Let me just have an imaginary conversation with Mr. Bennet:
The Bush administration, hoping to see settlements removed, has declared for the first time in American diplomacy that Israel can keep some settlements forever.
Ever heard of the Taba plan, Mr. Bennet? What did it say about the 20% of the settlements with 80% of population? Israel got to keep them, right? This was President Clinton's plan, right? So this is not the first time.
Hoping for a durable peace between bitter adversaries, the Bush administration has declared that Mr. Sharon should go it alone, without negotiating
You sound annoyed, Mr. Bennet. Have you noticed Yassir Arafat's behavior over the last ten years, esp. for the last 3 1/2? Wouldn't it be fair to say that Arafat has worked hard to convince first the Israelis, and now President Bush, that there simply is no such thing as negotiating with him, his word is worthless? Yet you make it sound like President Bush has abandoned perfectly sound negotiations in a fit of pique.
The mainstream Palestinian leadership wants a state with as much territory as it can get, with a peace agreement if possible, without if necessary
False, false, FALSE. Completely against ALL available evidence. If by "mainstream Palestinian leadership", you mean Arafat, he could have had a state ten times over in the last thirty years - if he was truly willing to have one next to Israel on as much land as he could get.
He doesn't want it. Everything he says (esp in Arabic) makes it clear that he regards a peace treaty and a state as a humiliation to be avoided. He would much rather have an acre gained from war than a whole state gained from compromise. That way he doesn't have to give up his dream - the dream of Saladin, to drive the Crusaders from Jerusalem.
The Bush administration, whose own peace initiatives have come to nothing, wants a peace agreement. Somehow
Remind us what hampered the Bush administration peace initiatives. Total non-cooperation - not even lip service - from the Palestinian Authority, wasn't it?
For example, in outraging Palestinians by giving sweeping support to Mr. Sharon last week, the Bush administration may have made it harder for Arab and European governments to back his approach.
When they had Clinton and Barak to work with, did these governments back their approaches? How heavily should anyone weigh the loss of something he was never going to have anyway?
Mr. Sharon is not concerned that his unilateral withdrawal might result in negotiations, because, his advisers say, the Palestinian leadership will not meet his baseline requirement, endorsed by President Bush: the destruction of violent groups like Hamas.
"his advisors say"? Do you really need Sharon's advisors to tell you what is totally obvious to any observer, to wit, that Hamas has flourished in the territories since 1993 because Arafat wanted them to flourish? At the height of Oslo, he would do no more against them than to 'put them in the closet' for brief periods when their 'operations' weren't convenient. You you still cannot bring yourself to treat Arafat's nurture of terrorist groups, includes his own groups - Al Aqsa, Tanzim, and Fatah - along with Hamas and PIJ as a fact, well-known to all observers.
Why are you so committed to telling your readers that Arafat is a moderate who should be negotiated with? It is lie, plain and simple. |
