| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| DWI | Posted
on 27-May-03 05:23 AM
One hectic statement by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, "You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation -- to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians." After the introduction of "Road Map" by US and a reserved acceptance by Israeli Cabinet, it sure is sounds like a genuine acceptance of truth by the stringent part. Hope Abbas would come to his terms too and a historic solution be achieved between the arguably, two most controversial religious groups. Details on: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/27/mideast/index.html |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 27-May-03 07:14 AM
its nothing but an adjustment strategy of the post-Iraq world order. Another way to look at it is to strengthen the american occupation of Iraq by getting the support of the arab world. so, this road map to peace isn't really leading the arab-israeli in general and the palestanian-israeli in particular, to any peace. its just there to give some temporary relief in the short run and complicate things for years to come. sharon was ready for partition even before the war on iraq, during the ramallah incident, but sharon too has his hands tied by the other bodies and external forces. so, i wouldn't be very optimistic. the fighting parties signed the camp david accord. they also signed numerous peace agreements and plenty of plans, but did they follow those agreements and plans? no. so, the whole thing is to get the arab support for the "puppet' reegime in Iraq, and to strengthen Israel. namaste. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 27-May-03 07:42 AM
Many seemingly-good peace plans have come and gone; and many more will come and go, without bearing any fruits, including the latest "Road Map," unless there is a genuine desire on the Palestinians' part to stop the violence, Israel's part to accept Palestinians as real human beings and, most importantly, US' part to end it's bias in favor of Israel. I see none of this happening any time soon. They can talk about--and, to some extent, even act on--the substantive demands of both sides, i.e., drawing the border lines, return of refugees (at least of some of them), sharing of precious water, etc.; however, the root of the problem is deep-seated hatred of each other between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the blatant bias of the Americans in favor of Israel. I believe the Oslo Accords failed precisely because it only focused on the substantive demands and failed to address the intangible aspects of the problem such as emotions, politics, etc. So far, the "Road Map" seems like it's no different. |
| DWI | Posted
on 27-May-03 07:46 AM
Each action US takes is measured properly to solidify it's strategical logistics. I agree with you that there is a vast US interest in this proposed "Road Map"; but the way it is designed, there is a hope for a resolution. The Israeli cabinet were very hesitant on accepting the plan. And obviously, the Palestinian side has plenty of reservations about it, as the Legal adviser Diana Buttu mentioned. Sharon was indeed hinting the partition process during that incident. But the government has, for the first time, officially accepted the Palestinian state. It is a landmark decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. Since the Palestinian authority have already accepted the plan, it is worthwhile to hope for an expected resolution. The action and the plan has actually softened my view on the US politics; which, though politically unsound to say, is heavily influenced by Jewish legislatures. It sure is a good start. Palestinians now should stop the terrestrial-kamikaze attacks and Israelese should review their bashful steps. As Isolated said, it might be a strategical move for the US (although also planned by Russia, UN and Europian Union), it might actually bring a fruitful result. With whatever has happened, it couldn't be worse and a change should be always welcomed. Afterall it IS a landmark step. |
| DWI | Posted
on 27-May-03 08:03 AM
Good point Poonte. The Oslo peace process was indeed a curse for the Palestinians. But the Oslo accord never guaranteed the minimum condition for a Palestinian state. Israelese were actually showing their dissatisfaction on the accord and increasing US's involvement (in favor of Israel) was also a factor. The plan was, obviously, not a just for both countries(state) and didn't have a resolving solution. Let's give an unbiased view on this proposed Road Map. Realize that a strategic move, doesn't always end up doing harm to other parties involved. Remember that it was Abu Mazen (Abbas) who coaxed Sharon on sigining the new plan. It is him who doesn't want any ammendment to the accord. It is the Palestinians who have already taken the first move by launching reforms within the Palestinian Authority (Arafat sharing power with Sharon). The plan neutralizes Sharon's vision of a vastly smaller Palestinian state and demands Israel to chew many hardballs that it never did. As far as the US strategies and it's politics are concerned, I am with you guys, Poonte and IF. My views at this moment are just a little relaxed. May be there is a stone named 'Piece' in Middleeast which the road map points to. |
| Bitchpatroll | Posted
on 27-May-03 08:05 AM
Keep on Dreaming.... |
| Poonte | Posted
on 27-May-03 08:08 AM
It is precisely because the "Road Map" focuses mostly on the strategic advantages of the players that I said it is no different from the previous plans that have failed. Some strategical thinking cannot be ruled out in real politiks, which, unfortunately, is the de facto modus operandi of the global poltical system; however, unless a plan is designed to genuinely focus more on the root problems of the conflict, I am afraid I would be hesitant to place my bet on it's success. |
| Bitchpatroll | Posted
on 27-May-03 08:26 AM
Untill they solve the refugee issue there will be no Palestine. There is no way Israel is going to let all those people back(where are they going to keep them). Israel's refusal to relocate the settlers(the old ones) is a major thorn too. They agreed to tear down new illegal ones. Not that the old ones were legal but hey whatya gonna do !!! Humiliation by Isreali security forces on a daily basis is not going to help bridge the gap either.. not that sucaide bombs would either. But Israel's economic infrastructure is about to cave in. Its costs a lotta $$ to provide the type of security Israel provides on a daily basis. Due to the unrest in the region..their economy is talking a toll too. I had heard that Israel is in some sort of financial crisi now. IT does not surprise me Sharon has at least acknowledged this plan instead of rejecting it even before taking a look at it. But still it is a looong loong way to go... |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 27-May-03 10:06 AM
As far as the US strategies and it's politics are concerned, I am with you guys, Poonte and IF. My views at this moment are just a little relaxed. May be there is a stone named 'Piece' in Middleeast which the road map points to. well, yeah. I see your point, and I wish the same. But, given what's been happening in the region since 9/11, I would say, the road map is nothing but a face-saving strategy for the Americans. To guaranty peace in Iraq and the region, the americans need to gain the arab support, and for this the americans have to address the anti-americanism among the arabs which is mostly due to an unjust foreign policy. Anwyay, as poonte said, its to maximize the gains of the players involved, not that of the arabs and the palestanians or even the israelis. Realpolitiks here, nothing more. for more on this, a must read is "Nasty Bruitish and Long:A merica's War on Terror", published somewhere in March- June 2001 of Current History. namaste. PS: These days i have been thinking a lot about the US Foreign policy and the middle east and the only conclusion I've reached to is that the US should invade all nations of the region and establish democratic regimes, then slowly withdraw itself from the region. That way, the whole of the region becomes democracy, the US is already a democracy, so no ideological conflict and this means, peace. And to deal with the religious/civilization issue, the US should internalize the whole region's economy. Of course, this sounds bad, but policy wise, this will benifit the US for 200 years to come. namaste freak, a realist |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 27-May-03 11:05 AM
'Israel must prove its sincerity' Sharon's cabinet accepts the 'road map', but the press remain cautious Tuesday May 27, 2003 The Guardian Times, editorial, May 26 "The slim vote of confidence given by Israel's cabinet to the US-backed Middle East peace plan is an important step forward ... But it did not come easily ... Only 12 of the 23 ministers eventually voted in favour; seven voted against, four abstained. Opponents bitterly called it 'a sugar-coated cyanide pill', and even the most positive endorsement was bittersweet. "Among the problems for Israelis will be negotiating before a complete cessation of all terrorist activity. The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, will have to be seen to make a big effort to prevent more suicide bombings ... Another difficulty ... is the road map's ban on more settlement and its implied dismantling of some existing settlements ... "The Palestinians will make a mistake if they try to insist on prior Israeli agreement to controversial issues, such as the future of Jerusalem or the fate of the 1948 refugees scattered around the Middle East ... Mr Abbas will also have his work cut out dealing with pressure from other Palestinians, from the untrustworthy Yasser Arafat to Hamas ... He may find his ability to enforce a compromise limited." William Safire, New York Times, May 26 "As the vote showed, hardliners are worried about [Ariel Sharon]: He had insisted on 'quiet' - an end to terror attacks - before negotiating, but then changed that to '100% effort' by new Palestinian leaders. [He] had also insisted on evidence beforehand of a campaign to disarm and pacify Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but he was willing to hold private talks during a spate of suicide bombings. Mr Sharon had spurned negotiation as long as Palestinians asserted claims to return en masse to Israel, but even as they kept putting forward that non-starter, he met with ... Mr Abbas. "Sharon's critics point to the road map itself ... Especially sticky is the claim of refugees to land fled from a half-century ago, which Arabs call a 'right of return'. Palestinians want to kick hundreds of thousands of Jewish 'settlers' out of a future Palestine while inserting an even greater number of Muslims into Israel ... Jews find that a deal-breaker." Jerusalem Post, editorial, May 26 "For the first time, the Israeli government has formally committed itself to the formation of a Palestinian state on this side of the Jordan ... The remarkable thing ... [is] that a government so rightwing that Mr Sharon sits on its left flank decided to back Palestinian statehood by a solid majority ... "If the US continues to try to prove its evenhandedness by pressuring Israel ... the road map will fall into the same dustbin as its many failed predecessors. If, however, the US changes tack and places the primary burden on the Arab world to dismantle the edifice of enmity it has built so deep and so high, there is a chance that this inauspicious start could be salvaged." Ha'aretz, editorial, Tel Aviv, May 26 "The feeling Mr Sharon gave was that his recommendation to the government to endorse the plan was a default option in view of the damage that Israel's relations with the US might suffer if it is seen as responsible for the failure of the road map. "The decision of National Union, National Religious party and Likud radicals to stay in the government despite yesterday's resolution, gives rise to concern that this resolution will prove to be a ploy intended only to lob the ball back into the enemy's court. The first test of Mr Sharon's sincerity can be expected in the territories in a few days, in both the unauthorised outposts and the Arab towns. Israel can now prove its sincerity if it voluntarily starts to dismantle the unauthorised outposts." Gulf News, editorial, Dubai, May 26 "[Mr] Sharon cannot be congratulated on his cabinet's approval of the road map. It is months later than the Palestinians' acceptance, and ... has in fact been made empty by the 14 points of difference that the Israeli cabinet has with the plan ... "The road map does offer a chance for peace but only if it is given teeth ... [It] offers no chance at all if Sharon is allowed to laugh off President Bush's attempts to bring Israel into line ... A just peace in Palestine is the way to bring the Middle East to a wider peace." Arab News, editorial, Saudi Arabia, May 25 "Israeli propagandists have been masterful in the way they have consistently managed to obscure their country's savage treatment of the Palestinians as well as the justice of the Palestinian cause ... By presenting the myth that it was beleaguered and endangered, [Israel] has sucked in vast sympathy and cash from North America and Europe. "Ordinary Israelis may dream of peace, but for their political leaders peace could be a nightmare. They must fear that in the long run, Israel could not survive an end to the struggle from which it has drawn life for almost 60 years. That is why, as the country's leaders work on their scripts for the coming road map negotiations and practise their crocodile tears for when it all goes wrong, they must be blessing the extremists of Hamas and Abu Jihad and glorying in the anger they have generated among the mass of once moderate Palestinians. As long as fires of fury burn in Palestinian breasts, there will be no danger of peace and Israel's survival will be assured." |
| noname | Posted
on 27-May-03 05:47 PM
Say Pollyanna or what, I, too, am with DWI in this issue. The elements that played major role in disrupting earlier peace attempts are still active: frequently changing governments in Israel with Hawkish-Dovish sway in leading position coupled with loosening grip of PLO in Palestine, increasing Islamic fundamentalist wave, increasing power of individual actors in terrorizing superpowers like the US, growing resentment worldwide against American policy, and biased America. However, one of the key point that may lead to success of this 'roadmap' is: The surplus of American power in post-cold war era, and willingness of the US to use that surplus power in advancing US hegemony. The threat for America now is not the countries that oppose the US policy, but non-state actors like HAMAS, and Al-Qaueda. For eradication of such disruptive forces, the US wants a stable and conformity state. The US is positive this time, as it knows that Palestine issue is breeding ground for many of these disruptive forces. *** IF >> I've reached to is that the US should invade all nations of the region and establish democratic regimes, then slowly withdraw itself from the region. In a paper presented in Atlanta Conference in 2000, Richard Haas, close aide of both Sr. and Jr. Bush and soon to be appointed as Director of Foreign policy studies by Jr. Bush, prescribed four fundamentals for post-cold war international society: 'reduction of military forces' (not of America), 'reduction of WMD', 'humanitarian intervention', 'economic openness'. If we are to believe these Hawkish - they have a upper hand in US Politics now - then democracy does not feature as fundamentals in American foreign policy - the paper says, promoting democracy is a 'difficult business' - of post-cold war international order. Their policy towards Venezuela is a leading example of how much value they put to a democratically elected government. So, I believe that they are or will be invading all nations, but I doubt that they will establish democracy there. |
| Bond-007 | Posted
on 27-May-03 08:14 PM
Sharon to end Occupation = Bush to talk peace = Ashcrof to be pro-minority = Nepal to be corruption free = Bagmati to be clean = Bond to quite being an spy = ............... My X-mas wish list! (If there is Santa) |
| satya | Posted
on 28-May-03 06:44 AM
So called Road Map is leading to nowhere. Here is an article I found interesting related to this issue. A cage for Palestinians: A 1,000-kilometer fence preempts the road map Jonathan Cook IHT Please click here for full text. JERUSALEM A humorous e-mail circulating on the Internet explains the "law of diminishing territorial returns" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first attempt at partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs, undertaken by the United Nations in 1947, resulted in the Palestinian majority being offered 47 percent of its historic homeland, with the rest allocated to a new Jewish state. The Palestinians rejected the plan and the ensuing war established Israel. . The Palestinians had to wait 46 years for the next offer: Under the 1993 Oslo accords, the Palestinians were to receive 22 percent of their homeland - the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. They accepted the terms, but Israel never got around to returning most of the land. Then Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel decided to speed things up and negotiate a final agreement at Camp David in 2000, "generously" offering the Palestinians 80 percent of the 22 percent of the 100 percent of their original homeland. Yasser Arafat refused to sign and the second intifada began. . The e-mail's payoff line is that Barak's successor, Ariel Sharon, has devised an even more miserly take-it-or-leave-it deal: the Palestinians can have a state on 42 percent of the 80 percent of the 22 percent of 100 percent of their original homeland. . The funniest part is that it isn't a joke. Sharon is deadly serious. The proof is not to be found in the "road map," which is diverting attention from Sharon's real goal, which is to redraw the territorial contours of historic Palestine himself - in concrete and barbed wire. . The security wall Israel is hastily constructing around the West Bank - officially justified by the need to stop terror attacks - will cage in more than 2 million Palestinians. Another electrified fence is already imprisoning 1 million Palestinians in Gaza. . Little attention has focused on this wall, mainly because it is assumed it follows the Green Line, the internationally recognized border that existed between Israel and the West Bank until the war of 1967. But Sharon admitted in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth that the wall will be at least 1,000 kilometers long (625 miles), whereas the Green Line is only 360 kilometers long. . Why does it need to be so long? Because Sharon is less interested in preventing suicide bombers than in creating a tiny de facto Palestinian state before the road map forces a bigger one on him. For decades Sharon has maintained that the Palestinians should not be allowed a state that controls its own borders, airspace and water or one that comprises more than 40 percent of the land of the West Bank and Gaza. . Palestinian research based on land expropriation orders issued by the Israeli Army produces a map that shows the wall winding its way deep into the heart of the Palestinian state, twisting and turning in an elaborate route designed to keep a large number of the settlers on "Israel's side" of the wall and minimize the amount of territory left to the Palestinians. . Israel is also preparing a second, similarly tortuous wall near the eastern border of the West Bank, which it shares with Jordan, that will steal even more land from the Palestinians and offers no obvious security benefits. . After the wall is finished, at a cost of more than $2 billion, the Palestinians will live in two minuscule states behind concrete and electrified fencing, restricted to their main population centers. Thousands of rural Palestinians will live outside the West Bank cage in military controlled zones, denied rights as citizens of either Palestine or Israel. The rest will live inside the prison. Palestine will finally be born from 42 percent of 80 percent of 22 percent of the historic Palestinian homeland. . The writer is a free-lance journalist living in Israel. JERUSALEM A humorous e-mail circulating on the Internet explains the "law of diminishing territorial returns" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first attempt at partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs, undertaken by the United Nations in 1947, resulted in the Palestinian majority being offered 47 percent of its historic homeland, with the rest allocated to a new Jewish state. The Palestinians rejected the plan and the ensuing war established Israel. . The Palestinians had to wait 46 years for the next offer: Under the 1993 Oslo accords, the Palestinians were to receive 22 percent of their homeland - the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. They accepted the terms, but Israel never got around to returning most of the land. Then Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel decided to speed things up and negotiate a final agreement at Camp David in 2000, "generously" offering the Palestinians 80 percent of the 22 percent of the 100 percent of their original homeland. Yasser Arafat refused to sign and the second intifada began. ..................................................................................................... |
| DWI | Posted
on 28-May-03 07:14 AM
One thing we are not realizing here is that we have a difference of interpretations but similarity in opinion. Thanks, Noname, for hitting the nail right on the head. I get a vibe that we are merely trying to justify our grievances, instead of analyzing the reasonings. May be I am a culprit myself. President Bush's strong advocation for the Road Map should be praised, not criticized. He is well aware that His father lost political grounds because of his controversial decisions. Any political lobbyists can tell you that his stand on resolving the mideast issue, instead of merely focusing on the current economical situation, could be a costly affair for the forthcoming presidential election cycle. The important Jewish approval ratings have plunged down 10% already. I again iterate my point, no doubt that there is a plenty of benefits to be ripped by the US from this resolution. The terrorist base will be 'contained', US might (a strong might) start winning over it's Muslim allies (allies?) and oh yeah, plenty other economical grounds to cover. But there also seems to be a good chance for the Palestinians finally reaping few benefits. THey have waited over 50 years without a state of their own; a good start is worth the try. |
| DWI | Posted
on 28-May-03 07:38 AM
Thanks Satya for an excellent article. There is no denying the truth that the Palestinians have been on the loosing end so far. The percentage of the land they will be receiving seems to have been caught on the recursive loop with the final answer being a mere factor. I strongly condemn the building of the 'defensive' fence, which stretches beyond the Green Line (which is also not officially accepted). US, the UN, Russia and all interested parties should voice this issue strongly as it is a strong offensive move. But, with all these happenings, isn't it a good sign to open the road map on this mideast table? US has been reluctant to discuss the complete detail (waited till Iraq war was over), but briefly here are the points: For Palestine: 1. Immediate halting of all terrorist activities. 2. Improve security. 3. Construct a constitution, held and election and elect a Prime Minister. (1996 Palestinian election for Palestine Authority to be given less importance). 4. Remove Yasser Arafat (US insistence). As I said earlier, Palestine seems to be willing to completely adhere to the plant, despite of few oppositions by few politicians like the legal advisor Buttu. DownShift of considerable power from Arafat. For Israel: 1. Return the land occupied after Sep, 2000. (Increases that humerous percentage factor). 2. Halt deportation and stop confiscating or destroying Palestinian property ("http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-595351,00.html"). 3. Freeze settlement activity in the occupied territory. President Bush has finally and firmly asked for the end of the new Israeli settlement. It was the Israeli side that was reulctant on following accepting the accord, and now have finally did with the approval of the cabinet. Don't take this step lightly and hope all the nations do likewise. It has a better and stringent guideline than the Oslo Accord. This is not the complete justice, it is a start and a start is what Palestine needs now badly. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:02 AM
It is a start alright, DWI, but a bad start. What's the point in starting something that is doomed to fail? Remember, similar hype was made about the Oslo Accords and the Rye River Agreements, and what did they both bring them (Palestinians and Israelis) to? Nada! First of all, if we were to focus on the strategic give-and-take only for the sake of merely focusing on it, I must say I am bitterly disappointed because it asks EVERYTHING of the Palestinians, while limiting the pressure exerted on the Israelis. Freezing new settlements (not dismantling the existing ones), and return the land occupied after September 2000 (not even discuss the land occupied after 1967) are a couple of examples of tremendous amount of flexibilty that the plan gives to the Israelis, while constricting the ability to bargain for the Palestinians. However, more importanty, as I have already pointed out in my above postings, the so-called "Road Map" is full of traditional negotiating methods of strategic exchanges, while it completely neglects the other factors such as emotions and feelings that equally affect the crisis at hand. Some conflicts are about strategic disparity between the parties (such as Iran-Iraq war) and they can be solved via the traditional methods of problem solving. Yet, there are other conflicts that cannot be solved through the simple I-give-you-this-and-you-give-me-that style of negotiations. Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a prime example of the latter. Kashmiri conflict is another example that bears similarity to the Paletinian-Israeli conflict in a sense that they both carry with them the heavy weight of history, cuture, religion etc., and cannot be expected to be resolved through simply negotiating the strategic advantages/disadvantages. Otherwise, if they were the traditional conflicts about strategic disparity, then establishment of the LoC (Line of Control) would have resolved the Kashmiri conflict; and either the Oslo Accords, or the Rye Agreement, would have ended the crisis in Palestine. We must also remember that the parties involved (the US, Israel and the Palestinians) have so far agreed to do what they have done so far simply because they have to, not because they want to. US is doing what they are doing merely to build a nice facade to pacify the Arab concerns about US' bias in favor of Israel so that they can garner more support from the Arab world for their other agenda; Israel is doing it simply because the US is asking her to do it, and because they are suffering a major economic hardship due to the conflict; and the Palestinians are doing it just because they are helpless--they don't see any other better alternatives. In this kind of situation, the minute the reality changes that alters the priority of either/or all of the parties involved, the whatever little progress hey may have achieved by then will fall like a house of cards. The hatred and the violent rivalry between the Palestinians and the Israelis has been existing for hundreds of years, and the problem did not start just a few years ago with a simple argument over the strategic advantage/disadvantage. They have killed each other for hundreds of years, and have done so in an unfathomable rate for decades now. The hatred is deep-seated. Unless the parties genuinely desire to accept one another as real human beings and understand the need of wanting to do it rather than just having to do it, the mere creation of a Palestinian state, or dismantling of some settlements, or reducing terror are not going to resolve this problem. The "Road Map" can perhaps be effective in doing temporary patch up work, but since it lacks the long term strategy of addressing the root of the problem, I am still not convinced to have high hopes for it. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:08 AM
hetterika...thuikka mero khappar! *read Rye as Wye! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:23 AM
how do you get bold/italicized words/lines? |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:33 AM
freaky maya...ehehhe type "" to bolden, and "" to de-bolded similarly "" to italicize, and "" to de-italicize **do it without the " "s! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:34 AM
hetteri...bhayena...kasari bhanum aba? type garyo ki aafai effective bhai haalchha... |
| DWI | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:42 AM
Poonte, I thought there was another command "to bolden" to make a bold face. IF You can use the standard HTML tags to bold and unbold. Type '<' + 'b + '>' To bold (type all 3 in one shot without the plus sign Type '<' + '/' +'b' + '>' to unbold. Replace b with i for italicize. Use '<' +'font color=red' +'>' for font colors. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:47 AM
Type '<' + 'b + '>' To bold (type all 3 in one shot without the plus sign Type '<' + '/' +'b' + '>' to unbold. Replace b with i for italicize. Use '<' +'font color=red' +'>' for font colors ok let's try it: The Road Map to Peace is confusing. |
| DWI | Posted
on 28-May-03 09:54 AM
I heard you Poonte. And I don't disagree, as you would find on my previous statements that I firmly oppose all the injustice bestowed upon the Palestinians. But a settlement is already overdue. Let's take your point solely for a second. Let's return all the land from Israelese to the Palestinians because the latter deserve so. Do you think both end will be happy. US, UN, Russia aren't acting as a judicial authority, but a mere moderator. We know Palestinians deserve their share, but who is to decide that is the legal truth? Israel would never approve of it and as I said, neither part are looking for a judicial sentence. When peace between two countries are negotiated, Justice should be given a high priority but the focus should be on "Peace." Because it is not a fight between two people, where an authority can barge in and decide the verdict. The start is good, because it stops numerous account of unaccounted deaths, because once the two side cool off, logical arguments can be brought forth. Peace is not possible without Palestinians getting what they deserve, hopefully the road map will gradually lead to it. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 11:16 AM
I am afraid you still seem to be missingmy point, DWI. :) I am not in favor of returning all the land to the Palestinians per se, not because I would not like to see it happen, but simply because I know it's utterly unrealistic given the current geopolitical status of the Middle East. What I am saying is that even IF the Palestinians get all the land back, which is unlikely, it would not suffice to bring about a lasting peace between the Jews and the Arabs. The root of the problem is centuries-old hatred of the other side on both parties, which is now deeply ingrained in their respective religion, culture and history. One can give both sides whatever they want--in terms of land, water, security, return of refugees, and all the other tangible aspects of the problem--and yet there will never be a lasting peace unless the root is addressed. A temporary settlement based on exchange of strategic advantages/disadvantages may seem to halt the killings for now, but will only open the flood gate of further killlings in the future unless the parties are, as I said before, made to want to have peace rather than they are compelled to accept peace because they feel like they have to. Oslo and Wye also brought a temporary halt in the killings, but look at where we are now. All parties must be genuinely ready to make peace--to address the deep-seated hatred on both sides, regardless of strategic gains--and I am afraid this purity lacks on all sides for now, including the US. |
| DWI | Posted
on 28-May-03 11:55 AM
I surely didn't miss your point, Poonte, but I plead guilty for steering it to a narrow conclusion. But face it, isn't that a good question to all other posters who are opposing the treaty? There is no satisfying everybody. I might have to say, What you are asking in the bold face (preceding thread) is very unrealistic, practically impossible in these days. A country's strategies are steered by the politicians and they have to think about their political steps whenever they take one. I am not saying this is the perfect road map (to Atlantis?) but in current circumstances, is a viable one. Strategically sound for US foreign affairs and economic standpoint, good for Palestiinian and not-so-bad compromise for Israel. I would appreciate if you guys could bring anything that you could suggest to add to the road map or criticize the points on it like Poonte and IF did, instead of outrightly rejecting it. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 12:32 PM
Yes, DWI, as I had pointed out earlier, in today's world dominated by realpolitik, it is rather foolish to expect a plan that excludes strategic advantages to the players altogether. However, if a plan is so lopsided and full of strategical considerations, without even a slightest thought given to the non-tangible aspects of the problem, like the present "Road Map" is, I personally would have serious doubts about it's success. I think a carefully balanced plan that may be effective would entail some strategical give-n-take along side a more considerations for emotional and psychological aspects of the crisis. Only time will tell whether the "Road Map" will succceed or not; however, given the fact that similar plans failed miserably in the past, I cannot help but feel hopeless about this one as well, simply becausse it is no different from the past failed plans. Nevertheless, I must say I do pray for it's success. |
| DWI | Posted
on 28-May-03 12:35 PM
Amen Poonte. Good discussion. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 28-May-03 01:01 PM
...and cheer's to that! Do you prefer Scotch or Cognac? ;) |
| Deep | Posted
on 28-May-03 01:19 PM
chintan manan ramro lagyo. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 28-May-03 01:56 PM
Yes, DWI, as I had pointed out earlier, in today's world dominated by realpolitik, it is rather foolish to expect a plan that excludes strategic advantages to the players altogether. True True. Realpolitik after all is looking at your national intertests than that of the others. idologies gets compromised under the elaborate facade of detente and rapproachmnet and diplomatic vagueness and now, the road map! However, if a plan is so lopsided and full of strategical considerations, without even a slightest thought given to the non-tangible aspects of the problem, like the present "Road Map" is, I personally would have serious doubts about it's success. I think a carefully balanced plan that may be effective would entail some strategical give-n-take along side a more considerations for emotional and psychological aspects of the crisis. Only time will tell whether the "Road Map" will succceed or not; however, given the fact that similar plans failed miserably in the past, I cannot help but feel hopeless about this one as well, simply becausse it is no different from the past failed plans. Nevertheless, I must say I do pray for it's success. I too of the same belief. If the road map was well worked out as a result of secret negotiations between the two parties for long, and had come out from the Israelis and the Palestanians themselves, then the chances of this road map being a success story would have been high. However, the americans and the british imposed this plan on israel and palestine, and now its "toknu-na-okalnu" for both of them. and the timing of this road map gives everyone every reason to believe that something is not right. my own assessment is that the US is trying to gain the support of the Arab world by imposing this map or globe or atlas whatver it is on the Arabs. This is the shoprt run would work fine, but will it result in a lasting peace? As far as i am concerned, I will say no. I guess, the israelis and palestanians are the only fighting focres today who have signed more peace treaties and accords in the last 20 years, tahn others did since the treaty of westphelia. a palestanian settlement or israel ending its occupation won't do anything because the fisrt thing to peace is mutual trust and understanding and also, the problem related to cultural and politcial identities and most importantly, the issue of arab nationalism. Unless, the US is successful in addressing the anger of the palestanians, the pain of being humiliated and the Israeli people's fear of suicide bombings and even a 5 year old throwing rocks at them, the road map, atlas or even globe is not going to achieve anything. la dwi, maile jnaeko bujheko yetti ho.. kehi galti bhaye sachyai dinu hola.. j bhaye ni ramro hos.. shri pashupatinath le hamra israeli ra palestani mitra harioooko raxya garun.. sarve bhawantu sukhina, sarve santu niramaya. sarve bhadrani pashyantu, mma kashchid dukha bhag bhawet.. om shanti: |
| Poonte | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 08:14 AM
Listening to the news in the past twenty four hours, one gets plenty of reasons to be extremely hopeful of the new Road Map to peace in the Middle East. Palestinian PM has renounced terrorism and called for an end to the armed Intifada, although Hammas and Islamic Jihad, two key Palestinian militant groups in the fore front of armed struggle against the Israeli occupation, have both said that their "struggle" will continue. Abu Mazen, aka Mahmoud Abbas, nevertheless seems to have won confidence of the leaders of those militant groups for now. What was most promising to read on the news from Aquaba, Jordan was that the Israeli PM Sharon, himself a hardcore right winger, not only promised to dismantle the illegal settlements with immediate effect, but said that he would respect the territorial contiguity to ensure the viability of a possible Palestinian state: "We can also reassure our Palestinian partners that we understand the importance of territorial contiguity in the West Bank for a viable Palestinian state.'' The complete disregard for a territorial contiguity of a Palestinian state was a key reason why Arafat did not accept the Wye River agreement with the then Israeli PM Barak, hence the consequent failure of the summit--havng three pockets of Palestinian land separated either by Israeli territory or by Israeli highways was understandably not acceptble to the Palestinian leader. ****************** Two friends were driving down the road and got lost. The driver stoped the car to ask for directions from a passerby. The indidual told the driver to go to the next intersection and turn left, while he pointed to the right. The driver got to the intersection and turned right anyway. When his friend asked him why he did that, the driver replied, "What he did is more meaningful than what he said." ****************** It remains to be seen if Abbas and Sharon are both willing AND able to transform the promises made in Aquaba into actions. Being able to realize their promises--to convince their respective constituents--will definitely prove harder than being willing to make those promises. This is why I believe rooting out hatred and misunderstanding from the grounds is far more important than just making promises, or even exchanging/compromising a handful of strategical positions. Both leaders will never be able to convince their people that peace is both possible, and desirable, unless the people on the ground genuinely trust, understand and respect the other side. Even though I still am skepticle about the success of he Road Map because I do not believe it addresses the issue of reality transformation, I am more hopeful today than yesterday particularly because of Sharon's assurance of respecting the territorial contiguity of a viable Palestinian state. INSH'ALLAH! |
| DWI | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 11:31 AM
Poonte Certainly the "road map" to peaceville really is extending towards its destination. It seems more possible everyday, although uncontrolled suicide attacks might ruin the process anytime. Two most important reason, why I think this process is viable (as opposed to the Oslo Accord) are: 1. Power shift from Arafat to Abbas. Abbas was one of the key role player in Oslo Accord and seems to be heading towards mediation. Arafat, as everybody knows, ironically won Nobel Peace prize for promoting the avengeful (not initiating though) violence. 2. Changes in US strategies, post 911 No doubt, US will always look for its best interest; but even best interests change with time. US vision and strategies on middle east has significantly changed by two kamakazi attacks on WTC. The relaxed attitude is, without a doubt, get some support from the muslim part of the world..but if it helps the peace process, who's to complain? We will always be having sceptics till the end...may be even after the process is complete. I have plenty of doubts, but do have hopes too. Our own Poonte seems to be crossing his finger, ask him. (or may be he is more concerned about the present political crisis in Nepal, rightfully so). |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 11:49 AM
"It seems more possible everyday, although uncontrolled suicide attacks might ruin the process anytime." You missed one crucial point: any uncontrolled Israeli military adventure + "suicide attacks might ruin the process anytime." hoina? "We will always be having sceptics till the end...may be even after the process is complete. I have plenty of doubts, but do have hopes too. " Unless, the State of Palestine and the State of Israel sign a Peace and Friendship Treaty, respecting each others sovereign rights, we have every reason to be skeptical. hoina? |
| DWI | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 12:47 PM
I don't disagree Isolated. And in fears of sounding too much like Aron Fischer or the new Spokesperson, I agree the point you added that each side should equally respect the ongoing process. For those interested in the road map, here is an interactive presentation from CNN: - http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 09:14 PM
DWI and Poonte (+ everyone), This might be of interest to you guys. Sharon sticks to script in front of Bush - but the backtracking has already begun Palestinians hope US keeps up pressure as Israeli leader clarifies his commitment Chris McGreal in Aqaba Thursday June 5, 2003 The Guardian Ariel Sharon spent months trying to avoid yesterday's summit with George Bush designed to launch the US-led "road map" for the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israeli prime minister persuaded the US president to delay publication of the document three times, and cancelled a trip to Washington last month ostensibly because of a new wave of terror. But yesterday he was forced to read the script the White House all but wrote for him by committing himself not only to the creation of a Palestinian state but one that is viable and contiguous and not squeezed between those individual Jewish settlers determined to claim every hilltop as Israeli land. Mr Sharon fell short on only one count - he refused to say that it would be independent. As President Bush sipped a diet Coke and relaxed on board Air Force One, on his way from Aqaba to Qatar last night, he reflected on his evident success in putting pressure on Mr Sharon. He described how he had told the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to make the peace process their top priority but that he was ready to step in if needed. "I show up when they need me to call people to account, to praise or to say, 'wait a minute, you told me, you know, in Jordan you would do this'," Mr Bush said. "You haven't done it. Why? Back up." Mr Bush said he had promised Mr Sharon and the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, that he would "ride herd" on what happened - but wasn't sure they understood the expression. But already yesterday, Mr Sharon appeared to be backtracking on his promises to the US president. In a bizarre twist, the Israeli prime minister's office issued what amounted to a clarification of his speech before he even made it by saying that when he referred to a Palestinian state he meant one that was demilitarised and that would be the only home for the Palestinian diaspora. Mr Sharon had notably made no such qualification in his speech, apparently because the Americans told both parties to steer clear of demands about the right of Palestinian refugees to land they once owned in Israel. Mr Sharon's office also went on to say that by "viable" he meant an "interim" state. The Palestinians said they were not particularly disturbed, and that both clarifications had been made to temper criticism by the Israeli right. They noted that Mr Sharon's commitment was now on the record to a US president, and that the Americans had forced him to go further and faster than he wanted. Contd.. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 09:17 PM
Confident Above all, they took that to answer the single most important question of the summit for the Palestinians - was Mr Bush serious about confronting a reluctant Israeli prime minister? "This is not a conflict between two equal sides, it's a conflict between an occupier and an occupied," said Michael Tarazi, of the Palestinian negotiating team. "We are hoping that the role of the US will be to correct the imbalance of power between a very strong Israel and a very weak Palestine. We are now confident that Bush is serious." That belief was reinforced at Mr Bush's summit with friendly Arab leaders on Tuesday when Egyptian television accidentally captured the American president in a private conversation as he dropped formality for an extraordinary invocation of God. "I believe that, as I told the crown prince, the almighty God has endowed each individual on the face of the earth with - that expects each person to be treated with dignity. This is a universal call. It's the call of all religions, that each person must be free and treated with respect." He concluded by saying: "I feel passionate about the need to move forward." The Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Sha'ath, said he recognised that the Americans were unlikely to deliver what the Palestinians desire - all of the land occupied in 1967. "The proof of whether what we heard today is really the road to peace - the end of the occupation started in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state - will only come in time. But I think we have enough today to give us a real opportunity for hope," he said. A crucial first step was Mr Sharon's commitment yesterday after months of prevarication to begin dismantling the estimated 120 Jewish outposts in the occupied territories that are illegal under Israeli law. His government has identified 17 initially, some of which are either not manned permanently or are only home to a handful of people. But the real test will be whether he also prevents new outposts being thrown up or uses the inevitable confrontations with rightwing settlers, who are already calling Mr Sharon "a traitor", as a pretext to draw out the process. Israeli officials say Mr Sharon met settler leaders last week and told them that, under US pressure, some of the more established settlements, home to about 220,000 settlers, would have to make way for a Palestinian state. "Security will be a big factor in deciding which ones go," one official said. "Not just the question of which settlements are important to Israel's security but which we will not have the ability to defend when the borders change. We know it will not be easy." Mr Sharon's spokesman, Ra'anan Gissin, denied the Israeli government had bowed to US pressure and said embracing of the road map was a response to the changed reality of the Middle East. "What came out of the meeting is a reflection of the fact that the US won a great victory in Iraq and there has been a major change in the Middle East - that terrorism is in retreat. I think it's very important that conspicuous by his absence is Yasser Arafat," he said. Yet just a few weeks ago the Israeli administration evidently felt confident that a mix of hawks in the Bush administration, the mobilisation of support in Congress, and next year's election in the US, would contain White House pressure for Mr Sharon to commit himself to the peace process. Lobbying Persistent leaks from the prime minister's office sought to deride the US secretary of state, Colin Powell - a strong advocate of the road map along with Tony Blair - as too liberal and irrelevant to the Bush administration's thinking. The Israeli government had mobilised such influential organisations as the American Israeli Political Action Committee against the road map, and had persuaded dozens of Congress members and senators to warn the president "not to jeopardise Israel's security". The concern for the Palestinians now is that Mr Bush keeps up the pressure on Israel, as his father once did. In a conversation with the Palestinian finance minister in Washington last month, Mr Bush dismissed concerns that he would be disinclined to confront the Israeli government in an election year. He said that only 9% of American Jews voted for him "and it can't get worse than that". Yesterday Mr Sha'ath said it was crucial that the Americans had insisted on taking control of monitoring both sides to see if they meet their commitments under the requirements of the road map - in other words, the Israelis will not be the judge of whether the Palestinians are doing enough to fight terrorism. He noted that the process would be overseen by the two Bush administration officials whom the Israelis once said were of no relevance whatever to the American policy on Israel - Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 04-Jun-03 09:19 PM
Here's another piece from The Guardian.Now is the time for compassion, not historical accounting or blame Amos Oz Thursday June 5, 2003 The Guardian For the first time in 100 years of conflict the two peoples, the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, are ahead of their leaders. They know that the disputed land must be divided into two nation states. The basic facts are actually very simple. A country that is roughly the size of Sicily is now inhabited by 5.5 million Jews and by 3 to 4 million Arabs. They cannot share the land - so they must divide it into two. The Czechs and the Slovaks did the same not very long ago without shedding any blood at all. After three years of bloody Palestinian intifada and of bloody Israeli oppression, it has became clear to the majority of the Israelis that most of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and in Gaza will have to be removed, otherwise there cannot be a viable state of Palestine. At the same time, more and more Palestinians now realise that the 1948 refugees will have to be resettled in Palestine not in Israel - otherwise there will be no viable state of Israel. This process of sobering up hurts like hell. For both sides it means an injured self-image, a compromised sense of justice, shattered dreams and a heavy sense of loss. Both parties are going to feel as if they were amputated once the two-state solution is implemented. This is the time for the rest of the world to offer both sides as much help, empathy and understanding as possible. This is the time for well-meaning governments and individuals to come forth with a "mini Marshall Plan" in order to resettle the Palestinian refugees in the state of Palestine. It is also the time to offer Israel the security guarantees it will need in return for renouncing the occupied territories. This is time for compassion, not for historical accounting and not for blaming. Neither Sharon nor Abbas is likely to become a Nelson Mandela. But whether they like it or not it looks as if their sleeves are now caught in the cogwheels of the peace process. They are being drawn into it, kicking and screaming and trying to appease their fanatics back home. Yet it will be almost impossible for those two leaders to run away now from the peace process. Let us not expect a sudden honeymoon between deadly enemies. Let us expect and encourage a painful divorce and a partition of the very small home into two, even smaller apartments. The time is ripe. ยท Amos Oz is one of Israel's leading novelists and a founder of the Peace Now movement |
| DWI | Posted
on 05-Jun-03 05:12 AM
IF, The peace process cannot prevail unless Sharon comes more determined and feels less vulnerable to party politics. After a heartening approval from the Cabinet, it might be worthwhile for Sharon to realize that he can squeeze the grip on his stance. No doubt, more is expected from Sharon (and Abbas) if the peace process is to go as expected. But being optimistic, these small bubbles shouldn't be taken as a deviation from the accepted accord. >>Mr Sharon fell short on only one count - he refused to say that it would be independent. I'd heavily doubt that Sharon has a big reservations within himself and his parties on making Palestine a self-controlled country. Country leaders, favoring peace or solely Palestine, are prudent enough to realize what is missing. You cannot play word games at this level now when the entire world is focusing on the accord. But no doubt, Sharon also has to come clean and make each of his point vividly clear. Thanks for presenting a positive spin on the story by the same newspaper. Here is a great website: - http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/issue-2-97.jsp With such headlines as: * An Israeli view: start with two separate roadmaps * The West Bank and Gaza Strip: an international protectorate? and one of the best maps of Israeli Settlements shown cronologically. |
| DWI | Posted
on 05-Jun-03 06:28 AM
Arafat is crying foul again. He demands something tangible from Sharon. Although the demands are viable, I hope that doesn't agitate the peace process. The blames are a little immature at this point. Arafat could never gift the Palestinians their own promised land, he should bear some patience now. It simply seems to be an outcry for loss of power. |
| DWI | Posted
on 06-Jun-03 06:24 AM
"Hamas ends cease fire-talks" "The Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas on Friday stopped talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on a possible cease-fire with Israel. " A bump on a roadmap or a U-turn? Does Arafat have a hand on this? Hamas dissatisfaction could also be the result of them being labelled the Terrorist Groups by the US. Would this heavily influence the peace talk or Abbas will be able to cut-it-off? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Jun-03 07:46 AM
DWI, Arafat is angry and he has every reason to be angry at Israel, US and everyone involved in the Road Map. Arafat, whether we agree with his ways or not, spent almost 3 decades of his life to fight for the Palestanian rights' and to internationalzie the Palestine cause, yet, he got sidelined in the whole process. So, obviosuly he is angry. And let's not forget, Hamas's ways and the early ways of Arafat seems to be the same, i.e, violence. But, let's hope for the best. namaste |
| DWI | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 08:57 AM
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades agree to 3-month cessation of attacks against Israelis, senior Palestinian officials said. (more on CNN) Light at the end of the tunnel? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 09:55 AM
certainly! a baby step towards peace. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 10:01 AM
Baby step, it is indeed! :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 10:05 AM
:-) well, jokes aside, this is all going to afll apart if the Israelis keep on rounding up Hamas members and kiling it's leaders. Hamas wants recognition at this stage, and the only way to recognize it is by including it in the peace process. |
| DWI | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 11:12 AM
I second that, IF. Both sides should be equally intending and implementing the peace process. Hamas' suddent outburst and eventual declaration of ceasefire might somewhere suggest that it was preplanned. Could they have done this for the needed recognization? Poonte? IF? Whatever it be, the whole in the damn seem to be temporarily(atleast) sealed. |
| DWI | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 11:13 AM
suddent=sudden whole=hole (U know, visiting after a while) |
| DWI | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 11:14 AM
and finally, damn=dam (What's happening here?) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 08:06 PM
" Hamas' suddent outburst and eventual declaration of ceasefire might somewhere suggest that it was preplanned. Could they have done this for the needed recognization? " kasto garo prasna . Hamas's sudden outburst was preplanned, no questions regarding this. To blow up buses in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, one needs to do a lot of planning beforehand or else, Mosad will foil every attempt. I think, the exclusion of Hamas and Yaseer Arafat during the Road-Map angered Hamas, and it wanted to make it's presence felt. And it resorted to it's old strategy, i.e., terror. Isarel by declaring an all-out war on Hamas, in fact gave Hamas the much needed recognition at the height of war against terror. It legitamized the violence by retaliating. This was enough for Hamas, because this was what it wanted. Now, Israel will be thinking of Hamas as a "force" fighting for the Palestanian cause, and the inclusion of Hamas, although not exclusively in the first few rounds of peace talk is inevitable. So, to answer your question: I think the outburst was preplanned. However, the outcome was not. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 08:11 PM
Also: Hamas has now emerged as a powerful force without whose blessings all peace talks are bound to fail. And the Isarelis and the Palestanian authorities have finally come to accept this bitter truth. |
| DWI | Posted
on 26-Jun-03 01:00 PM
Hmm..good insights. And my question about the pre-planning, included the outcome too. "We will show them who we are and that we are a crucial factor in this peace process. Then, we will declare a cease-fire." It sure seems, as you hinted IF, that the plan was successful. |