Sharon's Withdrawal Plan

The Bulldozer speaks:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1081767667005&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037

baa baa black sheep

Palestinians have been offered their own state before, and the number two terrorist in the world, Arafat, rejected it. Palestinians don't want peace, they want Israel to be destroyed.

The only way this will stop terrorism is if the Palestinians have an area which is all together. If there is any crossing of borders of if the Palestinians are enclosed in reservations without outlets, then it will just increase the terrorism.

as far as CNN reports this would be a unilateral withdrawal, so there is nothing the Palestinians would have to reject. it might of course still be a political manouver, if you read the article you´ll see that it is not even sure his own party will support the plan.

good Q&A at BBC on the topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3462461.stm

This just makes me sick. They should call the “roadmap to peace,” the roadmap to Auschwitz. How can Sharon "unilaterally” give ground to terror? If Sharon yields ground, he will be rewarding a relentless campaign of Arab bombing terror. Sharon’s referendum of national suicide is insane. Sharon needs a psychiatrist for proposing this act of national self destruction.

An exchange of property deeds will not solve the conflict. If Sharon thinks rewarding terrorism will give Israel peace, he should try to remember what happened when Israel withdrew from Beirut. The Palestinian Authority gave a homicidal sermon. The Palestinian authority commanded Arabs to "kill the Jews."


Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Futwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza:

"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them -- and those who stand by them - they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims -- because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it to be the outpost of their civilization -- and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the crusaders, hanging over the necks of the monotheists, the Muslims in these lands. They wanted the Jews to be their spearhead."Let us put our trust in Allah, close ranks, and unite our words, and the slogan of us all should be, 'Jihad! Jihad! For the sake of Palestine, and for the sake of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa!'"We will not give up a single grain of soil of Palestine, from Haifa, and Jaffa, and Acre, and Mulabbas [Petah Tikva] and Salamah, and Majdal [Ashkelon], and all the land, and Gaza, and the West Bank?"Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them, O Lord of the worlds."

how about going outside and talking to a female? it might help you.

Al Belcherer: that says a lot more about you than me

Israels Bolshevik Supreme Court

"Only Israeli political initiative will retain our strong grasp of the large settlement blocs and security areas," Sharon said in a speech at Maaleh Adumim, near Jerusalem.
"These are places that will remain under Israeli control and that will continue to grow stronger and develop."

These are quotes from the CNN article that you linked to above. While the concept sounds great, the idea that Israel is going to keep large settlement blocs which they are openingly admiting will grow is a little unnerving. It sounds to me like we will be right back where we started in a decades time. But that's just my opinoin.

damn, the bolsheviks are everywhere. but then the political right has always known the bolsheviks were all Jews.

sharon reminds me of nixon in more than one regard. if nixon hadnt built his career (with considerable support from the dragonlady herself) slamming the door on china, he wouldnt have been able to later take credit for opening it again. if sharon hadnt insisted on recklessly creating a photo-op in jerusalem during 2000, none of the resulting carnage would have occurred. if he hadnt derailed the process, there might likely be no need of a roadmap. their ruthless pursuit of power (sharon may not be directly or legally responsible for the dead and injured in his wake but he had to know what a firestorm he was igniting) is only one shared attribute. when sharon is booted out of office, therell be one more.

Israel belongs to the Jews....always has...always will. The UN keeps Palestinians from dispersing through the nations to become better people. I consider the UN a supporter of Terrorism.

Ciao!

I'm kind of with Anthony on this, unless the Arab world has changed its position from "death of all Israel" which helped lead to the war that lead to the Israeli settlements in the first place. Have they accepted Israel yet?

Well, predicatably, Arafat rejected the offer saying: ""The Palestinian people will never give up the goal of achieving freedom and independence and a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." See link below.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/15/mideast.arafat/index.html

No counter-offer was proposed.

President Bush said: "These are historic and courageous actions. If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."

Frankly, and I may be cynical, but I think that Sharon outplayed Arafat. In view of on-going Arab terrorism, including the reported threats against Europe made by Bin Laden earlier, I would be very surprised if world opinion did not turn against Arafat. His time as leader of Palestine has come and gone.

Larry: as far as i understand it, it was not an offer by Sharon. what could Arafat do if Isreal would withdraw military and settlers from the Gaza strip? close to borders?
on world opinion: keep i mind this is still nothing more than a plan by Sharon. he still does not have support from his own party and will never get support from the religious fundamentalists in his coalition.
these countries really need a new generation of leaders. Isreal needs to give up all settlements and the Palestinians need to give up the right to return to Isreal. that was at least the opinion of two young Isrealis who just finished their military service i met on vacation. (they did not have much sympathy for the settlers) sounds so easy

Sharon's plan is certainly a step in the right direction for the Palestinians and they need to consider it further. It does need changing to be acceptable to them. If it offered a withdrawal from the areas mentioned and an acceptance of the Palestinian claim to the remianing areas with an agreement to eventually return them to Palestinian control then it would be a good agreement. A final situation with the Palestinians controlling the territory but many Israelis still living on it may be the only viable alternative.

If Sharon's plan refuses to acknowledge that the remianing land beliongs to Palestine (even if control take many decades to transfere) then it will be unacceptable. Imagine the reaction if Iraq had moved thousands of it's citizens into areas of Kuwait was condemned by the international community and then refused to return them because it's citizens were living there.

Paul.

If Sharon's plan refuses to acknowledge that the remianing land beliongs to Palestine (even if control take many decades to transfere) then it will be unacceptable. Imagine the reaction if Iraq had moved thousands of it's citizens into areas of Kuwait was condemned by the international community and then refused to return them because it's citizens were living there.

It would only be similar if Iraq never attacked Kuwait, but was being threatened into oblivion by Kuwait and the other countries surrounding Iraq, which then lead to a war where Iraq had to singlehandedly go against over eight other countries (when you include the ones that were supporting Egypt and the gang), and lead to Iraq winning the war and keeping some of the land from the countries that were doing all it could to destroy it. If that happened, I would completely support Iraq's right to keep the land.

We're not talking similar. We're talking the reaction to the concept of occupation of land and then staking a claim to that land by moving your population onto it. It's completely illegal under international law and even the US voted against Israel in UN resolutions on this issue. Now 50 years later Israel may be going for a fait accompli. Alternatively they may be opening an interesting negotiating position. No one is sure, but there is huge anger at the perception that the US no longer cares about previous UN resolutions or International law.

Paul.

As long as it is acknowledged that Israel taking land from those who were trying to destroy it is very different from Iraq invading Kuwait despite the lack of threat Kuwait posed, even if both actions are illegal.

happily acknowledged.

Paul.