Can the US bring peace in the Middle East?

Not the Israeli army is meant, but the extremist elements among the settlers that plan retaliatory attacks on Palestinian civilians. IDF practices controlled violence against militants, and numerous precautions are being taken to minimize the collateral damage. This does not always work, fighting in densely populated areas is impossible without any collateral damage, but many things are being done to minimize number of civilian casualties.
Not long ago, the Palestinian male civilians were merely temporarily evacuated from one of the sites where the anti-terror operation took place. They suffered temporary inconvenience, but remained safe and sound, while militants were tracked and arrested (some of them resisted arrest and were killed in process of resulting battle).
By the way, when the soldiers deliberately cause harm to civilians (in absence of any operational necessity), they are being prosecuted. Not long ago, a group of border policemen (they are conscript soldiers, like these of IDF) was arrested by the Israeli justice for alleged beating up random teenagers in the Palestinian areas ?- the mentioned policemen attempted to retaliate this way for death of their comrades killed in a terror attack in Hebron that happened in February. They are facing serious penalty if allegations are proven.

The latest from the democratic government in Israel

Foreigners and Israeli civilians entering the Gaza Strip will have to sign waiver forms absolving the army of responsibility if they're killed or injured in military operations.

The form requires all foreigners, including United Nations relief workers, to acknowledge they are entering an unsafe area.

They must also declare that they are not peace activists.

The move comes after the deaths of a number of foreign journalists and human rights activists in Israel, particularly those from the International Solidarity Movement whose volunteers work as human shields in the Palestinian territories

Perhaps not by you -- and perhaps not by most Israelis. But you said "Israeli security services persecute those that tend being violent" -- and most thinking people would consider what the Israeli army does to be violent.




Yeah!

And the Palestinians claim they are trying to calm things down that way too.

Fact is blame for the mess over there falls EQUALLY on both sides -- and there will never be peace there because both sides are essentially concrete headed.

Palestinians may claim anything they want: there is no other way to take care of abusive servicemen except prosecuting and trying them, at least, in the democratic country. Which alternatives do they propose regarding these offenders: to abduct them and to kill secretly in some mythologic cellars of the General Security building? They obviously confused Mr. Sharon with Saddam Hussein: the latter methods were favorite ones of the Iraqi dictator.

You didn't have to go that far to find an example, the Palestinians routinely lynch people suspected of collaborating with Isreal.

After almost every one of Isreal's targeted killings that kill the non-targeted there is a lynching of a alledged traitor.

Actually the Palestinians have made efforts. They can be called half hearted but they really don't ahve much to work with. Political capital must be considered for practical purposes. The PA is simply not strong enough (and much of their weakness can be attributed to Isreal's actions) to takle the kind of actions necessary.

International intervention is an option that the Palestinians and Arabs agree to but that Isreal rejects. My qualm with Isreal is the importance they place on keeping the strategical occupied lands instead of a priority in conflict resolution.

People who say Isreal doesn't prosecute their own:

Please read up, there are exceptions but off the top of my head I can recall many cases in which Isreali soldiers were prosecuted for looting and other non-violent trangressions. The Israelis who participated in terrorist attacks against Arabs were also almost always caught and punished.

Well, as an Israeli, I can accept only American intervention. Pro-Palestinian bias of EU, Russia and UN is so obvious that the multinational forces may be used by Palestinians in order to commit attacks on Israel and remain impune (I want just to remind an abduction of the Israeli soldiers by Hizballah on the Lebanese border after withdrawal of IDF. UN peacekeepers were present on the site but they did nothing to prevent this act of aggression. More, UN Secretary General made all the possible to prevent Israeli access to records of this attack made by one of the Indian soldiers). Only Americans, especially while Mr. Bush is a President, may be considered fair and unbiased mediators.
EU is not trustworthy while France is dominant there. Comments of the French ambassador in London regarding Israel, and absence of reaction of the French State Department show what is the real approach of this country toward the Mideastern conflict.
About Russia: President Putin tends to be unbiased, but the strongest pro-Arab lobby in the Russian State Department restricts his possibilities (there were rumors that Mr. Putin was prone to support the U.S. action in Iraq, but he was alone having such an approach in the whole administration).

Palestinians have accepted, in principle, AMERICAN military intervention.

Isrealis reject AMERICAN military intervention (or any outside intervention in the form of a military force).

Realistically it would have some turks as well but it's all moot since Isreal would not accept them placing their feet in the territories.

I don't think anyone in this thread said that Israel does not prosecute their own. But to prosecute a few -- considering the magnitude of the carnage being inflicted by Israeli forces -- is hardly the kind of thing that will stop the nonsense from that side.

The nonsense on the Palestinian side seems almost impossible to stop because of a variety of reaons -- some of which have to do with the immense rage and feelings of frustration the Palestinians feel in this very unequal battle. Israel is a state with a functioning government in place; the Palestinians are little more than a ragtag group of individuals fuming at what is happening to them.

In any case, much of the hard-line Israeli policy of retribution for each act of violence on the part of the Palestinians -- is little more than state sponsored terrorism itself.

Is it justified? Well -- I could certainly argue that IT IS. And if I were an Israeli, that is precisely what I would argue. But any intelligent, uncommited person could easily also argue it isn't.

Is it effective? Hell no! It is easier to argue that it is counterproductive. And that happens to be one of the reasons I so despise what Bush and his handlers are doing to our country -- which essentially is following the lead of Israel in what I consider to be a failed, counterproductive policy.

We'll see.

I may be wrong -- but I think my position will prove to be correct.

Thanks, Mr. Apisa, for assuming that you can be wrong: such an assumption is not so much typical for liberals ?-
Palestinian Authority became a "ragtag group of individuals" as a result of the violence they started on 09.28.2000. Before that it was a functional administartion having its own security forces, it was almost an independent country.
Retribution is not so much counterproductive as you might think: when the massive attacks on the terror infrastructure started in April 2002 (with the beginning of the "Defensive Shield" operation I took part in) the frequency of terror attacks on the proper Israeli territory decreased 80 percent. Before, we had terror attack every day, sometimes several times a day, now such things happen not more frequently than in 1994-95, on the peak of the Oslo process. And the most significant result of the tough responses of Israel and its refusal to commit any concessions under fire: majority of Palestinians have lost hope to achieve any of their national goals by means of violence, and this made it possible to bring pragmatic leaders ?- Abu Mazen and Dahlan ?- to power. On the emotional level grassroot Palestinians still approve terror, but they lost hope to win the war they started in 09.2000. And when the hope is lost, the war is lost as well. Israel has won it, and they understand this, though very reluctantly.

And thank you for the sentiment, Steissd. As Craven once noted, you are always a gentleman.

One thing I might correct, though. I am NOT a liberal. On a continuum with VERY LIBERAL at 1 and VERY CONSERVATIVE at 10 -- I can be found at point "P."!

I'm an iconoclast -- at times I find myself in agreement with liberal positions and at other times with conservative positions -- and naturally at other times I find myself in considerable disagreement with each. But I suspect that the problems the world faces right now will not be found in liberal or conservative thinking --nor even in an amalgam of both.

We've got to start thinking outside the box.

But first, we've got to identify the box.

At least you admit 09.28.2000 was an important day in the Palestinian/Israeli relationship. And there is one man responsable for the escalation and that is Sharon. Like you said, Before SHARON it was a functional administartion having its own security forces, it was almost an independent country. After Sharon its one big bloody mess.

And about those prosecutions of Israeli murderers. There is a big difference between a trial and a formal investigation. Like we saw with Sharon and the Shabra and Shatilla massacre. There are investigations, but they only serve to blame it on the other side and plead the Israeli soldiers free.

I want to remind one small historic fact: the Israeli PM on 09.28.2000 was Ehud Petaine, sorry, Philippe Barak. Mr. Sharon was the leader of the parliamentary opposition after resignation of Mr. Netanyahu, and he did not have any real power by that time. The country's public opinion was still captured by leftists, and Mr. Sharon had very low electoral rating. The failure of Petaine-Barak brought him to power.
His visit to the Temple Mount has nothing to do with onslaught of violence: the Temple Mount is a holy place of both Jews and Muslims, and there is no prohibition for any Jew to visit it. More, security services warned PM Petaine-Barak about Palestinian preparations for a serious terror war (they started collecting and storing in the emergency warehouses large amounts of medicaments, mainly those used for trauma patients treatment, food and munition) since spring of 2000, half a year before Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, but he preferred to ignore all the warnings.

The historic fact is that the PA and Israel were on the verge of a solution. And Sharon wanted to break up the talks. Thats why he went to temple mount. By this visit Sharon gave the startsignal of the second intifada. Before his visit the relationship between Israeli and the palestinians was the best in years.

The signal for violence was given by Arafat after failure of his talks with Petaine-Barak in Camp David. We may give different assessments of the proposals he got there, maybe some of them were unacceptable; but he preferred to start a terror war instead of negotiating on the alleged disadvantageous sides of the Israeli proposals. If Mr. Sharon did not visit the Temple Mount (and this is not a casus belli at all, the leaders of the right wing visited the site many times before in 1994-2000, and this did not cause any Palestinian response), then Arafat would find another excuse.

This seems to be a good place to keep up with the progress, or lack thereof, in current attempts toward Israel/Palestinian peace.

From the NYTimes.

Arafat Belittles Sharon's Offer on Settlements
By JAMES BENNET


BU DIS, West Bank, June 5 ?- Shut out of a Middle East peace conference in Jordan on Wednesday, Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, dismissed a promised Israeli concession today, as skepticism on both sides and around the region vied with hopes for peace.

Mr. Arafat's criticism was an implicit slap at the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who has been trying to demonstrate progress toward improving Palestinian life as he lobbies militant groups to lay down their arms.

On Wednesday, after meeting with President Bush in the port city of Aqaba, Mr. Abbas declared that the armed Palestinian uprising against Israel "must end."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised to begin dismantling "unauthorized outposts," a reference to some of the dozens of clusters of trailers set up by Jewish settlers on West Bank hilltops in recent years to strengthen Israel's hold there.

But Mr. Arafat said today of Mr. Sharon, "Unfortunately, he has not yet offered anything tangible."

Speaking to reporters at his compound in Ramallah, where Mr. Sharon has effectively imprisoned him for more than a year, Mr. Arafat said, "What's the significance of removing a caravan from one location and then saying, `I have removed a settlement?' "

Here on the edge of Jerusalem, in a Palestinian village that some diplomats in the past envisioned as the future capital of a Palestinian state, the doubts of Mr. Arafat seemed more prevalent than the hopes of Mr. Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen. "They are laughing at us ?- Israel and Abu Mazen," said Mahmoud Jafar, 28, as he waited in his van to pick up Palestinian commuters returning to Abu Dis.

As they come back from working, generally illegally, in Jerusalem, commuters here must scale a six-foot concrete wall, topped in places with barbed wire, before catching rides home from men like Mr. Jafar.

No one held big demonstrations for peace on either side today, the day after the summit meeting and the anniversary of the start of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, which led to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

So far the most energetic response has come from tens of thousands of settlers living in the occupied territories, and their supporters. They rallied against the new peace plan in Jerusalem on Wednesday night.

Despite the talk of peace, the violence continued on the ground tonight. Israeli security officials said that in a village near the West Bank city of Tulkarm, the Israeli border police burst into a house in pursuit of three members of the violent Islamic group Hamas after unsuccessfully demanding that they surrender.

The officials said the police had opened fire on seeing that at least two of the men were armed. Two of the Palestinians were killed and the third was wounded.

Although the Palestinian press also held out hope of progress, Israeli commentators were generally more enthusiastic

The rest of the article.

Arafat's reaction did not surprise me. This veteran terrorist will not be satisfied with anything less than complete extinction of Israel. Besides this, he feels insulted of Americans ignoring him and talking to his former aide.

Frolic, interesting question. I'm inclined to vote YES, but I don't want to tempt fate.

Also, if you forgive me for pointing this out, the question could be better framed...

Can the US bring peace... Well yes it could. The US is the only country that can impose a peace settlement. It has the power, the resources the money and the influence to do it. Whether or not Bush has the will to do it is another question. Again from what I've seen so far I'm tempted to say he will. But my suspicion until recently was that whatever promises he made (especially to Blair before the war) he would revert to form and favour Israel over Palestine and thus let the chance for peace fall.

But watching Bush + Mubarak then Bush + Sharon and Abu Mazen I thought there were grounds for optimism. I thought Bush really meant it. But even as I write it seems to be unravelling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2968404.stm

The war criminal Sharon is determined to sabotage this road map just like he sabotaged the Oslo accords. I would not be surprised if he has deliberately provoked the Palestinians making it impossible for Hamas to lay down their arms as Abu Mazen ordered.

So having written all this, I'm going to vote No the Israelis will default.

LOL!

You read this as though Israel will be the ones causing the problems? Hamas, a terror organization of the worst kind, is basically saying they will not stop the spread of terror, yet you say


Where does this come from?

Steve (as 41oo)
I don't know what you are reading but it appears that the Palestinians are the obstacle in the march toward peace. The Palestinian terror organization still refuse to lay down their arms and continue to insist that Israel is illegitimate and must be annihilated. The peace effort will fail unless they can be somehow persuaded to change their course. Further as long as an angry and disgruntled Arafat is the power behind the scene, which he is now, there is no hope for peace.

I should note as usual your bias clouds your judgment.