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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (28401)5/5/2002 5:08:27 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Looks like the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in Israel either. A fence is going up:BOSTON GLOBE

>>>Here in the fields between Jenin in the West Bank and Afula in northern Israel, the plan is taking effect: Steel posts and bars, painted orange and green, run for miles along the cease-fire line of Israel's 1948 war of independence.

Elsewhere along the line, government-funded electric fences have sprung up, and some checkpoints are being remodeled to look like border crossings. Now the barrier north of Jenin is low, more than strong enough to stop any vehicle except possibly a tank, but neither tall enough nor rigged to stop individuals from crossing from the Palestinian towns of the northern West Bank to Israel.

''I prefer a fence,'' said Yossi Malul, a volunteer from the nearby Kibbutz Ein Harod, who was guarding workers erecting the barrier. ''It will take a long time to be good neighbors.''

Palestinian officials adamantly oppose unilateral separation, which they label a racist scheme to perpetuate Israeli occupation of land that should be part of an eventual Palestinian state. They say Israel should withdraw from all the Jordanian territory it conquered in 1967 and let it become a Palestinian state.

Ariel Sharon also opposes it; mention of the idea at a recent Cabinet meeting reportedly evoked a shouting, table-pounding Sharon vow that not one settlement would be evacuated while he is prime minister.

Nonetheless, the barriers and fences Sharon is erecting for what he calls buffer zones in the areas most troubled by terrorism would fit into some more comprehensive scheme of separation.

Proponents say that Palestinian fears to the contrary, unilateral separation is not meant to impose a political settlement or borders on Palestinians, but to improve the security of Israelis, and that negotiations on borders can begin whenever Palestinians desire.

''The leadership of Israel says there is no one to talk to on the Palestinian side. I won't argue with that,'' said Nati Sharoni, a retired major general and a leader of the Council for Peace and Security, an influential association of 1,200 of security experts from the military, intelligence agencies, and the Foreign Ministry.

So, council members believe, ''We should make a unilateral move to do what is best for Israel,'' Sharoni said.

He said Israeli evacuation of 40 or 50 settlements, or about 20,000 settlers, should be enough for the Palestinians to conclude that they can get a good political settlement through negotiation because it would represent a dramatic departure from Sharon's insistence that not one settlement be abandoned.

But whether the Palestinians respond positively or not, abandoning the isolated Jewish colonies will increase security for everyone in Israel proper and the remaining settlements, supporters of separation say.

Last week, the council launched a drive to gather one million signatures on a petition favoring unilateral separation. Leaders of the drive, of whom Sharoni is one, say there has been an unexpected outpouring of volunteers and donations.

If the coalition's petition continues to gain momentum, it is likely to spur a response from both the Israeli and the Palestinian political establishments, long before the goal of one million signatures is approached.

There are only about 2 million registered voters in Israel, so even a half-million signatures would make the drive a major political movement. Sharoni, the author A.B. Yehoshua, amd other backers of the drive believe this also would bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table, out of fear that unilateral separation might succeed and that the defense line might harden into borders.

Leaders of the petition drive are avoiding drawing maps, which they say would create squabbles among what they say preliminary polling shows is a big majority - around 70 percent of the electorate - that favors the basic idea. The exact placement of the line is not critical, they say, because this is not a border, but a defense line until a border is negotiated.

Nevertheless, the proposal is specific, entailing the following:

Complete evacuation of all Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, while retaining control over the border between Egypt and Gaza until a final settlement is reached.

Evacuation of 30 to 40 settlements in the West Bank, while retaining two corridors of Israeli control to link the city of Ariel in the northern West Bank and the Etzion bloc of settlements in the southern West Bank, with Israel proper.

Withdrawal from much of East Jerusalem, and retention of three large new Jewish neighborhoods built around the city on land annexed after the Six-Day War.

Retention of the Jordan River valley pending a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Establishment of physical barriers patrolled by the military and the police to keep Palestinians from entering Israeli-controlled territory except through formal crossing points.

Notwithstanding the initial favorable reaction, the proposal faces determined political opposition, from the Palestinians and their supporters internationally, from supporters of the Jewish settlement movement, and from the Arab population of Israel.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the proposal, taken together with recent Israeli military actions, show Israel ''is reorganizing the occupation. ... The Israeli government is turning the West Bank cities into big prisons. The next step is incarcerating the residents with walls and buffer zones.''

Advocates of the proposal do not all agree on how it would be applied in practice. For example, some say the extremely militant Jewish settlers in Hebron and Kiryat Arba, who clash constantly with Palestinians and with Israeli authorities, should be evacuated. Others would retain them, still others do not know how the most militant settlers should be handled.

Jerusalem, too, will pose special problems, supporters acknowledge, and determining what portions of the city Israel will withdraw from ''will have to be resolved on an inch-by-inch, yard-by-yard basis,'' Sharoni said.

Nevetheless, the proposal is benefiting from the broad consensus that now exists among Israelis in favor of separating from the Palestinians - a consensus that extends from intellectuals of the left like Yehoshua, one of the country's premier novelists, to solid supporters of Sharon's governing Likud Party like Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the defense planning committee in the Israeli Knesset.

Unilateral separation ''might help with our security but it might be disastrous if it is handled like the withdrawal from Lebanon,'' Steinitz said. ''We cannot risk having Palestinians in the center of the country developing missiles and weaponry as Hezbollah is doing in southern Lebanon.''

On the other hand, he said, ''I'm not completely against'' the new proposal, because ''in the end, we should separate.''

boston.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (28401)5/5/2002 11:43:30 AM
From: jcky  Respond to of 281500
 
That's a very good article Bill. Thanks for posting it.



To: LindyBill who wrote (28401)5/5/2002 1:37:10 PM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 281500
 
May 5, 2002
When Europeans and Americans Disagree
By PETER SCHNEIDER


Read it; found it one of the better pieces I've read. I could quarrel with bits and pieces but it's, basically, a very helpful approach.

I was curious as to who he was so checked the Times for the little "who is the author" squib. Didn't learn much. Do you happen to know more?

Peter Schneider is the author, most recently, of ``Eduard's Homecoming.'' His article was translated from German by Leigh Hafrey.

Johnson just had his summer of 55 heart attack and Eisenhower his fall of 55 heart attack. Johnson had to put his plans to get the dem nomination for presidency in 56 on hold because of his but when he heard about Ike's, he decided to try again. Joe Kennedy, the father, just offered to finance his (Johnson's) 56 campaign for the nomination if LBJ would agree to make Jack Kennedy his vice presidential running mate. Johnson turned him down for a variety of intricate, quite time specific political motives, but the big reason was that Johnson had access to so many deep pockets, so willing to finance him, that Joe Kennedy's money was small change. According to Caro, Bobby Baker and John Connally used to wander around to hotels, whatever, carrying paper bags filled with large amounts of money for the campaigns of senators willing to work with Johnson. Where did Caro get that information? Interviews with Connally and Baker. Wonderful stuff.



To: LindyBill who wrote (28401)5/5/2002 1:41:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
: a revulsion at the barbaric suicide bombings by Palestinian terror groups and a firm conviction that nothing can justify such attacks.

In the British papers (which is what I've been reading) I have seen little such revulsion. The attackers are called "militants", not "terrorists", their attacks are reported quite neutrally, and the dead are totaled up on each side: 2 Palestinians, 3 Israelis, without mention that the 2 Palestinians died in the pursuit of a suicide mission, having killed 3 Israelis and wounded a dozen more.

Another point of agreement between mainstream Americans and mainstream Europeans is that there is no questioning Israel's right to exist, or its right to defend itself by any means, including military means, against the attacks of Hamas, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade and other extremist groups

The British papers regularly question Israel's right to defend itself and even exist. The Guardian reported the Adora attack as "4 settlers shot, including a 5 year old girl; Palestinians brace for attack", thus managing to make the Israel the heavy even after a 5 year old was shot in her bed. Do you see any right of self-defence implied here?

Europeans see the same information Americans do

The rest of his paper disproves this statement; the reporting is so different that Europeans and Americans see quite different information.

The American press, in contrast to the European press, has only recently noted that in the short time since Mr. Sharon took office, some 30 new settlements have been created

The original report was "30 new settlement points", meaning that existing settlements were trying to push the envelope by sticking up a new trailer. This is a point of contention, but is quite different from reports of "30 new settlements", which implies whole new towns, which the European papers reported.

But even assuming for a moment that Mr. Arafat is the head terrorist, why would the Bush administration continue to promote him as an equal partner in the negotiation process. Most European observers know for a fact that Yasir Arafat has, over the past 30 years, accomplished nothing for his people, and that he rejected an opportunity at Camp David, perhaps the only one ever, to achieve a just peace. That alone should be enough to discredit him as a negotiating partner.

He definitely has a point about Yassir Arafat, but if this is supposed to represent the European view, why are the Europeans falling all over themselves to support, praise, and most of all, pay for, Arafat's activities? Part of the information that Sharon will take to Washington will show how European money has gone directly to the support of terrorism.