SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sylvester80 who wrote (2364)4/14/2002 2:56:19 AM
From: ajs  Respond to of 32591
 
In this Op-Ed Barak has changed his mind compared to what he was willing to give up at Camp David.

Israel's Security Requires a Sturdy Fence
By EHUD BARAK
April 14, 2002

TEL AVIV — For 18 months now, Israel has been engaged in a war with the Palestinian Authority, which harbors and executes terror in order to achieve its political objectives. This is a bloody struggle against a bitter rival that is ready to murder civilians and tries to turn suicide bombing into a legitimate tool. The aim of the Palestinian terror is not just to kill Israelis but also to break the will of Israeli society in order to dictate a political solution. Israel should never yield to this terror campaign.

The Palestinians should realize that terror could not yield any gain beyond what Israel was ready to negotiate at Camp David in July 2000. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, rewarding suicide terror generates a major risk for the free world as a whole, not just for Israel.

We can win this struggle against terror. That struggle must take place on three levels: the war against terror, the struggle for the moral high ground of international legitimacy, and the efforts to keep unity and cohesion within Israeli society.

For Israel, this struggle involves making clear that our enemy is not the Palestinian people but only Palestinian terror. The focus of our struggle is not on smashing Yasir Arafat to the wall; it is about trying to push the Palestinian leadership toward the resumption of negotiations.

There is an urgent need to shape a coherent Israeli strategy, which is now absent. Such a strategy should be based on three pillars: a tough campaign against terror, an open door for resumption of negotiations and physical disengagement from the Palestinians.

First, there must be a focused and determined campaign against terror from all sources: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Tanzim, the Security Services of the Palestinian Authority. Any terrorist, in any place, at any time, including those coming out of the Palestinian Authority infrastructure, will be stopped for as long as the Palestinian Authority continues to guide and execute terror.

Second, we should leave open the door for resumption of negotiations, at any moment, without any precondition beyond a complete halt to violence, based on the principles presented at Camp David. If Palestinian terror continues in spite of this opened door, the whole world will know that terror is Mr. Arafat's choice, and he will have to bear the consequences. If the Palestinian leadership is ready to resume negotiations based on Camp David, that will signal a major achievement in the world struggle against terror because an entity supporting terrorism will have been brought back to negotiations without gaining anything by this evil endeavor.

Third, Israel must embark on unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians and establish a system of security fences. Israel's very future depends on this. Only such a border could secure a solid Jewish majority inside Israel for generations to come, and in so doing secure Israel as a democracy and its identity as a Jewish state.

If Israel does not find the way to disengage from the Palestinians, its future might resemble the experience of Belfast or Bosnia — two communities bleeding each other to death for generations. Alternatively, if we do not disengage from the Palestinians, Israel might drift toward an apartheid state. Obviously it is better to reach disengagement by consent through an agreement. But Israel cannot impose a readiness to make peace upon Mr. Arafat. The absence of a partner should not paralyze Israel from taking defensive steps in order to protect its own vital interests, which will determine its identity and future.

The disengagement would be implemented gradually over several years. The fence would take in seven settlement areas — three of them near Jerusalem — that now make up over 13 percent of the West Bank. Currently, within these settlement blocks live 80 percent of the settlers. Israel will also need a security zone along the Jordan River and some early warning stations, which combined will cover another 12 percent, adding up to 25 percent of the West Bank.

We should not formally annex the settlement blocks and the security zone to Israel, in order not to block the possibility of further negotiations on this issue. I would avoid immediate dismantling of all other settlements so as not to reward terrorism or deepen the political divide within Israel over the settlements. However, Israel should make clear its resolve and determination to end its rule over another people. Israel can do this by making an unequivocal commitment that it would relocate isolated settlements into the settlement blocks or into Israel proper within the time frame created by the proposed plan. The freedom of the Israeli Defense Force to act against terror must be maintained as long as there is no agreement.

In Jerusalem there would have to be two physical fences. The first would delineate the political boundary and be placed around the Greater City, including the settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem. The second would be a security-dictated barrier, with controlled gates and passes, inside Jerusalem to separate most of the Palestinian neighborhoods from the Jewish neighborhoods and the Holy Basin, including the Old City.

The immediate and long-term result of installing the security fence, with sensors and military forces along it, would be a dramatic reduction in suicide attacks inside Israel. Around the Gaza Strip there is a fence, and there are practically no suicide attacks originating from Gaza.

Israel is engaged in a struggle for its right to live in freedom and security as a Zionist, Jewish and democratic state. We wish to have a negotiated and just settlement with our neighbors based on the principles of Camp David. But we will never yield to terror. So as long as there is no agreement, in addition to fighting terrorism Israel needs to adopt a concrete plan for unilateral separation from the Palestinians.

Only in this way, which is consistent with the world's war against terrorism, can there be long-term stability in the Middle East and a better future for all people in the region.

Ehud Barak was prime minister of Israel from 1999 to 2001.

nytimes.com



To: sylvester80 who wrote (2364)4/14/2002 4:13:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 32591
 
'Why Is This Happening?'

The Washington Post / Editorial
Sunday, April 14, 2002; Page B06

MORE THAN two weeks after Israel launched its military invasion of Palestinian towns on the West Bank, innocent Israelis are still dying in suicide bombings. On Friday afternoon a Palestinian woman blew herself up near a bus stop in downtown Jerusalem; six people were killed and more than 80 injured. One was a 17-year-old girl who was celebrating her birthday. "Why is this happening?" she sobbed to a passerby who stopped to help. Two days earlier, another suicide bomber struck a bus near Haifa. Eight were killed, including Noa Shlomo, a talented 18-year-old ballet dancer who was the niece of Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. Ariel Sharon's government claimed that the new bombings proved the need to continue its military offensive. But that offensive too was taking the lives of many innocents, extending and escalating the bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians.

The latest suicide bomber was said to be from Jenin -- the town that Israeli troops have most thoroughly and bloodily scoured during the past two weeks. Israeli spokesmen say the operation killed 100 or more Palestinian fighters in the town's refugee camp, including a couple of militant leaders, and uncovered stores of illegal weapons and explosives. That may be true -- but it's also clear that innocent Palestinians have died there as well. The Fashafsheh family, for example -- a mother, father and 9-year-old son who perished when an Israeli bulldozer brought down their house on top of them. Palestinians say hundreds of others like them died, shot by snipers or blown up by rocket and tank fire or bulldozed in their homes. But no one really knows how many; Israel so far has denied access to journalists and all other outsiders, and Palestinians reportedly have already buried some bodies in mass graves.

In many other Palestinian towns, innocent people are suffering and dying for trying to live their daily lives. Ramallah housewife Manal Sofran was shot in the head by Israeli soldiers as she leaned out of her house to call her family to dinner. Washington-born Suraide Abu Gharbiya, 21, was gunned down as she held her nine-month-old baby in her arms. In Bethlehem, a mentally impaired man who worked at the Church of the Nativity was shot and killed by soldiers when he wandered outside the church under siege. Journalists and human rights groups tell of Israeli soldiers torturing and deliberately humiliating the middle-aged shopkeepers and clerks the army has been detaining in mass roundups. According to Human Rights Watch, Palestinian civilians have been forced at gunpoint to open suspicious packages, knock on doors of suspects and accompany troops on raids.

The Palestinian suicide bombers claim to be acting to advance the Palestinian national cause, but in fact they are doing the opposite: With each detonation, the chances that Palestinians will have their own state any time in the foreseeable future are chipped away. Israel's right to target the authors of such murderous attacks is undeniable. But with its killings of women and children, its torture and terrorizing of unarmed men and its mass destruction of the property and dignity of people in the West Bank, Mr. Sharon's army is also achieving the opposite of its aim. Its brutal offensive has not and will not stop suicide bombers; it risks bringing on even more terrible bloodshed.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: sylvester80 who wrote (2364)4/14/2002 5:36:22 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 32591
 
Twin towers of horror

Terror is now a matter of who you are, not what you do. But the charade cannot last, argues Azmi Bishara...

ahram.org.eg

The writer is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a member of the Knesset.



To: sylvester80 who wrote (2364)4/14/2002 7:34:09 AM
From: E. T.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32591
 
Ariel Sharon: The Bulldozer rolls on.
By David Plotz
Posted Friday, October 6, 2000, at 5:30 PM PT

slate.msn.com

The most revealing thing that Ariel Sharon has ever said may be this: "I remember well more than 50 years in this country," he once told the New York Times. "I do not remember one normal day."


Anyone who has visited Israel recently knows that it has had countless normal days. Almost every day, in fact, is a normal day. Normality is Israel's greatest achievement. But the Israeli opposition leader cannot accept it. Israel has grown rich, powerful, and secure. Sharon fixates on the idea of Israeli weakness. Israel and the Palestinian Authority have lurched slowly toward a final peace, Israel has made peace with Jordan and Egypt. Sharon still imagines his nation as an island in a sea of hostile Arabs. Sharon's commitment to abnormality helps explain why the old soldier still has the power—grotesquely on display last week, when his visit to the Temple Mount sparked deadly violence throughout Israel and the occupied territories—to throw his country into chaos.

Sharon—part Douglas MacArthur, part Richard Nixon, part hand grenade—is the ultimate sabra: aggressive, smart, charming, and brutal. Born in Palestine in 1928, "Arik," as he is known, was raised on a remote desert farm by hardheaded Russian immigrants. Fear of Arab harassment haunted his childhood and set his worldview. Other early Zionist leaders were animated by complicated intellectual and democratic principles. The farm-boy Sharon was blunter: He believed in Jewish strength. Jews have the right—God-given—to do anything to defend their homeland.


How To Watch the Masters Like a Pro

Narcissism and Nutcases: The New Dating Shows

How To Spin Priestly Pedophilia


The tough-Jews philosophy was coupled with scorn for Arabs. In his autobiography, Warrior, Sharon depicts Arabs as infantile, timorous, and untrustworthy. As one former U.S. official who knows him puts it, Sharon has the same condescending disregard for Arabs that Southern plantation-owners had for blacks.

For most of Sharon's life, Israel tolerated and largely shared his ultramacho mindset. The Israelis fetishize Getting Things Done, and no gets more done than Sharon. He was a born soldier. He enlisted in the Zionist resistance at 14 and was wounded during the 1948 battle for Jerusalem. In the early '50s, Moshe Dayan selected Sharon to command an elite Israeli unit that retaliated against Arab terrorism. Sharon's unit raided Jordanian villages, murdered Arab civilians, and stopped the terrorist attacks. During the Six-Day War, his troops smashed bunkered-in Egyptian divisions in the Sinai, winning a critical battle. Sharon masterminded the counterattack across the Suez Canal that broke the Egyptian army and effectively ended the 1973 Yom Kippur War. (Military historians consider this one of the most brilliant battles of the century.) As security chief in southern Israel during the early '70s, he suppressed Palestinian resistance in Gaza with amazing brutality and effectiveness. Sharon bulldozed Palestinian houses, summarily murdered dozens of purported terrorists (without the pretense of judicial process), and stopped youth demonstrations by exiling parents of demonstrators.

Sharon displayed the same relentlessness when he turned to politics. While others talked, he created facts on the ground—to use the favorite Israelism. As Menachem Begin's agriculture minister, Sharon built the West Bank settlements that have been so controversial, thus ensuring that Israel would keep sovereignty over much of the occupied territories. Minister of Defense Sharon performed the dirty job of evicting settlers from the Sinai after the Camp David Accords. Sharon supervised the airlift of Ethiopian Jews to Israel in the '80s. When Russian immigrants arrived in the early '90s, Housing Minister Sharon shanghaied billions of dollars to build 80,000 apartments for them. All his military and political labor advanced his two overarching goals: ensuring Israel's security and increasing his own power.

Many Israelis adored this. He was the "Bulldozer" and "Arik, King of the Jews." But his reputation for excess repeatedly dismayed Israelis, especially lefties. During the 1956 Suez-Sinai War, he exceeded orders and sent his troops into an ambush that cost dozens of lives. In 1953, his commandos killed 69 civilians in the Jordanian town of Qibya. Sharon claimed that he thought the Jordanians' houses were unoccupied when his soldiers dynamited them.

Israel's leaders tolerated Sharon's intemperance—can't make an omelet, etc.—until the 1982 Lebanon war. That invasion—known as Sharon's War—was supposed to drive the PLO out of southern Lebanon and establish a compliant Lebanese state. Sharon did vanquish the PLO, but he reportedly attacked further than the Cabinet had authorized and misled Prime Minister Begin about it. Most damningly, Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in Beirut refugee camps. His troops had permitted Lebanese Christian militiamen to invade the camps for the slaughter. Sharon was forced to resign as defense minister.

The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, which confirmed the Israeli left's view that Sharon was demonic, would have ended anyone else's career. But Sharon has Nixonian resilience. Almost immediately after the massacre, he was back in the Cabinet. He shunted responsibility for Lebanon onto Begin, the United States, fellow generals—anyone but himself. He remained essential to Likud's coalition, because he represented an indispensable group. The ultra-right wing and the settlers treasure Sharon, and while they aren't numerous enough to control Israel, they're too numerous to be ignored. Sharon never gained majority support but could always claim the loyalty of 10 percent-30 percent of Israelis.

Sharon was redeemed for other reasons too. Like Nixon, Sharon came to be valued for pragmatism. Unlike most of his supporters, Sharon has no religious or ideological conviction that Israel must rule the West Bank. He cares only about national security, and that makes him willing to at least pretend to compromise. He bowed to the Camp David settlement and even negotiated with the Palestinians in 1998 as Benjamin Netanyahu's foreign minister.

And even Sharon's critics concede his straightforward integrity. "You may love him. You may hate him. But you have to respect who he is. No one can accuse him of not being clear about what he is fighting for," says Thomas Smerling, who directs the Israel Policy Forum's Washington office. As other old-timers—Dayan, Begin, Yitzak Rabin—died, Sharon's mythological stature grew. He remains a last link to Israel's fabulous martial past.

The passage of time has not mellowed Sharon. He inherited a fractured, weakened Likud when Netanyahu lost the 1999 election. The party seemed overwhelmed by Barak's peace train. But Sharon, endlessly ambitious and endlessly paranoid about Israeli security, has been doing his mightiest to revive Likud by smashing the negotiations. He has scored the most success by railing Barak for his proposed concessions on Jerusalem.

Last week's Temple Mount visit capped off Sharon's scheming: It overshadowed Netanyahu's return to Likud, it embarrassed Barak, and most importantly, it provoked the Palestinian violence that Sharon has been waiting for. Sharon believes (not unreasonably) that the Palestinians were preparing for war, so he seems to view the riots as vindication of his pessimism. To his critics, the riots simply prove that Sharon is malevolent enough to cause mayhem for his own political gain.

As this week's events have again demonstrated, Sharon has a perverse alliance with the Palestinians: His provocations justify their worst fears about Israeli oppression. Their violence—in reaction to his provocations—justifies Sharon's pessimism about Palestinian untrustworthiness. In this case, Yasser Arafat is exploiting the Palestinian riots to duck a peace compromise, while Sharon and Likud are profiting politically from the fighting. He has again created new facts on the ground. Rather than berating his visit, Israel is rallying around the flag. Thanks to the agony that Sharon helped incite, more Israelis now share his suspicions about the Palestinians. The conflict has almost certainly halted the peace negotiations and will probably topple the coalition of Ehud Barak.

There are two likely outcomes. One is that the Knesset will toss Barak, and Netanyahu will unseat Sharon for Likud Party leader, then challenge and probably defeat Barak in a general election. The other is that a desperate Barak will form a new national unity coalition government with Sharon's Likud. In exchange for Likud's support, Sharon is likely to demand authority over internal security.

In either case, Sharon is likely to have some responsibility for keeping the peace. The Bulldozer will get another chance to "supervise" the West Bank and Gaza—and no doubt he will show all the benevolence he has always shown toward Palestinians. Some old soldiers want to fade away: Sharon would rather spend his dotage stifling the intifada that he helped create. He believes there has never been a normal day in Israel. And if he has his way, there will never be one.



To: sylvester80 who wrote (2364)4/14/2002 8:16:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32591
 
NATO now
___________________________________________________

By Gideon Levy
Sunday, April 14, 2002
Ha'aretz / Op-Ed Column

On the eve of its 54th anniversary as a state, Israel needs the protection of the world - both against itself and against those who would do it harm. That may be bad news, but the accompanying good news is that the world can, in fact, help. Instead of acknowledging this, though, Israel is doing battle with nearly the whole world and rejecting out of hand, without any reason, the idea that the world will come to its aid and defense and to the defense of the region.

In a rare display of unity, all world leaders are calling on Israel to leave the territories, but Israel is stubbornly resisting. It's us against the world. In a situation of this kind, with the world divided - in Israel's perception - into anti-Semites and those who are ignorant of the situation, and given that only we know what's best for us, the unwillingness to listen is perhaps understandable. But that is not a fair description of the world; there are quite a few people out there who are well-disposed toward Israel, and in any case we can no longer help ourselves without the international community. The images of the killing and devastation in Nablus and Jenin are quite brutal and you don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticize those who are responsible for what is happening there.

The insane cycle of bloody violence in which we find ourselves, and not a little by our own fault, can no longer be broken without help from the outside, at least in the immediate future. With the Palestinian Authority having been all but destroyed and with the hatred between the two peoples reaching new levels of intensity, the only political horizon is that of international guarantees. This is very depressing for anyone who hoped to achieve peace by bilateral agreement, but for the moment it's the only game in this battered region. So it's difficult to understand why Israel is so dead set against the involvement of the international community.

It was Ariel Sharon, who, being against the internationalization of the conflict, brought about this situation. His demolition of the mechanisms of the Palestinian Authority have created a huge vacuum. The demand by Israel and the United States that the Palestinians wage war on terrorism is now no more than a tasteless joke, in the absence of any apparatus capable of taking such action. This is a vacuum that Israel will not be able to fill, unless it makes the temporary conquest of the Palestinian territories permanent. Meanwhile, all Israeli spokesmen claim this is not the intention. If not Israel and not the PA, who is left to do the work? There is no reason why the format that was tried successfully in recent years in various international zones of conflict will not be equally useful in the Middle East. What was good for Macedonia is good for us, too. The distance between the bloodbath that's going on here and what happened in the Balkans is no longer very great. The time has come for us to recognize that Kosovo is here (as Meretz leader MK Yossi Sarid wrote in the International Herald Tribune), as buses blow up and people are buried under the rubble of their homes.

There are now three million badly hurting Palestinians in the territories, brimming with hatred and lusting for revenge, while in Israel, which is littered with sites of terrorist attacks, a uniform voice is also heard: 75 percent support the war now being fought, according to a survey published by the daily Ma'ariv at the weekend. The terrorist infrastructure, whose underlying motivation was given a big boost by means of Operation Defensive Shield, despite the arrests of thousands of Palestinians, will of course add nothing to the attempt to impose quiet. In this state of affairs, no cease-fire agreement will prove durable anyway, unless it is backed up by significant international enforcement. It's not a matter for a symbolic observer force; what's needed is a force of thousands of armed troops at least.

To Israelis, the idea of foreign forces wandering around the area is off-putting. However, the alternative is far worse. We have to exploit the readiness of the international community to send a force of this kind and be quick to invite them to come. NATO could be the right address for this mission. We needn't worry that they will remain here forever, and Israel may yet thank the world for its response. European and American troops acting act as a buffer between Israelis and Palestinians will definitely help calm the situation. They will not be able to prevent terrorist attacks completely, but their massive presence will reduce the scale of the attacks. At the same time, this force will also be able to supervise Israel's behavior. European troops at checkpoints will be no less effective than Israel at preventing terrorism, and perhaps act more decently toward the civilian population. It's not likely that a Danish soldier will stop a pregnant Palestinian woman from getting to a hospital - and if he does, at least Israel won't be blamed.

With the establishment of the international criminal court last week, and with foreign forces patrolling the region, every house that is demolished will be the subject of a report and every town that is sealed off for no reason will be freed. Cutting down the friction between Israelis and Palestinians will cool the burning passions that now rage, and it is to be hoped that the fear generated by the extremists on both sides, the violent settlers or Hamas activists, will also be diminished.

At the same time, an international force can begin to rehabilitate the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in order to fill the gaping vacuum. A few months of relative quiet, which will help extricate the Palestinians from the ruins, will perhaps make a genuine return to the negotiating table possible and prevent another cycle of violence, which is liable to be even more appalling than its predecessor. There is no guarantee of this, but does anyone know a better way?

haaretz.co.il