President Shimon Peres was the principal architect of the disastrous Oslo Accords, but his new proposal extends far beyond his original failed plan.
By accepting a return to the 1967 lines, supposedly described by the late Abba Eban as the "Auschwitz borders," the Peres plan forfeits the April 2004 assurances provided by President Bush to former premier Ariel Sharon and conclusively jettisons any meaningful concept of "defensible borders."
The repercussions of previous unilateral territorial concessions were obviously ignored. They include the outbreak of the first wave of suicide bombings in the wake of Oslo; the failed Clinton-Barak negotiations with Arafat which led to the second intifada; the catastrophic Gaza unilateral disengagement which transformed Israeli citizens in Gush Katif into refugees in their own land and facilitated the subsequent Hamas takeover in Gaza, and the ongoing bombardment of Sderot.
In a nutshell, the evidence clearly demonstrates that, without exception, every Israeli retreat has emboldened jihadists into intensifying the violence. It is simply mind boggling that at a time when utter chaos prevails among the Palestinians, such a bizarre proposal could even be contemplated.
Olmert's Jericho meeting with Abbas indicates that contrary to statements from his spokesmen, he is indeed proceeding in the direction of the Peres recommendations...
By accepting a return to the 1967 lines, supposedly described by the late Abba Eban as the "Auschwitz borders," the Peres plan forfeits the April 2004 assurances provided by President Bush to former premier Ariel Sharon and conclusively jettisons any meaningful concept of "defensible borders."
The repercussions of previous unilateral territorial concessions were obviously ignored. They include the outbreak of the first wave of suicide bombings in the wake of Oslo; the failed Clinton-Barak negotiations with Arafat which led to the second intifada; the catastrophic Gaza unilateral disengagement which transformed Israeli citizens in Gush Katif into refugees in their own land and facilitated the subsequent Hamas takeover in Gaza, and the ongoing bombardment of Sderot.
In a nutshell, the evidence clearly demonstrates that, without exception, every Israeli retreat has emboldened jihadists into intensifying the violence. It is simply mind boggling that at a time when utter chaos prevails among the Palestinians, such a bizarre proposal could even be contemplated.
Olmert's Jericho meeting with Abbas indicates that contrary to statements from his spokesmen, he is indeed proceeding in the direction of the Peres recommendations...
To expedite this, Olmert dispensed with the requirement that the PA uproot the terrorist infrastructure as a prerequisite to further Israeli concessions. Instead he facilitated transfers of arms to Fatah which will invariably ultimately be employed against Israelis and undertook to release more terrorists. He also took pride in having granted amnesties to the IDF's most wanted murderers...
[Jerusalem Post]
5 comments:
The criticism of Israeli leadership, so pronounced and sweeping here, is easy in hindsight, and with the antiquated ideology that only Israel deserves its own state, and the Palestinians are really displaced Southern Syrians that Jordan, Syria and others should reintegrate into their societies. WHile not very effective, perhaps, past administrations have done nothing wrong trying to work this out instead of delaying it for future generations. There was a time when hindsight said we should have nuked Russia before the Cold War became a long, expensive and bitter struggle. Then, as Russian Communism sank under its own weight of irrelevancy, a new world order loomed. Now that we have squandered that, it looks like a newly emergent China and resurgent Russia might cause us difficulty. But who knows what will come of this? While hindsight would seem 20/20, it also depends on its place in history. We are not finished with these issues yet. Failure or success of past policies is hardly assured yet. Clearly though, more will need to be written before this ink is ready to dry.
I don't believe the position layed out in this article is predicated on an "antiquated ideology that only Israel deserves its own state..."
But it does assume that statehood is a reward for peaceful behavior. The world has been searching for the right formula for too long: if we just find the right package for the Palestinian Arabs. This has led to consession after consession, which has radicalized the population [since they think they're winning].
It's time for Palestinian consessions. Don't hold your breath.
I point to the last paragraph which i felt neatly summed up the position of the author:[W]ho would be leading such a grotesque replay of the Oslo Accords?
None other than an unholy trinity of the greatest failures in Israeli political life! Shimon Peres the architect of Oslo; Labor leader Ehud Barak, whose unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon paved the way for the disastrous Lebanese war and whose impulsive overnight concessions to Arafat led to the intifada; and finally, our failed former right-wing Prime Minister Olmert, zig zagging and lurching in different directions in a desperate effort to retain power...
These were all worthy attempts at peace and I do not believe the cause of the intifada is viewed so by most historians. Olmert has walked a fine line, trying to keep his US allies by his side and keep his people safe, and not be seen as hindering the peace process. As complicated and pointless as the peace process involving the Palestinians may seem, it is necessary, but there are those Israelis who seem to think the only Palestinians you can deal with are dead ones. They must take great satisfaction to see an American President who seems to believe this about all Muslims.
No need to demonize the writer as believing that all Palestinians are bad...what the author is suggesting is that pointless and hollow 'peace' moves only radicalize the population and increase the power of the jihadist lobby among the Palestinian Arabs.
There is no sense in shielding the Palestinians from the consequences of their actions...their suffering is of their own creation.
We can not encourage moderation while rewarding thieves and thugs in the PA. That is not a peace process.
I understand your point and I will not disagree that this has hardly been a peace process, but I think that all of this is more obvious in retrospect. I wanted to point out that the many tragic errors pointed to in the article were reasonable and supported steps that---simply---did not work, mainly because of who they are dealing with.
Post a Comment