Reply
Fri 9 May, 2003 08:38 pm
Open to comments.
It is very uneasy to make any assessments on this stage. There are many powerful foes of the plan, mainly, on the Palestinian side.
First of all, this is Arafat that is interested in keeping power, while the american diplomacy openly neglects him as irrelevant (well, there are lots of reasons for doing this, and the main is that Arafat has proven his untruthfullness and unreliability as a partner for any serious negotiations).
Then, the Islamic militant groups that are supposed to be disarmed. During the current "intifada" its leaders were released by Arafat from jails, and they managed to collect influence among grassroot Palestinians by means of criticism of corruption of the PA and by means of populist Islamic demagogy. Implementation of the roadmap plan endangers their influence in the PA, and undermines their future electoral success in the independent Palestinian state.
It may happen that Arafat and Islamic militants may start cooperating (normally, they are in opposition to each other since Arafat is a Saddam-style secular dictator) in order to lead to failure of any attempts of the new Palestinian government to put end to terror. Unfortunately, while Arafat is being neglected by Americans, EU and Japan still regard him as a legitimate leader of Palestinian Arabs, and this gives him access to money donations destinated for Palestinians. Combination of Arafat's financial possibilities with militant spirit of Hamas/Jihad makes up a very dangerous "explosive".
On the Israeli side, the government accepts the Road Maps plan in general; the only corrections desirable to Mr. Sharon are absolute reciprocity of actions of Israelis and Palestinians (e.g., IDF is to be withdrawn from the Palestinian cities and towns only after serious anti-terroristic actions of the Palestinian security services), and renunciation of Palestinian claim of returning rights of the 1948 refugees and their successors. Mr. Sharon, despite of being a right-wing leader, represents now political consensus of the majority of Israeli Jewish citizens.
Some interesting clarifications from the
DebkaFile Web site
Quote:Middle East Road Map - A Useful Cover Story
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
May 10, 2003, 11:08 PM (GMT+02:00)
Road map is lost on his way to Middle East
After undergoing several metamorphoses since its formulation by the Quartet, the Middle East road map looks rather like a skimpy blanket pulled over Ariel Sharon, Colin Powell, Bashar Assad, Abu Mazen and Yasser Arafat while each keeps to his own bed. Saturday, May 10, the blanket was whisked away, draining of its structural content the heralded visit by US secretary of state Powell to Israel and the Palestinians. Correspondingly, the regional context of his trip swelled in importance, its focus switching from the Israel-Palestinian conflict over to US relations with Iran, Syria and Lebanon - a higher priority in the post-Iraq war period.
This switch generated the Bush administration's decision, as leaked in Washington Saturday, to put aside the road map for now and press instead for Israeli and Palestinian steps to ease the tensions between them. The leak, released when Powell was airborne, followed President George W. Bush proposal to establish a Middle East free trade area within a decade. Speaking at the University of South Carolina, Friday, May 9, he did not mention the road map's 2005 target date for Palestinian statehood. He only promised the Palestinian people an independent state if they cracked down on terror and took the path of peace, reform and democracy. Israel's Arab neighbors, said the US president, must recognize Israel's right to exist in peace.
The spotlight began edging away from the Middle East road map a week ago. As the secretary of state prepared to board his outward flight from Damascus after meeting Syrian president Bashar Assad, one of his aides handed a sheet of paper to a Syrian official. On it was a list of 10 American demands which the Syrian was told Damascus had ten days to meet. The deadline runs out on Tuesday, May 13.
DEBKAfile has listed the key American demands of Syria in other articles on this page and they have not changed. But Powell added an important oral detail during his talk with Assad. DEBKAfile's Middle East sources reveal he informed the Syrian president that it was time to close the books on the longstanding issues of Israelis missing in action, prisoners of war and abducted men. He named the three men missing from the 1982 Sultan Yacoub battle, Yaacov Katz, Zachariah Baumel and Zvi Feldman, the navigator Ron Arad, the men kidnapped by the Hizballah in 2000, Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Sawwad, and the civilian Elhanan Tanenboim, as well as Guy Hever, who disappeared with trace and whose family believes he was abducted to Syria. Powell warned Assad the Middle East had entered a new era and this agonizing business must be put to rest.
A week later, the Syrian president had still not responded to the ten American demands or to Powell's request regarding missing Israelis. Neither has Washington signaled how it will react if Syria turns a deaf ear. According to DEBKAfile's Washington sources, the administration is mulling four optional responses:
A. To leave the ultimatum sword hanging over Assad's head not knowing when it will come down.
B. To carry out covert or overt military operations against Iraqi and terrorist targets in Syria and Lebanon.
C. To strangle the Assad regime with an economic noose.
D. To instigate regime change in Damascus - whether by means of a military putsch or a coup d'etat.
Syrian peace feeler
Earlier, to stave off threatened action from Washington, Syria sent out a peace feeler to Jerusalem. An Israeli emissary was dispatched to Amman with a reply. Even before he returned to Jerusalem, the cat was out of the bag and the media trumpeted the failure of another Israel-Syrian peace initiative. What happened, according to DEBKAfile's political sources, was this: Syria made an offer, wrapping it round with two inducements to make it more attractive: 1. The Israel-Syrian negotiating track would not be linked to the Palestinian issue. 2. Syria would forego its demand for the resumed process to be picked up at the point where the last round broke down.
On the other hand, Syria demanded the talks take place under an international umbrella like the Quintet's sponsorship of the Middle East road map. This would bring the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations into the process - hidden trap number one for Washington and Jerusalem.
The Lebanese issue would not be addressed before the Israel-Syrian process began, leaving Hizballah terror unresolved - trap number two.
After consultation, American and Israeli leaders diagnosed the Syrian president's overture as not springing from any change of heart in regard to peace, but rather an attempt to fight free of the toils of the US ultimatum. US officials warned Sharon that his cooperation would give Damascus a chance to duck round American demands for the surrender Saddam's unconventional weapons and regime leaders and the dismantling of the Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist structures in Syria and Lebanon. Syria would tag Washington's ultimatum onto the Syrian-Israeli peace agenda and declare it must take its turn on the table. The Israeli prime minister therefore played for time and promised an answer one month hence.
Having failed in its ruse, Damascus pulled back and, on May 10, rejected "Sharon's offer" of peace negotiations without prior conditions.
This announcement on the day of Powell's arrival in the Middle East and Assad's zigzags indicate considerable agitation in Damascus under the pressure of the approaching expiry of the American ultimatum next Tuesday. DEBKAfile's sources in Beirut report that Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is also running around between Lebanese politicians in search of help to escape the US dictated evacuation of his armed positions along the Israeli border and his group's total disarmament.
Tehran's crucial role
The two targeted leaders are casting about for a lifeline. They are looking for salvation to Iranian president Muhammed Khatami, whose visits to Damascus and Beirut Monday, May 12, were suddenly announced just before Powell arrived in the Middle East. Assad needs to hear whether Tehran will support him if he stands up to the Americans or opt for a repetition of the pattern followed in Iraq - first calling on Iraqi Shiites to fight the American invaders and then caving in on the pivotal issue of who calls the shots for the country's Shiite majority. By conceding to the Americans on this vital issue, the ayatollahs made possible the return to Iraq from 23 years in Iranian exile of Ayatollah Bakir al-Hakim, head of SCIRI, the largest Iraqi Shiite group, who reached Basra Saturday, May 10.
If Iran lets him down, Assad may have to accept that, despite the rosy picture painted by his advisers, he is directly in America's firing line. As for Nasrallah, while the Hizballah is Tehran's old and tried terrorist surrogate, the ayatollahs' concerns have broadened considerably since the Iraq war ended. DEBKAfile's military sources were not surprised to hear that Iran has just suspended its arms and ammunitions shipments to the Hizballah.
Yasser Arafat in Ramallah too is waiting to see what message President Khatami brings to Damascus and Beirut. But he is not worried. If Iran lets Assad and Nasrallah down and they are forced to mend their ways in obedience to Washington's dictates, he will be left in solitary command of his most coveted role, the last Arab and Muslim leader still openly fighting the United States and the Zionists. Even Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been forced into hiding. This rationale requires the Palestinians to continue their terror campaign at full spate in obedience to the orders Arafat hands down from his supreme command post in Ramallah.
It was therefore inconceivable for Powell to go to Ramallah to see Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen. He would have run into grave danger of assassination by the Hamas or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. They are therefore meeting Sunday, May 11, in Jericho.
Abu Mazen is also watching and waiting for Khatami's visits, hoping for a clue to the situations of Arafat, Assad and Nasrallah and whether America - with or without Israel - means to take on the Hizballah, the Hamas, the Jihad Islami and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Neither he nor his internal security minister Mohamed Dahlan are willing to put their hands into that fire - meaning that Abu Mazen as Palestinian reform horse will not run. Without a reformed Palestinian administration, the Middle East road map is a non-starter and Washington had little choice but to suspend it.
As for Sharon, he is waiting for his talks with Bush at the White House on May 20.
Tehran's posture will have a crucial bearing on the next stage of policy-making for the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and in relation to Israel. How will the message reach Washington?
First exploratory US-Iranian talks were held very recently in Geneva, centering on Iran's nuclear weapons program and prospects for regime change. Middle East capitals are now flooded with rumors that the US secretary or a member of his party may meet Khatami or his representative at some point in his current Middle East tour which takes him from Israel and Jericho on to Cairo, Amman and Riyadh.
Regime change in Tehran from within?
Tackling Iranian hardliners on their home front, the United States this week managed to raise a majority of Iranian parliamentarians, members of the Majlis who support the reformist president Khatami, who put their signatures to an open letter firing a powerful broadside at the regime in Tehran and its repressive and anti-American policies.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly sources report that the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA and every congressman or senator with a connection in any Iranian expatriate community fired every weapon in their collective diplomatic arsenal to round up the signatures in time to publish the letter on Wednesday May 7.
Three important principles were laid out by 153 of the house's 290 deputies:
1. The Iranian regime will merit legitimacy only after narrowing the gap dividing it from the people and by reviewing the inefficient methods of governance that led to its failures of policy.
Our sources note that the term "failures" is used for the first time publicly in reference to the Islamic government in Tehran.
2. Legitimacy of the Iranian regime is conditional on the promulgation of two laws: One, providing for electoral reform and another expanding presidential authority.
Our sources explain the aim of this motion as being to place all foreign policy-making within the exclusive province of the president.
3. The reformist faction urges the government to take advantage of US threats by turning them into opportunities for negotiating an accommodation with Washington and effecting essential reforms.
The last clause was meant to convey that American threats should be taken seriously enough to convince the Iranian government to opt for engagement.
After firing this volley behind enemy lines, Washington is waiting to see how Iran's hard-line spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reacts and whether a meeting can be set up between Powell and Khatami - or their representatives - now that the Iranian president is armed with a parliamentary majority advocating reform.
Regime change in Tehran generated by domestic forces would be the key to a similar process in Damascus, Beirut and Ramallah, failing which the United States may turn to other methods for achieving its goal. This circumstance could finally free the hands of Israel's prime minister and defense minister Shaul Mofaz for action in Ramallah.
Sharon opens 'work borders' for Palestinians-- three Pal terror orgs wreak mayhem. Sharon attempts a terrorist leader assasination--a horrible bus bombing in Jerusalem today.
What would you do if you were Sharon?
They move toward peace--they are attacked.
They retaliate--they are attacked.
What would happen if Israel waged full out war against Pal terror groups? Would Arab nations add in?
It appears there is nothing Israel can do to stop the killing.
If Sharon refused to respond to any violence for a year, what would happen then? Would world opinion shift violently against the Pals? Or would the fish in the barrel hunting just be a lot easier for the Pals?
Israel conquered the West Bank in the 1967 war, over 35 years ago. Initially Israel, at least publicly claimed the intent to retain only select areas of the West Bank - East Jerusalem, the heights overlooking the Jordan Valley, and much of the valley itself. The rest was for the Palestinians, either in a peace settlement with Jordan or some other, then undefined, outcome. Since then the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank have lived essentially under Israeli military occupation - a condition which has spanned the lifetimes of about two thirds of the total Palestinian population.
Israel governed the Palestinians reasonably well and fairly during times of peace. However Israel never let go of the idea of a Jewish state that had no place in it for such a large alien population. Israel never relaxed its negative stand on the right of return of the Palestinian population displaced in the 1947 war, even while financing the wholesale transport of huge numbers of Jews from Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Empire - a move seen by the Palestinians, not unreasonably, as an attempt to win the demographic war, and as indicating the intent for future expansion. Moreover, avowedly expansionist groups within Israel began colonizing ever increasing areas of the West Bank, and linking their outposts with limited access roads which effectively isolated the Palestinians in increasingly separated enclaves. Repeatedly these expansionists have demonstrated their political power within Israel, in particular with the leaders of the Likud party. In short the Palestinians have, for over 35 years, been a subject people, without political or economic rights, governed by an alien military, and deprived of any sense of equality or hope by their foreign masters. Israeli reactions to Palestinian terror and outrages - restrictions on the movements required for daily life, and the destruction of homes and vineyards - has tended to emphasize all this. Palestinian mistrust is not without foundation.
There have been attempts to create a Palestinian entity of sorts, negotiated in Madrid and Oslo. However the restrictions placed on it in terms of the limits of its power and the fragmented geographic nature of its defined boundaries, made it very unlikely that it could effectively govern any population, particularly one beset by so many social,economic, and historical challenges as the Palestinians. Certainly the character of the Palestinian organizations that arose to meet this opportunity have not been up to the challenge this presented. However, I can't think of any other historical precedent anywhere for the emergence of an effective government that could both hold power and maintain peace under such circumstances.
The current Israeli position - that the Palestinians must stop the terror and their armed resistance to Israel before Israel takes any significant moves toward settlement and the creation of circumstances that would permit the emergence of a viable Palestinian state - if that is their intent, is fair and reasonable only from the perspective of Israeli security. To the Palestinians this must appear as requiring them to disarm even in the lion's mouth.
The fact is that the passage of so much time and the character of the Israeli occupation itself have ended any realistic concept that this is a conflict between two peoples and two governments. It is instead a civil war between a government and the subject people which it oppresses. Israelis and Palestinians are now too entwined by economic activity and a shared, if ugly, collective history to seriously contemplate a peaceful coexistence as separate states. If this rather gloomy conclusion is true - and I believe it is - then much more suffering must occur on both sides before both will conclude that living together with justice for all is better than the separate dreams which have brought so much grief to both.
Israel must first win the war (against Hammas, et al). Only then can they negotiate the peace.
And that is the mentality that has got them where they are.
First law of holes is "When you are in one, stop digging."
georgeob1 wrote:And that is the mentality that has got them where they are.
I see no evidence to support that notion that Israel has tried for a complete military victory against Hammas. The historical record shows that they have again and again pulled back and left Hammas intact to attack again.
What has gotten them where they are is the noble but flawed notion that they can compromise with irrational zealots who are committed to the absolute annihilation of Israel and all Jews.
I think the only way there will ever be peace would be to pack Israel up and move it to Montana. The Arabs will never let the Israeli's live in peace.
Scrat,
I see little point in arguing the question about Israeli negotiations. I gave my basic views on the situation in the longer post above.
I believe Israel will be no more able to get the Palestinians to accept a second class existence in a fictionally "independent" state than was the former apartheid government of South Africa in getting its black population to accept the fictional "independence" of the "Bantustands" to which they were confined.
No doubt there have been duplicity and incompetence on the part of the various Palestinian organizations with which Israel has attempted to deal on this matter. However, none of it alters the basic facts that Israel has occupied and controlled the territory for 35 years without acknowledging the political or economic rights of its people, has steadily encroached on their territory, and has denied the right of return of Palestinians displaced in the 1947 war while subsidizing the import of Jews from Russia and other countries. Israel is now reaping the harvest of what it has sown.
georgeob1 wrote:I see little point in arguing the question about Israeli negotiations. I gave my basic views on the situation in the longer post above.
Sorry. When you responded to my comments, I took it as an indication that you wished to discuss this topic. My bad. :wink:
I didn't mean to squelch discussion. Forgive me.
My view of Israeli compromise in the matter of the West Bank is that it has been a case of 'What is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable."
Jordan unilaterally renounced any claim to the governance of the West Bank soon after the 1967 war. Since then it has been a matter involving Israel's treatment of a subject people who have been denied their basic political and economic rights by their Israeli masters.
While it is true there are Arab zealots who wish to see the destruction of Israel, there are also Zionist zealots who wish to see the creation of a "greater Israel', embracing all of the territory of Biblical Israel, as well as the land of the Cananites which Israel already occupies. Basically this means pre 1967 Israel plus all of the West Bank.
There is a rationale in stetements of Scrat:
Quote:Israel must first win the war (against Hammas, et al). Only then can they negotiate the peace.
The creation of democratic German state that does not threaten any third party for about 50 years became possible only after the catastrophic defeat of Hitler's regime. Appeasement of Japan required usage of nuclear weapons. IMO, Islamic terror calls for comparable remedies.
steissd--
On some other Israel/Pal thread, conversation led me to wonder why Israel doesn't wage a massive, well-coordinated covert campaign against the Pal terrorist orgs.
They hurt themselves politically by always using their helicopters (and accidentally killing innocent people.)
Can you give any insight on why Israel doesn't use covert ops, infiltrate, saturate with inside info and stage a sweeping crackdown?
Scanning the Road Map Scorecard
*******************************
By Michael Freund
For the sake of the Middle East and its future, let's take a moment and engage in a brief intellectual exercise.
Put aside any ideological or political feelings you might have one way or the other about the US-backed plan to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Forget temporarily your personal views regarding Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen) or even US President George W. Bush.
Instead, let's focus on a simple, yet fundamental, question: are the Palestinians living up to their commitments as laid down in the road map?
On June 4, at the Aqaba summit, Abu Mazen stood before the television cameras and said, "A new opportunity for peace exists, an opportunity based upon President Bush's vision and the Quartet's road map, which we have accepted without any reservations."
Thus, with Bush, Sharon and King Abdullah of Jordan at his side, the Palestinian leader formally undertook to abide by the road map and its obligations.
Among other things, the road map requires the Palestinian Authority to halt terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. It explicitly requires that, "the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence."
A look at the record, however, reveals that since Aqaba, rather than putting a halt to terror, the Palestinians have in fact accelerated it.
According to statistics compiled by the IDF, there were a total of 142 Palestinian terror attacks in the ten days prior to the Aqaba summit. But in the ten days immediately following it, there were 154 such attacks, signifying an increase in anti-Israel terrorism of almost 10 percent.
These included shootings, stabbings, bombings, rocket attacks against Jewish communities and the detonation of explosive devices against civilian vehicles.
Moreover, in the ten-day period before Aqaba, no Israelis were killed by Palestinian terror, whereas in the corresponding period after Aqaba, 28 Israelis lost their lives.
Hence, both in terms of the quantity of terror as well as its lethality, the Palestinians have clearly failed to live up to their road map obligation to bring about an end to the violence.
The second key Palestinian commitment under the road map involves putting a stop to anti-Israel incitement. The document requires that "all official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel in the Palestinian media."
Accordingly, Abu Mazen offered the following pledge at Aqaba: "We will also act vigorously against incitement and violence and hatred, whatever their form or forum may be. We will take measures to ensure that there is no incitement from Palestinian institutions."
Those were pretty strong words. For the first time in recent memory, a Palestinian leader was speaking out unequivocally against incitement to violence against the Jewish state. But the pertinent question is: have those words been backed up by action?
Two days after the summit, on June 6, the official Palestinian Authority radio station under Abu Mazen's control broadcast its regular series of weekly Friday prayer sermons. In the first homily, the preacher chose to heap praise on the Palestinian "resistance", which is better known to the rest of the world as the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, saying, "We salute our political parties and resistance factions, who call for unity."
The second preacher decided to denounce the establishment of the State of Israel, calling it a "disaster" and a "catastrophe".
A week later, on June 13, the rhetoric grew even harsher, when Abu Mazen's official TV and radio broadcast a sermon from the Sheikh Ijlin mosque in Gaza in which the preacher said, "O Allah, punish our enemies. O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the United States and its allies."
Hence, it is clear that the Palestinians are not living up to the anti-incitement requirements of the road map. Not only has Abu Mazen failed to stop such incitement, but the media organs under his direct control have continued to engage in it.
Finally, the road map also requires the Palestinians to take a serious of tough steps against terrorist groups. These include a requirement to "commence confiscation of illegal weapons", dismantle "terrorist capabilities and infrastructure", and undertake "visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."
Nevertheless, no such steps have yet been taken by the Palestinian Authority. Instead, Abu Mazen has been negotiating with the terrorist groups, and has publicly vowed that he would not use force against them.
In the two weeks since Aqaba, the Palestinians have not arrested any terrorist leaders, nor have they confiscated any illegal weapons. The terrorist groups' infrastructure remains intact, and they now know that they have no reason to fear a crackdown.
Thus, on all three counts - ending anti-Israel violence, stopping incitement, and clamping down on terror groups - the Palestinians have failed to deliver the goods. In baseball terms, Abu Mazen is batting a solid zero in terms of performance, striking out on all counts.
There are plenty of observers out there ready to offer excuses, trying to justify the Palestinians' breach of their commitments. They cite the ongoing rivalry between Abu Mazen and Yasser Arafat, the state of various Palestinian institutions, as well as the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the summit in an attempt to explain away Palestinian violations of the accord.
But those excuses are just that - they are excuses, and nothing more. The fact is that Abu Mazen and the PA voluntarily took upon themselves various obligations, and they have voluntarily violated every single one of them. Hence, they have no one to blame but themselves for their failure to keep their word.
And so, when you put aside all the emotions and feelings which the Middle East conflict so readily arouses, and examine just the facts, the conclusion that remains is clear: the Palestinians can not be relied upon to abide by their commitments, and they can not be entrusted with a state.
Time and again, for nearly a decade, they have signed agreements only to violate them systematically and repeatedly. If this is the case at the outset of the road map, when the Palestinians still have so much to gain, what will happen at its conclusion, when they achieve statehood and have nothing to lose?
The facts, as they say, speak for themselves.
But are they just excuses, AU? To look at the situation from a different viewpoint, is it justifiable to hold President Bush and the United States responsible for every outbreak of racisim in Georgia or Texas? I don't pretend to know the situation, but there's evidently quite a stew of personalities in the region. It seems possible some are not responsive to national leadership. I flinch at my use of the word 'national', but lack a better one.
Roger
Assuming as you say they are excuses and the PA cannot stop the terrorist groups in their midst {I believe Arafat could if he wanted to} what should Israel do. Sit back and allow the terrorism to continue unabated and solemnly bury their dead. Should they go ahead with the road map and make it easier for the terrorists to operate? IMO the excuse that the PA cannot be responsible or control the terrorist activities of their compatriots does not wash.
At the present time as the emphasis is on getting the Hamas and others to sign on to a cease fire or "Hudna". From what I have read a Hudna to the Moslems is merely a truce to allow them to gather their forces until they are strong enough to resume fighting. It is not a precursor to peace. It is fashioned after Mohammed's treachery.
au1929 wrote:Roger
Assuming as you say . . .
But, I did not say. I asked you to consider the possibility. You did, and I agree that terrorism must be put down where ever and when ever it arises. Further terrorist activity in not proof, though, of bad faith on the part of Abbas. Indeed, it may be a deliberate attempt to embarass him and undermine a process he seriously supports.
I'm speaking of possibilities because I simply don't know. An assumption of good faith on the part of Arafat would be foolish; we may now have (hopefully) a new factor in the equation. Let's not kill the possibility of a positive result - while continuing to fight terrorism with all means available.
WORLD
Suicide bomber kills Israeli grocer
Posted: Thursday, June 19, 8:02am EDT
A suicide attacker blew himself up in an Israeli grocery store early Thursday, killing the owner, despite an intense push by Palestinian and international leaders to persuade militant groups to end such attacks. Several hours later, Israeli paratroopers and police began dismantling the West Bank settlement outpost of Mitzpeh Yitzhar, the first inhabited Jewish outpost it has targeted in accordance with a new peace plan, military sources said. About 200 settlers blocked the road with cars and burning tires, according to Army Radio. "There has been some confrontation, some light pushing," a settler who identified himself as Yossi told the radio. Last week, Israel removed 10 uninhabited outposts. Settler leaders sued to prevent inhabited outposts from being dismantled, but the Supreme Court has rejected many of their arguments. Taking down the unauthorized outposts and stopping Palestinian attacks on Israelis are key elements in the US-backed road map to Middle East peace, which envisions an end to more than 32 months of violence and the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005.
It would appear despite the continued terrorism Israel is acting in good faith. Just how long Israel will turn the other cheek is questionable.
I start feeling that election of Abu-Mazen to his current position and all his declarations are one more plot by Arafat that tries to gain time and to void cessation of the terror war against Israel. He may hope that President Bush will soon get busy with the new elections, and American pressure on Palestinians will be not so intensive. And in meantime the PA regime pretends that it makes sufficient steps toward peaceful coexistence.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace