferred by the organization of the process into "steps". There's no indication that if one side defaults on step 1, all don't proceed to step 2. Reciprocity is addressed in the ammendments on which Israel conditioned her acceptance.
You don't have a peace process unless both sides agree what that process is. The U.S. and Israel seemed very clear on the idea that it wasn't 1) Israel makes concessions, 2) Palestinians do nothing, 3) Israel makes more concessions, 4) Palestinians blow up Israelis, 5) Israel makes more conessions. That may be what the PA, the EU, and the UN think it should be, but it isn't.
I posted this the other day about the Swiss Agreement and dividing Jerusalem:
If I believed for even one minute that the Palestinians would abide by a treaty if they signed it, forever end the violence, and live in peace with us--which, BTW, I do not believe for even one minute--this "agreement" amounts to cultural suicide.
For two thousand years the Jewish people prayed for "next year in Jerusalem". Not next year in Israel or in Tel Aviv or in Haifa. Only Jerusalem, the spiritual center of Judaism. That center, in turn, is centered on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. To surrender that is to be willing to give up everything it means to be Jewish. It is, the scriptures tell us, where G-d chose to dwell on earth. Even if you don't believe that literally you have to understand the importance to Judaism. Nobody would ask Muslims to surrender Mecca or Catholics to surrender the Vatican. The Temple Mount is everything those places are and more.
In 1854, under Ottoman rule, and years before the first Jewish immigration, Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population. The city then was little beyond the Old City walls. Yet it is precisely this Old City that is somehow now being defined as "Arab". It is more Jewish than Arab in terms of history, culture, and importance. It was annexed to Israel in 1967 when no other captured lands were for a reason.
In the 1948-49 War of Independence my father was a soldier in the Israeli army fighting to lift the seige of Jerusalem. This treat would make what he fought for, and what all Israelis have fought and died for, virtually meaningless.
Some things are worth fighting for. Jerusalem is one of them.
There is more wrong with the Swiss Agreement than surrendering the Temple Mount, but that alone make this "agreement" something I could never support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.