Arab Pundits See Terror Attacks Aiding Sharon

I do agree with that premise. It helps hard-liners on both sides, though. Undercutting the new Palestinian leader would seem to a counter-intuitive move by the terrorists, unless they want to do what they can to derail the "road map" to peace. At the same time, I'm sure the Sharon regime is perfectly happy to have an excuse to drag their heels awhile longer over the issue of settlements on the West Bank...

All I hear and see from the Arabs and their sympathizers is that Sharon does not want a peaceful settlement. How would they know have they even given peace a chance? No leader in his right mind Israeli or otherwise would make concessions while his people are under attack. And yes the road map calls for substantial Israeli concessions. IMO the goal of the Arabs has been and remains the destruction of the Jewish State and nothing less. Unless and until the PA [providing there is the will] reign in these terror attacks which I believe are state sponsored or at least supported no peaceful settlement can be achieved. Instead of blaming Sharon, call his bluff put and end to terror attacks.

Who Is Most Surprised? - An Arab View
*************************************

Dr. Saiful Islam ibn Saud (Arab News)


Did last week?s bombings in Riyadh come as a surprise? Those who know
what our children are being taught about Islam, their teachers and
the kind of ideas they are constantly fed were not surprised. Those
who listen to cassette recordings ? which in reality have no basis in
Islam ? and believe what is said in the recordings were not
surprised. Those who listen to what is often said at Friday sermons
were not surprised. Those who know how people who follow different
schools of thought are ridiculed and treated with contempt were not
surprised.

Any person who digs into the root causes of last week?s explosions
and the resulting death and destruction will not be shocked at what
actually happened. The implications of those tragic events, which
involved the smuggling of weapons into our country, will be
far-reaching and spread to all levels.

There are many in our society who have been both certain and
confident that terrorism was alien to us and would only come from
abroad. They were perhaps surprised. Those who feel antipathy to, and
hatred of, whomever is different, whether a fellow citizen or a
foreigner, will not be surprised. Those who were really surprised by
what happened on that bloody night are the ones who can?t see the
terrorists? long-term political objectives and attribute such attacks
to the alleged foreign presence in our land.

These are the ones who will continue to show surprise and disbelief
whenever terror strikes. The guilty ones who verbally sympathize with
terrorists or provide them with support of whatever kind must be
laughing at those who insist on blaming this aberrant behavior on
foreign elements while absolving local perpetrators of any
responsibility.

The genuinely dumbfounded are those who don?t believe in the presence
of sleeping terrorist cells among us, and who live under the illusion
that our youth are so nice and such good Muslims that they would
never stoop to such violence.

Are you joking ?!?! No leader in his right mind would want stay locked into this bloody cycle of growing violence.

Israel has tried brutality. They have tried repression. They have tried assassinations, rocket attacks on civilians, torture, collective punishments, the destruction of houses and economic deprivation. The fact is all of these measure create more of a people who have nothing to lose.

The cost Israel has paid is unbearable. The Israeli's must live in fear. They are also paying a cost in morality and economy.

The answer is obvious. People with a hope and a future don't normally make good terrorists. Create a viable Palestinian state with a national identity and a functioning economy and you will dry up terrorism.

The first step for Israel is to start dismantaling the settlements. They should do this unilateraly. This will give the Palestinians the hope they need and provide support for the Palestinian moderates who oppose the militant who use terrorism.

There is no reason for Israel not to do this. These settlements are clearly against international law and dismanteling them is just. There is no credible threat to the state of Israel and the settlements certainly don't affect its security.

There is no other option -- that is unless you like the current situation of hopelessness, fear and death.

Of course the Palestinians should unilaterally stop their campaign of terror. Likewise the Palestinians would do well with a non-violent campaign of resistance since they would take away all of the justification that Israel uses for its represention and occupation. With international support the pressure caused by a non-violent movement would be unbearable.

Unfortunately neither side has the strength to stop this conflict. It only takes one side to end the violence. It is taking the concerted effort of both sides to keep it going.

Sharon is helping the terrorists raise money and gain support.
The terrorists are helping Sharon stay in power and gain support.

Doesn't the way they work together just warm the heart?

I agree with what ebrown_p says here, for the most part. The reason (or one of them) that Sharon won't dismantle those settlements is that his political base wouldn't accept such an action. Like politicians everywhere, he wants to stay in office. Plus, I'm not even sure he would want to dismantle those settlements...

I heard something on NPR the other day about what daily life is like in Israel now. Going to a club or restaurant entails being searched (if the place has a security officer on duty) or knocking on a locked door to seek admission. Imagine our day-to-day existence if doing everything else in public was like going to the airport.

Yet the cycle of mutual violence continues...

D'artagnan
And you as Brown does believes that the dismantling of settlements will bring peace. How can one disregard the fact that from it's inception the state of Israel has been surrounded by an enemy whose only goal was it destruction? A goal despite all the rhetoric to the contrary is uppermost in the minds and plans of the Palestinians.
As for who supports who, Sharon or the PA. I should point out that Sharon gained and maintains his position as a result of the Intafada and the continuing terrorism. IMOWithout it he would be long gone.
In respect to Sharon and the settlements I repeat call his bluff. In my opinion the only item that is not negotiable is "Right of Return" And It should and cannot be.
The other side of the coin of course is do the Palestinians want a settlement that leaves Israel standing as a sovereign nation?

I don't disagree, au, that there are Palestinians who want to see Israel destroyed.

At the same time, I don't see how these settlements help Israel in any way. They make the territory harder to defend, and enflame Palestinians who feel that ethnic cleansing has been going on in those areas for decades.

Do you feel that the settlements benefit Israel?

D'artagnan
I think many of the settlements will probably have to go. However, I doubt that the situation will be altered when they are.

They do not, of course. But it depends on the definition of settlements. While all the civilized world refers to Israeli villages founded on the territories occupied in 1967, majority of Palestinians and other Arabs consider any Israeli town, city or village being an illegal settlement that is to be destroyed. I want to remind that the PLO was founded 3 years before the Six-Days War started, and it did not make any attempts to free the proper Palestinian territories occupied then by Egypt and Jordan; from the very beginning it was an anti-Israeli terroristic organization.

What must Israel do to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East? If you don't know the State Department answer, you're really not listening, because they've been repeating it, over and over, forever: "End settlement activity." It's a standard plank in every peace plan — Oslo, Mitchell, Four Powers Roadmap, whatever. Secretary Powell is pushing Israel to do it now, and why not? From a distance it looks like a modest, reasonable demand: a small, first step on that ever-receding road to peace.


Interesting read
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lerner052103.asp

I don't disagree with that approach: end settlement activity. Yet that seems more than Sharon is willing to do.

Seems to me that doing that would be a step toward peace that wouldn't cost Israel all that much. If terrorism continues or gets worth, it would give Sharon a rationale for ending concessions.

Yet even that small step seems too much for him...

IMO, it is not about personal mutual animosity of Mr. Sharon and Arafat. It is about the Arabs' reluctance to have an outpost of Europe in proximity to their countries. If Israelis were not Jews, but, for example, ethnic Bulgarians or Swedes, this would not make their neighbors being less hostile. Arabs merely do not want anyone looking like a "sahib" around, even if this alleged "sahib" has nothing to do with their being oppressed (Arafat's corrupt regime contributed to poverty of Palestinians mcuh more than any actions of Mr. Sharon, despite this they like the first one and hate the latter).

That's an interesting point, steissd. I've never thought of that, but since you live there, I'll take it seriously...

I read an interesting quote from an Israeli whose name and website I do not remeber (it was in a newspaper, if it were digital I'd have quotes etc here).

He said something to the effect that there is a element of the radical Israeli right who, while they are never happy to have their people die, are releived that the attacks take some of the road map pressure off.

I think that if Israel was an Oriental tyranny and not a democratic country of South European type (with political system somewhat close to this in Italy, all the differences refer to permanent war), it would perfectly fit the Mideastern niche, regardless of Israelis' religious affiliations.

Hamas Spokesman Admits: No Place For Israel In Middle East
"I'm telling you frankly, the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area." So said Hamas spokesman Mahmoud Zahar on Tuesday on BBC - yet he met last night with Abu Mazen to discuss conditions for a "ceasefire."

PA Prime Minister Abu Mazen met with leaders of the Hamas terrorist organization, who laid down some conditions for agreeing to a "year-long ceasefire" against Israel. These included Israel's release of all imprisoned Arab terrorists and its agreement to stop all counter-terrorism activities. By stipulating such conditions, Hamas was essentially understood to be rejecting all calls for a ceasefire.

The "fact" that Hamas was willing to discuss a ceasefire at all, however, can better be understood in light of the words of one of its top leaders, senior Hamas spokesman Mahmoud A-Zahar, just two days earlier. A-Zahar, one of the participants in last night's meeting with Abu Mazen, appeared on Tim Sebastian's BBC Hardtalk show on Tuesday. A partial and unofficial transcript:

Question: You [Hamas] say that if Israel withdraws, then the resistance will stop. [You say:] 'We are calling for just one condition: An end to the occupation and the Palestinian suffering.' Then you would renounce violence totally, is that what you’re telling me - for now and forever?
Zahar: [no], without conditions. We are not the Palestinian Authority that we can give things without discussing them, without agreement...

Q. I'm asking you -
Z. Just one thing [we will give] - a ceasefire. A ceasefire is justified in our religion. Our attitude is that [Palestine] is not a political issue -

Q. Dr. Zahar, I asked you a very simple question: If Israel accepts your conditions - the elimination of the occupation - will you renounce violence, yes or no?
Z. We are going to ceasefire - only ceasefire.

Q. Yes or no to that condition? Yes, or no?
Z. I, I, I, I answered you. It's not the way to say yes or no. We are not going to --

Q. So how can Israel trust your assurances ever? You can’t even give a straight answer to a straight question. How can they trust your answers?
Z. The question is - just a moment. If Israel withdraws from our land, and says that they will not re-attack and reoccupy our country - that's a big if - they are not going to do that, because they did that before: They occupied our country in '48, occupied our areas in '56, and in '67, and Lebanon in '82 - so the history…

Q. You know what you're telling me? That under no circumstances will you give up violence until you've pushed Israel into the sea. That's what you want, isn't it?
Z. Who is saying that?

Q. You're saying that.
Z. I'm telling you frankly, the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area.

Q. So until Israel ceases to exist, you won't lay down your arms. Is that right?
Z. First of all, we are a part of the independent Islamist - this is the attitude of thousands and millions of people…

Q. Why do you keep on with this attitude? You are seen… by many people in the world as a bunch of ruthless killers, fanatics, terrorists. Are you happy with that picture?
Z. We're not happy - [but] these people are seeing Islam as an enemy, as a terrorist, but this is a historical mistake. Because Islam is a supreme power in this area, sooner or later we are going to achieve our power, our moral principles, our virtue, in order to implement a real state. -end-

Arutz-7's Yosef Zalmanson notes that the "ceasefire" Zahar says Islam permits is known as a "hudna" - a temporary cessation of hostilities until one side feels that it is strong enough to resume the fight. In light of the above Hamas position that "the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area," the Israeli Government in fact objects to a ceasefire on the part of the terrorist organizations, which it says will be used to strengthen themselves and prepare for a renewed attack against Israel. Israel demands, instead, that Abu Mazen totally disarm the terrorist groups and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.

IMO the only concession acceptable to the Palestinians and there supporters would be the total destruction of Israel. The acceptance of the state of Israel by the rest of the Arab world is only a temporary accommodation. The road map may be placing Israel on the road to tragedy.

au

Could you please give the BBC link for the above response?
(Although BBCi has an excellent searchfunction, I couldn't find this, neither on a website not an the radio-sites.)

Thank you.