Posted on 04/06/2002 10:46:47 AM PST by Pokey78
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer an argument over land. It is nothing less than a front line in the West's battle with terrorism. The peace process begun with such hope in Oslo is a Humpty Dumpty that cannot be put together again for this simple reason: The terrorists that took over the Palestinian Authority–terrorists in Arafat's Fatah–are now plainly indistinguishable from the fanatics in Hamas whose goal has always been the eradication of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Indeed, in an interview with the New York Times, the Hamas leaders, who live prosperously in Gaza, gloated over the deaths of innocents from suicide bombings and expressed their open unity with Fatah.
Ordinary Palestinians in Ramallah and Bethlehem and other townships are enduring hardship and danger because their dreams of peace and rehabilitation have been betrayed by the duplicitous leadership of Yasser Arafat and the extremists he has encouraged.
The difference in the attitudes toward peace of the Israelis and the Palestinian leadership is dramatically exemplified by the frustrations of the American representative, Gen. Anthony Zinni, to get both sides to stop the killing. The Israelis agreed to Zinni's cease-fire plan. The Palestinians refused, except on terms that make it clear that the cease-fire would serve only to regroup and relaunch their terrorist attacks. But worse still, when Zinni arrived in the Middle East, the Israelis had hard intelligence that two suicide bombers were going to explode themselves in a major shopping center. Rather than take pre-emptive action that might have contributed to an atmosphere of confrontation–and that might have torpedoed Zinni's mission–the Israelis gave their intelligence to the Palestinian security forces under Jibril Rajoub. Instead of suppressing the terrorists, the PA passed this highly sensitive information to the terrorists to help them avoid capture by the Israelis. Fortunately, the Israelis still managed to stop these terrorists before they could do their evil work. But the Israelis were not so lucky with another terrorist: Using Israeli intelligence, the PA placed him in jail–not to detain him but to shelter him from the Israeli security services. He was released in enough time to blow up a cafe in Jerusalem.
Complicity. The only conclusion is that the basic operations of the PA have been turned over to those who advocate terrorism, such as the Tanzim and al-Aqsa martyr movements, and that these anarchists are directed, financed, and guided by Arafat himself. The Israelis have discovered written evidence of Arafat's direct involvement in arming the lethal al-Aqsa terrorist group, which has been responsible for so many suicide bombings in Israel.
The oversimplified criticism of the Israeli effort to root out the terrorists is that their infrastructure is inaccessibly inside the heads of thousands of young people who dream of being martyrs and will multiply under assault. The truth is that the terrorist infrastructure lies in a core group of several hundred terrorist leaders who teach their young how to assemble explosives and provide them with information on where the "enemy" can be found and how they can be killed. The PA has been unwilling to control or arrest this group but instead shelters them. Several hundred were found in Rajoub's compound and many in Arafat's compound.
All of this is of one piece. The PA never wanted just the West Bank and Gaza. Their maps show Palestine filling the entire territory covering all that is now Israel. Their emblems cover Israel with two rifles and a grenade. The Palestinian mantra is that the issue is really about Israeli occupation of lands that the Arabs lost in the 1967 war. This is just a blind. Why? Because under Oslo, the Israelis transferred administrative authority for 98 percent of the Palestinians to a Palestinian administration and even fitted them out with 40,000 armed police in the hopes that they would maintain their own security. Further, at Camp David and Taba, Israel offered to turn over 97 percent of the disputed territories plus the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty and a Palestinian state, only to have this offer to withdraw rejected. The Saudi plan, which would oblige Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, failed because it goes beyond United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, the base of the Oslo agreement, which mandate that Israel should have secure and defensible borders. The 1967 borders are simply indefensible because they would leave Israel with a national depth as small as 8 miles between Haifa and Tel Aviv and would leave its only international airport highly vulnerable to mortar and other attacks.
To assess PA intentions, it is relevant to remember that the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1964–when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab sovereignty; when there were no settlements on the West Bank, no access to the old city of Jerusalem nor to the holy places critical to Jewish history and identity. It was not the presence of Jews in these places that prompted the terrorist harassment and vicious antisemitism of the Palestinians back in those earlier days. It was antipathy to the very existence of Israel.
The significance of Oslo was its recognition that there were two nationalities with legitimate historical bases for asserting a right to occupation. It was a reasonable expectation after the concessions at Oslo that the moderates on both sides would be able to take the final step of the compromises required on but a small amount of land. Yet even after Oslo, there never was an extended time without terror and violence fomented by Arab extremists who refused to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state and thus blocked the possibility of a two-state solution. And the terror and violence were not just aimed at Israelis. The Arabs who wanted to accept compromise and division were intimidated by their own radical brethren. As Henry Kissinger wrote, "The number of Palestinian leaders [who want peace in the Western sense] is minuscule. The fundamental schism is between those who want to bring about the destruction of Israel by continuing the present struggle, and those who believe that an agreement now would be a better . . . showdown later on."
The idea that the Palestinians will eventually destroy Israel inhabits what Fouad Ajami called the "dream palace of the Arabs." Now the Arabs believe they have the momentum to destroy Israel because of the undoubted impact of the suicide bombings. This is why it is critical for Israel to break the Palestinian delusion that terrorism will make the Jewish state go away.
Israel has no choice but to root out the terrorists in their bases. It is impossible for Israeli security to catch up with every deluded young Palestinian fanatic willing to blow himself or herself up in a pizza parlor, a supermarket, at a bar mitzvah, a synagogue, or a school, or to spray machine gun fire at a wedding party. This is not happening in some distant place but right where the Israelis live their day-to-day lives. They are experiencing the equivalent of the 9/11 terrorist attacks virtually every single day–an existence that is intolerable for an open, democratic society. Israelis deserve the world's support and sympathy because their struggle is not just for their homeland, justified as it is, but also because they are fighting a new, horrific, and exploitative form of terrorism that menaces all civilized societies.
Pre-emption. The new terrorism calls for a new policy, one already well articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "We have no choice. . . . It is physically impossible to defend at every time in every location against every conceivable technique of terrorism, '' the secretary of defense said recently. "Therefore, if your goal is to stop it, you cannot stop it just by defense. You can only stop it by taking the battle to the terrorists where they are and going after them."
This is a policy of pre-emption because deterrence no longer works. Deterrence is based on the assumption that people are unwilling to die. Deterrence will not work when people have been so conditioned by a culture of hatred and religious fanaticism that they will commit suicide in order to kill innocent civilians. The only way to deal with this new phenomenon of suicide bombers, and make it clear this will not work, is to go after them before they get us. But this strategy of pre-emption against suicide and terrorism will have to replace a strategy of deterrence for the United States and for Israel.
This war is also a media war. Many journalists are impervious to the carnage that defines daily life in Israel. And they are too often inclined to make a moral equivalent of the terror and the civilized response to it–as if there were no moral distinctions between the arsonist and the firefighter; between deliberately targeting innocent civilians and inadvertently killing innocents while pursuing terrorists; as if it weren't the purpose of the Palestinians to kill as many innocent civilians as possible; as if the Palestinians had not danced in the streets after the World Trade Center bombings, while Israel went into mourning; as if Israel hasn't proposed a real territorial withdrawal and compromise while Arafat's maps include all of Israel; as if Israel wasn't an open democracy and the PA wasn't a corrupt, authoritarian regime; as if Israel is not practicing restraint; as if it is possible to eliminate terrorism without going after the sanctuaries that are the root of the terrorist challenge; as if Israel, unlike America, is not permitted to engage in simple self-defense and thus gets the support of the press only when it is a passive victim.
There has been, and still is, in Israel a majority who want a peaceful settlement–over 60 percent in recent polls. They understand it would include a large withdrawal from the territories, including the dismantling of a large number of settlements. But not as a surrender; not by submission; not under pressure from terrorist bombings. Surrender would only embolden the terrorists and their perverse, destructive goals: What would be next? Forcing the Israelis to flee to the sea?
America shares these concerns because these terrorists are the enemies of humanity. Today they arouse the Arab street. Tomorrow they will cause this street to send new disciples practicing this ritual of human slaughter to the West, to Europe and the United States. Terrorism did not end with the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and the rout of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It remains a fundamental threat to civil society in Israel and a fundamental threat to civil society in America and the West.
In 1981 the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor and were condemned by many around the world. In 1990, when the war with Iraq broke out, we found out how farsighted this policy was. In the future, Israel will be recognized for destroying a new but no less dangerous reactor, the Palestinian ritual of death and terror by suicide.
You are wrong.
Did you know that I am a Palestinian?
Who says so?
The PLO Charter
Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
By these two articles- by their criteria-I am a Palestinian
I disagree. The PLO, which is a proxy for other Arab nations and the worldwide Islamic fundamentalist network, is tapping into some very real resentment against Israeli policies. That the PLO is an enemy to civilization does not legitimize the Israeli occupation of the territories.
Second, when the Arab nations attacked Israel in 1967, the West Bank... (was)... part of Jordan
Correct. However, that is not the point. The point is that the people who inhabit the West Bank are opposed to Israeli rule. By any standards of self-determination, that makes Israeli occupation of the WB immoral. How the Bush administration balances this fact with the greater (and more urgent) fact that the PLO is a front for Islamic terrorism, will be a good test of its foreign policy.
Should there be no penalty for starting a war on annihilation and losing?
There can be, but that is inconsistent with all the rhetoric we in the West have always thrown around in various international fora, of the principles of self-determination and what-not.
there is no sign of the PA making any significant effort to form a public government. They build no roads; they set up no real courts; they do little legitimate government activity - not to mention never having been elected. How exactly does the PA work towards Palestinian self-determination?
I never said the PA does. The obstacles before that goal are both the Israeli occupation and the PLO (and it's Arab/European supporters).
Of course, the PLO is also an obstacle to the self-determination of the people who inhabit the occupied territories. I believe our administration is in a position to mediate a solution that works towards the twin goals of security for Israel, and self-determination for the people of the occupied territories. The PLO is irrelevant to this process, IMO.
Looking for a reason to be failed and fired. Bush has given him enough rope to hang himself while giving Israel as much latitude as she needs and then some. If Bush's foot has come down, it has come down on Arafat.
Three years ago the inhabitants of Texas did not wish to be ruled by Clinton.
The Arabs say they are to have self-determination because they are a unique "Palestinian" people. You see that a "Palestinian" people in make believe.
No it doesn't. Indeed, at the time Jordan bombed Israel in 1967 when Israel explicitly told Hussein not to involve himself in the conflict, he put in jeopardy his Jordanian citizens in the West Bank. Israel had every right, therefore to occupy the West Bank which was a hostile state engaged in a war with other Arab states against Israel. Indeed Resolution 242 recognizes this process by not stating explicitly that Israel must return to the green line.
The Arabs rejected Resolution 181 for partition and they have refused to (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan) recognize Israel's right to exist under 242. Therefore Israel has territory she won legitimately in acts of naked Arab aggression. If the de facto Jordanian citizens don't like it then that's tough because it is the stuff of war. But "immoral"? Far from it.
The pressure on Arafat is for words, the pressure (changing daily) on Israel is for detrimental action.
The only issue is whether it's all talk by the administration or are there consequences.
This week's Time did an expose on the homocidal bombers, pictures of each along with the "why do they do it" crap. A federal prosecutor friend pointed this out to me. This friend also remarked that a great deal was being kept from the public as to how out of control our fight against homeland terrorism is, giving credence to what S. Emerson and Pipes have been railing about and the Oprahized ostriches in the media refuse to print. Due to "Ongoing investigations", my friend would say no more.
No more than the occupation of Germany after WWII. Having attempted to invade Israel and losing legitimizes it.For Israel to be safe, given its small size, it has to have at the least, a buffer. Given Jordan's complicity in the attack, and the local populaces support of it, the West Bank is as good as any.
The point is that the people who inhabit the West Bank are opposed to Israeli rule. By any standards of self-determination, that makes Israeli occupation of the WB immoral.
No. the people who inhabit the west bank are opposed to Israel, regardless of their rule. That they are hostile aggressors, legimimizes reasonable action against them...until they knock it off. If they were individuals, they would owe Israel compensation, but as they are not, the land is held as a buffer. They are not held as slaves or prisonors, as they are perfectly free to leave.
There can be, but that is inconsistent with all the rhetoric we in the West have always thrown around in various international fora, of the principles of self-determination and what-not.
Part of self-determination is and has been responsibility for ones actions. When one sets out to harm or destroy another, often ones possessions end up given over to repay the damages. Israel established a buffer zone, but didn't demand reparations. Would you consider it out of line for Israel to take the land in compensation, and demand that the Arab States that participated in the war to pony up monies to compensate the locals for having to move out of it? If not, why not? It would certainly be moral, if impractical.
As I noted before...the Palestinian populace on the West Bank overwhelmingly supported and supports the wars against Israel. Why should they be free of consequences? Self-determination doesn't mean impunity from response to acts of war, nor responsibility for damages caused to another.
The last international legal allocation of territory that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. Moreover, these rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
There are nearly one million Arab Israelis who vote, hold seats in the Knesset, share in the economy, receive all sorts of welfare, free medical care and in many cases their own schools on the backs of Israeli Jews. There were only one hundred thousand Arabs in Israel at the turn of the century. The flood of Arabs into Israel since then came from Egypt, Syria and what is now Jordan. These are facts derived from Ottoman and British census figures and agreed upon by scholars.
___________________________________
Well you know about all that. You are or were an RN for many years I believe.
You really think he might be Jewish with a name like Mort Zuckerman?? Nahhhhhhhhh.... Tell me it ain't so CrockLady. Your Islamic puppet masters are paying you too much for such incompetence.
Does this help?
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher explains
why blowing up Israelis different than blowing up
Americans
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC; September 27, 2001
...
QUESTION: To what extent does this campaign -- as you constantly review your Middle East
policy, what -- how much influence does this campaign against terrorism have in that? What's the
input? How does it weigh in here? See what I mean?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
QUESTION: It's obviously a factor --
MR. BOUCHER: We have talked about this on and off over the last few days. We recognize that
there is an influence. Some have said it affects the atmosphere, the Palestinian/Israeli issues
affect the atmosphere of cooperation. But, essentially, there are, on some planes, two different
things. One is that there are violent people trying to destroy societies, ours, many others in the
world. The world recognizes that and we are going to stop those people.
On the other hand, there are issues and violence and political issues that need to be resolved in
the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians. But we all recognize that the path to solve those is
through negotiation and that we have devoted enormous efforts to getting back to that path of
negotiation.
And we have called on the parties to do everything they can, particularly in the present
circumstance, to make that possible.
I guess that's about as close as I can come to the kind of sophisticated analysis I'm sure you will
want to do on your own. But they are clearly issues that are different, not only in geography but
also, to some extent, in their nature.
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.