Tom Teepen: Before blaming Israel for everything

[furman]

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/858700.html

Last update: December 06, 2006 – 6:09 PM
Tom Teepen: Before blaming Israel for everything
Israelis have tried to move closer to a Palestinian deal, but get nothing helpful in return.
Tom Teepen, Cox News Service

With Iraq carrion and the buzzards circling, a number of quarters are beginning to turn to the root of the problem: Israel!

You do remember, don't you, when Israel started this war? When it set Islam's oil-and-water Sunni and Shiite sects at one another before modern Israel was even a gleam in Zionists' eyes? Surely you recall, too, when Israel caused Iraq to attack Iran in an eight-year war, then sicced Iraq on Kuwait, encouraged the House of Saud to bankroll extremist Muslim schools that would stir up the terrorist Al-Qaida. And when Israel incited Iran to drive toward nuclear weaponry so that it will have the means to "wipe Israel off the map."

<snip>

They have half of a point. President Bush snubbed generations of U.S. policy by leaving that issue to itself, unmediated and seething. The resulting irritant does agitate the region.

But setting the Palestinian-Israeli standoff at the center of a Mideast peace will once again take the focus off the real problems.

<snip>

First Jews and then Israel have throughout provided the excuse used by the Middle East's satrapies, strongman states and oil baronies for their failure to compose the region in the interests of the people who live there.

A Palestinian-Israeli deal has lain to hand ever since the United Nations partitioned the old British Mandate in 1947. Arabs instead choose the romantic "armed struggle" over any Palestinian state whose creation doesn't kill off Israel.

<snip>

But the last three Israeli prime ministers have supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza and got, in return, a terrorist Hezbollah ministate in Lebanon and a terrorist Hamas government in Gaza.

<snip>

In the unlikely event that movement toward a broad Mideast bargain can be set in motion, it will be time to start asking Palestinians the question that always seems to be asked only of Israelis: What are you willing to do for peace?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

2. how about being able to return to their homes...?

That's a pretty good start, I would think?

[msmcghee]

3. Or, how about free cable?

This is an extremely complicated topic with layers of complexity going back centuries. Simplistic talking points are just - simplistic talking points.

[newyorican]

6. yes, yes, we know the routine..

When the finger of blame is pointed at Palestinians, it's very simple.

When the finger of blame is pointed at Israelis, it's very complicated.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. the simple reality is that with the exception of about 10 days in Taba, Egypt in Jan 2001

the Palestinians have never been offered anything remotely like a reasonable settlement in the past 50 years.

The ink wasn't even dry from signing the Oslo Accord in September, 1993 and Israel was engaging in the most massive settlement expansion project in its history, along with building the Apartheid roads and imposing closure policies which devastated the Palestinian economy.

When the Israeli and Palestinian delegations met in the summer of 2000 for final status talks, the only offers the Palestinians were given were so outrageous that even a lead negotiator and the Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami has said very clearly that he would have rejected the offer if he had been Palestinian. link:
http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

It was not until the very final days of the Barak Labor government and under tremendous pressure from President Clinton did the Israeli government get serious about a credible offer.

Unfortunately with Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win the election pledging that he would not honor the agreement and then Mr. Barak deciding to distance himself from the Taba negotiations, Israel--not the Palestinians unilaterally withdrew from the Taba talks on January 28, 2001. It must be said in fairness that Israel was just a couple weeks away from the election at that point:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

"In the current reality of terror attacks and bombing raids, it is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago."

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________________

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf

_________________________


The Arab Peace Initiative (Also known as the Saudi Peace Plan)

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002 and very recently reaffirmed. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer.

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
___________

[pelsar]

5. deeds speak louder than words...

and no matter what agreement there is within the palestenain govt...all 4 israeli withdrawls have shown that without a strong central govt the attempts to kill israelis will continue.

the proof is so obvious that one has to be trying NOT to look not to see it:

Egypt= peace
Jordan= peace

Lebanon=cross border attacks

Gaza(2)= cross border attacks
_____

the most simplistic analysis of the environments above tell every israeli and opened minded person the situation. A Palestenain govt like the weak lebanon govt cannot bring peace, they cannot control their own societies and their jihadnikim, both home grown and foreign fed, will simply continue to attack israel.

For those who disagree with my anaylsis above.....than i may i suggest some sort of suggestion to the israeli living around gaza who are once again recieving missles....before the palestenians get the westbank, perhaps a solution should be found for gaza first?

seems to me to be reasonable thing to ask, and that suggestion is?

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. my suggestion is that Israel should negotiate in good faith like they did

with Egypt and Jordan.

The Geneva Accord which is based largely on the Taba talks is a good place to start. The notes of the European Union suggest that peace was not that far away.

Unilateral moves don't work very well when there is a lot of bad blood.

And the status quo is not bringing security to either side.

[pelsar]

8. you ignore simple facts...

the palestenian govt cant even control the kassams coming out of gaza.....and you neglect to even suggest what israel should do about it....

so if such a withdrawl would happen in the westbank, we all know that missles would be flying out of there as well....

and the suggestion for israel is.........

Egypt and Jordan dont nor did they have multiple militias doing as they see fit, the palestenians and lebanon do. The failure to address that is very telling on your part.......

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. there are many, many things that set the stage for the situation in the Occupied

Palestinian Territories. But I really don't see the benefit in constantly getting into recriminations.

Obviously a negotiated settlement will have to include mechanisms to strengthen the sovereign central government and to make a strong viable economy. And may likely have to include at least a temporary international peace keeping force.

What is the alternative? Does anyone in their right mind want to keep the same situation going forever?

Peace almost came about in January 2001. I would hope it is not too late.

[msmcghee]

10. I think the point is . .

. . that unless the people in Gaza and the WB want a peaceful outcome and do not prefer a continuing struggle of Jihad to destroy the state of Israel - then there is nothing to negotiate. Where does Hamas say they seek such a peaceful outcome. According to Jimmy Carter Hamas is the elected leadership for the Palestinians in a fair election that expresses the will of a vast majority of Palestinians.

Any "mechanisms to strengthen the sovereign central government and to make a strong viable economy" are beside the point. Did Lebanon's strong economy and modern democratic state prevent the takeover of Lebanon by terrorist militias pledged to destroy Israel? No, it made it easier.

An "international peace keeping force"?

Any UN forces placed on the border between Israel and Gaza or on Israel's current de facto border in the WB - would not be given permission to enter those areas by Hamas. Or, do you have some info that refutes this? Some invititation from Hamas to the UN to come in and help solve these problems?

If they ever did enter those areas they would never be given the option of defending themselves. They would probably become immediate targets of militias out to prove themselves to their Arab sponsors. They would destroy any chance of a settlement short of the destruction of Israel. Just as they have done for the last 60 years.

What evidence do you have that things have changed now?

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. well frankly the situation right at the moment is not good--to put it mildly

however, at the time of the Palestinian elections that put Hamas into power, they had maintained a cease fire for more than year and during their campaign they very much avoided inflamatory rhetoric about destroying Israel. They (unfortunatley not right at the moment) did put forward offers for talks and a long-term truce with Israel. They had earlier (although they have wavered on it in the past few months) announced that they would back the Saudi Peace Plan.

Frankly, the situation in Gaza is obviously not good especially for the Gaza Palestinians as well as the Israelis in nearby communities. Unfortunatley opportunities to bring Hamas to a more realistic and nonviolent position have been greatly weakened by the endless cycle of violence. Yes, part of this, a large part of this, is the fault of the Palestinians. And as I said I really don't see a lot of good coming out of recriminations. However, I do not believe that the American and Israeli response to the election has made a positive contribution to bringing peace and security to everyone concerned.
_________________

Once again former Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami(by the way this is an excellent and very civl one and a half hour debate he had with Professor Finkelstein, it can be downloaded or listened to by streaming online or one can read the transcript):
link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible."
_________________

link to listen online or download or read transcript of the debate between former Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo ben-Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

[pelsar]

11. back to reality

there doesnt have to be a solution that meets the "western version" ......there are no guarantees in life and the concept of "no alternatives that we like, so therefore we'll just pick one even if one side doesnt want to play" is foolish at best. So far Hamas has made it clear what its goal is, as did Hizballa. It could simply be that they actually have no interest in a negotiated settlement...it is after all what they've said.

now that said, perhaps they can be convinced otherwise.....however the problem remains of keeping the missles from flying. Has the UN ever succeeded in a hostile environment made up of various militias?...each with their own agenda? That is the environment they would be entering. Lets face it, even in Gaza they cant seem to control the missles and thats with 15,000 soldiers spread out (or maybe they dont want to?) if they cant, sury no UN guy from Uganda wont be able to.

i am not an expert on the UNs history, but one look at lebanon and i'm not too impressed. Hizballas has rearmed, is licking its wounds and now preparing for the next round, under the eyes of the UN forces.

without a plan A and a alternative plan for keeping the militas from attacking any peace agreement is doomed. And looking at Lebanon for inspiration does not help.They have more similarities with the PA govt than does Egypt or Jordan.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. well I really have trouble believing that you or the vast majority of Israelis

regardless of political persuasions want to keep the cycle of violence going forever. And please, please believe me; neither do the vast majority of Palestinians or Arabs in neighboring countries.

A strong Internationally backed peace agreement based on the discussions of Taba and the Geneva Accord is a possible way out. With the real international backing to insure the Palestinian governments has the right resources with a strong and viable economy is the only viable alternative I can imagine at this current time.

Does this guarantee that peace will hold?

Of course not. But it beats the alternative.

The status quo guarantees that the cycle of violence will continue unabated forever.

[IntiRaymi]

14. Yes, deeds do speak louder than words:

Israel = Targeted assassinations
Israel = Apartheid wall
Israel = Home demolitions
Israel = Entires family killed
Israel = 42000 bedouin homes to be destroyed
Israel = Peace with Egypt THANKS TO JIMMY CARTER

Four out of the 6 items presented above have nothing to do with Israel's security, and everything to do with settler greed for choice spots to live in. What is so hard to understand about that?