The answer to the second is NO, and always had been.
Arafat has always said no. Hamas has always said no..
But what are the moderates saying? Or better yet, what would they be willing to accede to, if they didn't have to worry about being assassinated by Hamas or Fatah?
I think there are quite a few answers that could be changed over time.
But Sharon's unilateral action will demand a unilateral response on the part of the Palestinians in order to save face amongst their constituents.
The Israelis think it consists of talking. Arafat thinks it consists of sending suicide bombers and collecting concessions.
BS... Israel has continued to expand settlements during the entire period they "talked". From any objective perspective, as well as the extremely biased Palestinian one, this is a delaying tactic, not actual negotiation/arbitration.
Israel should never have permitted anything to be built in the West Bank that they weren't willing to give up, or transfer to a moderate Palestinian government.
As for Arafat, do you recall how the SOB came back to power in the early '90s? It was, as I recall, with the approval of Israel, because they saw him as the only person who could build a consensus amongst Palestinians. And he screwed them.
As opposed to $#%^@! what?! What we have now? Don't you think Arafat's decisions had more weight here?
Because there were always certain limits to how Hamas responded (or were permitted to respond by Arafat), IMO.. But now this "fait accompli" and annexation of Palestinian land right in the heart of Palestinian territory, will never permit any hope of a peaceful settlement and sovereign nation to arise.
And that likely will guarantee not only an escalation in Palestine, but an escalation within Jordan that will severely constrain Abdullah's political flexibility.
Thanks, but with due respect, your diplomatic clout is limited.
I write for the sake of everyone who bothers to read this public forum. Presumably you do as well. People read our thoughts, absorb what they agree with, and cast off what they find to be ridiculous.
And it's just ridiculous to think that Sharon will be able to find peace and security by planting hundreds of thousands of Jews into the heart of a proposed Palestinian state.
It destroys the implicit argument that Israel has always made, that settlements were built for the purpose of providing layers of defense against aggression by Jordan (the Allon plan), not as a means of annexing "lebensraum" for a Zionist expansion into what they call Judea and Samaria.
After all, I don't see any Jewish settlments which remain in the Sinai.. They were all dismantled after Camp David.
What makes Sharon believe he can achieve peace by holding settlements that are not directly adjacent to Israel?
The wishes of the Israeli people. It's a democracy.
The US interned all Japanese Americans.. Don't try and tell me it can't happen in Israel too..
You can find any justification you want to hold on to those settlements on the West Bank Nadine..
I'm just telling you that Israel, AND THE US, will likely live to regret it down the road. And it will be seen as Israel's version of "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" so often ascribed to Arafat.
And it will do little to nothing with regard to deflating the appeal of religious militant groups amongst the Palestinians (and the entire Mid-East).. And it will make the US struggle to defeat Islamist ideology that much more difficult to conter-act amongst the youth of the region..
But in this case I notice you don't blame the victim. Just in Israel's. It's not like Israel doesn't want a peace treaty, or has refused negotiations.
Apparently they don't... At least not now.. Now it's effectively a case of forever guaranteeing a continual struggle over land the Palestinians have a very logical (even in my eyes) rationale in disputing.
Hell, look at the political crap that goes one in the US when a congressional district is gerrymandered. It never ends as one side or another tries to redraw the lines in their favor.
Sharon could have just pulled out and claimed some of the territory to the north and south of Jerusalem as a rational security measure. But they can't EVER justify annexing the blocs of territory that Sharon has claimed.
Think about it Nadine.. You know I'm no fan of Arafat. And I've often defended Israel's right to redraw the borders in a manner that smooth out their bondaries with the West Bank..
And even I'm upset and taking the Palestinian side in this... If I can't defend the decision, what makes you think most of people are going to be willing to defend it?
That should tell what lies in store later on when the REAL political firestorm begins.
Hawk |
