Sharon's Fruitless Negotiating Posture

[Melvyn]

The cancelation of all relations with the Palestinian Authority in wake of a deadly attack in Gaza makes absolutely no sense. Demanding that the Palestinian Authority suppress all acts of violence before proceeding with any negotiations has, over the years, proved fruitless and self-defeating. This posture has given veto power over the fate of both Israel and the Palestinians to the most radical groups among the Palestinians.

The demand that Mahmoud Abbas, who was only elected a few days ago without the participation of the radical groups, is not possible. He cannot move immediately against these groups. He has to soldify his position politically and he needs outside help before he can try to be forceful. Given his contituency he is likely to attempt to negotiate with them first. But he needs to be speaking to Israel as well. To cut him off only disarms him more completely before the radical groups and fits in with their desire for a stalemate.

We have listened to Sharon make this same demand before, repeatedly. By this time he must know there can be no expectation of a positive result. The only conclusion one can draw is that he feels Israel is better off with the status quo of intifada forever rather than with the prospect of the compromises that will be necessary for peace.

In the end, it may be that the Palestinians can never make peace with the Israelis. It may be that they can never truly accept the Jews in what they consider their land. They may never throw off their self-defeating dream, but this is not something that is known. Sharon cannot behave as if there was no possibility of peace by making impossible demands.

I know it is a lot to ask, to accept that some attacks will still happen for some time, but they happen anyway. Why not attempt to make peace?Sharon should have condemned the violent incident, but vowed to keep up the search for peace and start the dialog with Mahmoud Abbas. Then Israel and the Palestinian Authority would have been in a stronger position to begin the process of compromise. Because of today's action, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are once more in control. Whose interest does that serve?

Melvyn Polatchek

[bishop]

Sharon should have condemned the violent incident, but vowed to keep up the search for peace and start the dialog with Mahmoud Abbas.

current events seem to paint a different picture.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ing/index.html

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the suspension of all contacts with the Palestinian Authority on Friday, following an attack by Palestinian gunmen that killed six Israelis civilians, Israeli officials said. "The prime minister has ordered suspension of all contacts with Palestinian Authority representatives and the closure of all Gaza terminals until real steps are taken against terrorist acts," said the official. The Israeli military said early Friday it would keep closed the crossing at Karni where Thursday's attack occurred, would close the Erez crossing, the main terminal between Israel and Gaza, and would continue the closure of the closing at Rafah between Gaza and Egypt. "These terminals serve the Palestinian people. You can't expect us to keep them open if our people are being killed," the official said.

also, as the article states, abbas hasn't even been inaugurated yet. we all know well that even if arafat had tried to confront the terrorist groups that that would've been an incredibly difficult task, if not impossible.

obviously the palestinian terrorists aren't helping anyone.. they commit these acts simply to satisfy their hate and affiction with death. sharon should look to strengthen israel's relationship with the PLO and at a minimum, give peace a chance. as it is, the palestinians have finally been freed from arafat's grip - there is clearly the potential for a new relationship. i once thought that the only way to beat them was with force, but that has proven to be a failed policy both in israel/palestine as well as iraq.

honestly, how exactly can abbas stop hamas and company? the IDF has effectively destroyed much of the PLO's capacity and infrastructure. they've weakened them much more than the terrorist groups, who i should mention derive their power via popular support. abbas's best option is to form a relationship of mutual trust with israel in hopes of convincing palestinians in general that there is an option besides terrorism.

[PatrickHenry]

IMO, Sharon is getting just what he wants. Intifada fits right into his plans for an unending crisis with him as the Avenger. Hell, he provoked the uprising with his visit to Temple Mount. Things are working out nicely for PM Sharon.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bishop obviously the palestinian terrorists aren't helping anyone.. they commit these acts simply to satisfy their hate and affiction with death.

What a ridiculous statement. From their perspective, given their culture and education, they are simply defending themselves, the only way they know how. They have no other way to oppose Israeli tanks, helicopters, planes, missiles, and heavily armed troops.

We have people in this country that espouse opposition, violent if necessary, to any UN mandated programs that would supersede American authority. How would that be any different? If the UN gave Georgia to native American tribes for a homeland, would that be gracefully and peacefully accepted by the people living in that state?

There may indeed be no solution to this problem, but we certainly won't find one by continuing to misrepresent the motivations of the people involved in it.

[jose]

Arik scheinerman AKA Ariel sharon has never been trained in peace and he always makes a mess of it BUT he has been killing Palestinians since he was 14 and has got quite good at his calling

If there was peace israel wouldn't need $3,000,000,000 every year from the US tax payers, plus all them nice militery toys used by the boys and girls drafted so that the whole country has a militery mind.

NO sharon does not want peace and needs the palestinian to train his troops on

[bishop]

What a ridiculous statement. From their perspective, given their culture and education, they are simply defending themselves, the only way they know how. They have no other way to oppose Israeli tanks, helicopters, planes, missiles, and heavily armed troops.

hardly ridiculous.. at this point, is it not clear to you that palestinian terrorism has not advanced the palestinian cause in any way whatsoever? please, point out ONE positive accomplishment that they've made. it is one thing to attack IDF soldiers, and even renegade israeli settlers (who invite attacks in my view - and are legitimate targets) - it is something altogether different to go attacking buses filled with israelis as well as fellow arabs.

you mention their culture and education.. i don't know much about the culture, but my girlfriend's grandmother (who emigrated here from lebanon) doesn't have much good to say about arab culture. regarding education, did you mean to say brainwashing? cuz, really that's what they do in their "schools". i'll assume you know about palestinian textbooks and public media rather than spew out all those facts.

am i defending IDF actions or those of the settlers? hardly. they're just as bad as the terrorists in my view - because their actions merely serve to continue the bloodshed.

palestinian terrorists are more interested with bloodshed than opposing israeli tanks, helicopters, etc.. they want all israelis to die, period.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bishop hardly ridiculous.. at this point, is it not clear to you that palestinian terrorism has not advanced the palestinian cause in any way whatsoever? please, point out ONE positive accomplishment that they've made. it is one thing to attack IDF soldiers, and even renegade israeli settlers (who invite attacks in my view - and are legitimate targets) - it is something altogether different to go attacking buses filled with israelis as well as fellow arabs. you mention their culture and education.. i don't know much about the culture, but my girlfriend's grandmother (who emigrated here from lebanon) doesn't have much good to say about arab culture. regarding education, did you mean to say brainwashing? cuz, really that's what they do in their "schools". i'll assume you know about palestinian textbooks and public media rather than spew out all those facts. am i defending IDF actions or those of the settlers? hardly. they're just as bad as the terrorists in my view - because their actions merely serve to continue the bloodshed. palestinian terrorists are more interested with bloodshed than opposing israeli tanks, helicopters, etc.. they want all israelis to die, period.

Resistance to oppression doesn't have to be about advancing one's cause. Because a cause is hopeless, should victims be expected to sit back and allow the inevitable to happen? Just how, in your opinion, should the Palestinians resist the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements? By political means?? Israel is already in violation of numerous UN resolutions, and in addition has the unconditional backing of the U.S., in politics as well as money and military support. We even want to define their limited abilities to defend their territory as terrorism. Israel has an overwhelming advantage in every area, political, military, and economic. Is it really surprising that "they want all israelis to die, period"??

Am I defending Palestinian terrorists? Hardly. I'm just trying to make the point that we can't solve this problem until we are fair about looking at it with respect to both sides of the issue.

[bishop]

you asked so many questions that i'm not sure what your point was.

seems to me that you're also assuming that i'm pro-israel, which couldn't be further than the truth. i think both sides are aggressive and decadent.. i think they could even deserve each other. there is no one better, they're both different sides of the same coin.


and, why shouldn't resistance to oppression relate to advancing one's cause??? that implies that the palestinians are fighting for nothing - as you yourself stated. i clearly stated what i felt were legitimate targets from the palestinians' perspective - settlers and the IDF. palestinian attacks, despite their methods, against those targets would clearly support the cause - of palestinian sovereignty.

however, rogue terrorists like the ones who staged this recent attack fight not to better the palestinian peoples' lives - they fight simply out of hatred and bloodlust. i'm not going to debate the reasons why they have such hatred, i'll just accept the fact that they do possess said feelings. those dumb bastards, rather than giving abbas a chance to foster an improved political relationship with the israelis, have instead given sharon yet another reason to kill more palestinians. and i'm sure that sharon will be more than happy to oblige.

the whole problem with most people who argue about this issue is that they tend to pick one side over another. even those who say that they're both bad still seem to view one as being worse than the other. i'm suggesting that they're both despicable, and that they both suffer from the same hate and bloodlust. despite this, i also believe that there are many people in both nations that do want peace - those people are not palestinian terrorists, nor are they the IDF (as a whole) or renegade settlers. my suggestion earlier in this thread was that sharon should not break off ties with abbas, because this is their golden opportunity to build trust amongst one another now that arafat is gone. you toss that aside, and this tragedy will only continue, with spectators on the outside blaming one side more than another.

[bishop]

big surprise here.. sharon's always eager to kill more palestinians.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

[Melvyn]

Quote by: bishop big surprise here.. sharon's always eager to kill more palestinians.

Are you saying that Sharon gets some personal satisfaction out of killing, that his actions are divorced from the need for Israeli self-defense? How would you know something like that. At his most murderous, I would never have thought that Arafat was on a personal basis, eager to kill. As with Arafat, Sharon believes he has to be ruthless and tough to fend off more attacks. He may be wrong tactically and strategically, but he is not a self-gratifying murderer.

Melvyn

[Spartacus]

The attack that killed the six Israeli soldiers was launched from a local Palestinian Authority HQ. This is the sticking point with Sharon. The Authority that he is trying to negotiate with is killing his people. He is telling Abbas to get his people under control and then come back and talk to me. There is precedent for this action...

There once was a United States President named Jimmy Carter. He had a little sit down one time with an Egyptian named Sadat and an Israeli named Begin. When they were done talking, they had hammered out a peace agreement that became known as the Camp David accords. In the 25+ years this agreement has been in place, how many times has it been violated? Not once. The reason? Sadat locked up every radical and militant his secret police could find to make sure they did not break the peace because, if you will remember your recent Arab-Israeli history, everytime the two of them fought, the Egyptians got their a$$es handed to them by the Israelis. Sadat wanted peace and got it by controlling his radicals. Sharon expects no less from Abbas than Begin got from Sadat. Sadat paid for this peace with his life when he began to let the radicals out of jail because some them came back and killed him.

The point is, until you do away with the extremists who want nothing more than to drive the Israelis into the sea or die trying, you will have no peace. The ball is in Abbas' court, not Sharon's.

[Melvyn]

Quote by: BaronVEsslingen The point is, until you do away with the extremists who want nothing more than to drive the Israelis into the sea or die trying, you will have no peace. The ball is in Abbas' court, not Sharon's.

I understnd, but do not agree. First of all Sadat clearly was not able to lock up all his radicals because he was killed by some of them in his own entourage. Second there is still weapons smuggling from Egypt into Gaza. While there is a working peace accord with Egypt, it does not exist in some oasis of peace in a region of war. The hatred of Israel is still palpable but it is contained because Egypt, the nation, sees it to its advantage to suppress its own internal militant groups as much as possible and not to make war with Israel part of its official policy. Israel could settle for the same relationship with the Palestinians.

The policy of Israel has always been massive retalliation to violent provocation. This was a decision of the high command going back to the forties. When innocent Palestinians are killed, the response is always to reiterate Israel's undeniable right to self-defense. Perfectly understandable except for one thing. It repeatedly fails. The logic is to assure the militants that they will pay a terrible price for their violence and thefore they will be contained. It has failed and it fails over and over again. The overreaction stimulates the militants, leaves the moderates with no argument to make and makes it more difficult for other nations to support Israel.

If you use massive violent retalliation and refuse to cummunicate, even in self-defense, and that policy repeately fails to do anything more than stimulate more violence, not only have you failed to defend yourself, but you have also lost your moral rationale.

Israel has cut down the number of attacks by the use of the security fence. The fence runs through, what the Israelis call disputed territories and the Palestinians call Palestinian land. It is a very tough measure. Given that the Israelis have been able to achieve some measure of security by way of the "fence" they should capitalize upon that small measure of increased security. They should understand that the attacks from the radical militants are not going to cease so they ought to keep open the lines of communication and they certainly ought to renounce their own policy of massive retalliations and targeted killings. That is, if they actually want a peaceful two-state solution. Their present posture indicates they are more comfortable with continued intifada.

Melvyn Polatchek

[bishop]

Quote by: Melvyn Are you saying that Sharon gets some personal satisfaction out of killing, that his actions are divorced from the need for Israeli self-defense? How would you know something like that. At his most murderous, I would never have thought that Arafat was on a personal basis, eager to kill. As with Arafat, Sharon believes he has to be ruthless and tough to fend off more attacks. He may be wrong tactically and strategically, but he is not a self-gratifying murderer.

sharon doesn't need to believe that he needs to be ruthless, sharon IS ruthless. i'll ignore the fact that sharon was found to be indirectly responsible for the massacres in sabra and shatila by the kahan commission in '83..... (imo, it's too bad that sharon couldn't have died alongside arafat.)

now, i don't know for a fact that sharon is eager to kill palestinians - just as you don't know for a fact that sharon is not. but, i have not seen any convincing signs from him that he is concerned about the effects of his policies. and, it is undeniable that he firmly believes in harsh collective punishment and has shown utter disregard for the plight of average palestinians.

that said, i certainly believe that israel has a right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, and i also believe that its efforts to do so have been extremely counterproductive - and all too often directed at civilians. (note: i don't buy IDF excuses that they fired on "suspected terrorists" - that is a weak excuse that they've used too many times for it to have any credibility left.)

anyways, it looks like abbas made a good, and very difficult, decision... let's see how successful this turns out to be.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

[Melvyn]

Quote by: bishop sharon doesn't need to believe that he needs to be ruthless, sharon IS ruthless. i'll ignore the fact that sharon was found to be indirectly responsible for the massacres in sabra and shatila by the kahan commission in '83..... (imo, it's too bad that sharon couldn't have died alongside arafat.) now, i don't know for a fact that sharon is eager to kill palestinians - just as you don't know for a fact that sharon is not. but, i have not seen any convincing signs from him that he is concerned about the effects of his policies. and, it is undeniable that he firmly believes in harsh collective punishment and has shown utter disregard for the plight of average palestinians. that said, i certainly believe that israel has a right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, and i also believe that its efforts to do so have been extremely counterproductive - and all too often directed at civilians. (note: i don't buy IDF excuses that they fired on "suspected terrorists" - that is a weak excuse that they've used too many times for it to have any credibility left.) anyways, it looks like abbas made a good, and very difficult, decision... let's see how successful this turns out to be. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

I agree that we don't know what is in Sharon's heart and I agree with your assessment of the results of his policies. To what Abbas decision are you referring? I took a nap thias afternoon. Did I miss something?

Melvyn

[bishop]

check the article i linked..

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday ordered Palestinian security forces to stop attacks by Palestinian militants on Israelis. The move comes after a Palestinian attack Thursday on the Gaza-Israel border that killed six Israeli civilians. (Full story) Abbas has ordered an investigation of the attack for which three Palestinian militant groups -- Hamas, the Popular Resistance and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- claimed responsibility. The use of Palestinian security forces to rein in Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets has long been a key sticking point in the Mideast peace process between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri told The Associated Press that the group would not comply with the new orders. "We consider resistance as a red line, and no one is allowed to cross this line," al-Masri said, according to the AP.

will the terrorist groups comply, or will we see a palestinian civil war? i don't believe that abbas will use PLO forces to the point where they would instigate a civil war - but on the other hand, he probably won't eradicate the terrorist ambitions either. and if that happens to be the case, sharon will waste no time in attacking the palestinians as he always does. tell you one thing, i'm damn happy that i'm not in abbas's shoes.


the best point made in that article was that israel's response to abbas's statement was to put its gaza operations on hold - to give abbas a chance to do something.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bishop check the article i linked.. will the terrorist groups comply, or will we see a palestinian civil war? i don't believe that abbas will use PLO forces to the point where they would instigate a civil war - but on the other hand, he probably won't eradicate the terrorist ambitions either. and if that happens to be the case, sharon will waste no time in attacking the palestinians as he always does. tell you one thing, i'm damn happy that i'm not in abbas's shoes. the best point made in that article was that israel's response to abbas's statement was to put its gaza operations on hold - to give abbas a chance to do something.

IMHO, the big question isn't "will the terrorist groups comply", but if Abbas orders PLO forces to rein them in, will the PLO forces obey his orders? If Abbas tries to do too much too soon, and the PLO decides to ignore him, the damage will be worse than doing too little. Jus because Abbas was elected doesn't give him absolute power.

[bishop]

at this early stage, there are all sorts of variables to consider.. it's kind of like debating who'll win next week's divisional games (football).

i have a feeling that abbas will try, then things will get hot and he'll back off. then, there will be another terrorist attack and sharon will launch the invasion into gaza. hopefully i'm wrong. i don't believe abbas would so something to get himself killed, or to incite a civil war. at the same time, he's also trying to prevent israel from invading (again).

[Melvyn]

Quote by: bishop check the article i linked. the best point made in that article was that israel's response to abbas's statement was to put its gaza operations on hold - to give abbas a chance to do something.

Quote by: from the NYTimes Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Mr. Sharon, described Mr. Abbas's move "as a small, but positive sign." Israel did not lift its threat of a possible large-scale incursion into Gaza, but any such offensive appeared to bewaiting, at least for now, according to Israeli media reports.]

In the Times article, I do not see where an actual order has been given by the Israelis. I do not trust Sharon to do anything sensible, but I have the same hopes you do. I have long thought that both sides were locked in their rage and not thinking clearly. Indeed, I can't imagine how anyone could in their circumstances. Yet, today Abbas seems to be the better statesman with Sharon seemingly locked into his tough guy posture. I hope Abbas can stay alive. It is scary to pin ones hopes on a single person and a person who has lived in the enemy camp. But here it is Israel with all it's political, military and economic power must wait upon the Palestinians to sort themselves out. Now is surely the time for prayr.

Melvyn Polatchek

[Melvyn]

Quote by: Zeebadee IMHO, the big question isn't "will the terrorist groups comply", but if Abbas orders PLO forces to rein them in, will the PLO forces obey his orders? If Abbas tries to do too much too soon, and the PLO decides to ignore him, the damage will be worse than doing too little. Jus because Abbas was elected doesn't give him absolute power.

You are correct. Abbas does not have absolute power. We have reason to hope, however, because with Abbas having won the election with a large plurality, the radical groups will have to fear the loss of popular support if they oppose him directly. If they just don't care they risk civil war. They may or may not be prepared for it. Would Abbas actually oppose them with force if they do not comply? We can't know. We have a small window of opportunity and we can only hope.

Melvyn Polatchek