| |
|
Ariel
Sharon's fiction vs. the cold facts
|
|
|
The Way Forward in the Middle East |
|
|
| ARIEL
SHARON |
|
|
| The
New York Times - June 9, 2002 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JERUSALEM
— Thirty-five years ago, on June
5, 1967, the start of the Six Day War, Israel faced a threat
to its very existence as a coalition of Arab
armies massed their troops along the fragile armistice lines
that had separated Arab and Israeli forces since 1949. Along
the hills of the West Bank, which had been occupied by the
Jordanians, armored and infantry units were deployed, ready
to cut Israel's narrow coastal plain, which was only eight
miles wide at Netanya. A third of the Iraqi army was crossing
Jordanian territory, ready to join the coalition against
Israel. The declared goal of the attack was Israel's elimination.
|
|
A
few months after the 1967 war, Yitzhak
Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two
divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have
been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He
knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February
1968).
Israeli
General Peled was even more frank: "To
pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers
were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes
an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable
of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult
to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March
1972). Read
more >>>
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Israel
entered the West Bank only after its cities and airports
had come under heavy fire. Israeli actions were legal —
resulting from a clear-cut war of self-defense. For that
reason, the United Nations Security
Council determined in a historic decision, Resolution 242,
that Israel was entitled to "secure and recognized boundaries"
and was not expected to withdraw from all the territories
that its forces had entered — and from which
it was attacked — in the Six Day War. In effect, the resolution
established that these were disputed territories where Israel
had legitimate rights to defensible borders, besides the
claims of the Arab parties to the conflict.
|
|
UN
Resolution 242 -- Sponsored by the
United Kingdom and France, the resolution is deliberately
ambiguous. It has been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon
and Israel. It has also been accepted by the PLO. The Security
Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave
situation in the Middle East. Emphasizing
the inadmissibility of the acquisition
of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting
peace in which every state in the area can live in security.
Emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance
of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment
to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter 1.Affirms
that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment
of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should
include the application of both the following principles:
1.Withdrawal
of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict.
2.Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and
respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and political independence of every state in the
area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized
boundaries free from threats or acts of force. 2.Affirms further
the necessity for: 1.Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through
international waterways in the area. 2.Achieving
a just settlement of the refugee problem. 3.Guaranteeing
the territorial inviolability and political independence of
every state in the area through measures including the establishment
of demilitarized zones. 3.Requests the Secretary
General to designate a special representative to proceed to
the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts within
the state concerned in order to promote agreement and assist
efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance
with the provisions and principles in this resolution.'
(N.B. The official French text refers
to “des territories”) Accepted by the PLO
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Under
Resolution 242, which became the cornerstone of peacemaking,
Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in accordance with
the 1979 peace
treaty with Egypt. It was under the principles
of Resolution 242 that Israel attended the
1991 Madrid peace conference where President George
H. W. Bush spoke about a "territorial compromise" between
the parties. And again in line with Resolution 242, Israel,
operating under the 1993 Oslo agreement,
withdrew its military government over the Palestinian population
so that by 1999, 98 percent of the
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were under Palestinian
rule. |
|
It
is instructive to remember that "...
Sharon has always been against any sort of peace deal, unless
on terms entirely impossible for Palestinians to accept.
As Nehemia Strasler outlined in Ha'aretz on January 18 of
this year, in 1979, as a member of Begin's cabinet, he voted
against a peace treaty with Egypt. In 1985 he voted against
the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the so-called security
zone in Southern Lebanon. In 1991 he opposed Israel's participation
in the Madrid peace conference. In 1993 he voted No in the
Knesset on the Oslo agreement. The following year he abstained
in the Knesset on a vote over a peace treaty with Jordan.
He voted against the Hebron agreement in 1997 and objected
to the way in which the withdrawal from southern Lebanon
was conducted."
Alexander
Cockburn, "The
Crimes of Ariel Sharon", Counterpunch, February 7th
2001
In
1972, the total settlement population in Gaza and West Bank
was 1,500. Today it is over 210,000. In 1972, total settler
population in East Jerusalem was 6,900. Today: 170,400.
Between 1993 and 2000, the total settler population in the
Occupied Territories doubled.. Read
more >>>
According
to the latest report from the Israeli human rights group
Btselem, while
settlements are built on 1.7% of West Bank land, Israel
in fact has control of at least 41.9% of the land there.
Read
More>>>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nonetheless,
the Palestinian leadership decided
to initiate the current war against Israel after the failure
of the Camp David summit in July 2000. Rather than
resolve Israeli-Palestinian differences peacefully, it deliberately
promoted a wave of terrorist attacks against the people of
Israel. It failed to implement its written obligations to
dismantle international terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic
Jihad. Instead it provided them with sanctuary in the area
under its jurisdiction. It also unleashed some of its most
loyal forces, like the Tanzim militia of the Fatah movement
and the presidential guard, Force 17, against Israeli civilians.
Finally, Yasir Arafat's personal financial adviser, Fuad Shubaki,
not only paid for many of these attacks, but also organized
a consortium of Middle Eastern terrorism built on the Palestinian
Authority, Iraq and Iran. |
|
"...we
have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate
plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the
first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate
plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force."
SHARM
EL-SHEIKH FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT (The Mitchell
Report) -- May 23, 2001
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Despite
this situation, there is a way forward. First, Israel must
defeat terrorism; it cannot negotiate under fire. Israel has
made painful concessions for peace before and will demonstrate
diplomatic flexibility to make peace again, but it requires
first and foremost a reliable partner for peace. In
1977, when Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat came to Jerusalem,
he told the people of Israel, "No
more wars." From that point onward, the threat of violence
was removed from the Egyptian-Israeli relationship as both
negotiated their 1979 Treaty of Peace. King
Hussein of Jordan followed the same pattern in 1994.
This elementary commitment to permanently renouncing violence
in the resolution of political differences has unfortunately
not been kept by the present Palestinian leadership. |
|
Here
is what former President Jimmy Carter had to say about this:
""Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has
never equivocated in his public declarations nor deviated
from his ultimate purpose. His
rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli
withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his
provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of
villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians
and his open defiance of President George W. Bush's demand
that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated
to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements
as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and
to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence."
The New York Times, April 21, 2002.
"...
the peace with Egypt engendered the expropriation of half
the land in the West Bank and the establishment of dozens
of new settlements; the conclusion of the evacuation of
Sinai was the signal for the Lebanon War.... The Oslo process
also exacted a heavy price by legitimizing the "settlement
blocs" --
Meron Benvenisti (Ha'aretz 12/16/1999)
For
the latest on settlement activity, see: http://www.fmep.org/reports/2002/v12n3.html#7
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Second,
when Israel and the Palestinians eventually re-engage in negotiations,
diplomacy must be based on realism. The
race to a permanent-status agreement at Camp David and in
talks at Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 failed because the gaps
between the parties were too wide. The only serious
option for a successful negotiated settlement is one based
on a long-term interim agreement that sets aside for the future
issues that cannot be bridged at present. |
|
"the
two sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching
an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining
gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations
following the Israeli elections."
Joint
Statement, signed by Ehud Barak's negotiating team, Taba,
Egypt, January 27, 2001 -- Read
More >>>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| In
the nearly two years of the Palestinian intifada, the people
of Israel have seen Israel's vulnerabilities exploited, its
holy sites desecrated and massive weaponry smuggled and used
against Israel's cities. For this reason, Israel
will not return to the vulnerable 1967 armistice lines, redivide
Jerusalem or concede its
right to defensible borders under Resolution 242. Movement
from a long-term interim agreement to a permanent settlement
can only be guided by changes in the reality of Israeli-Palestinian
relations on the ground and not by a rigid timetable.
|
|
UN
Resolution 465 -- "[...] Determines that all
measures taken by Israel to change the physical character,
demographic composition, institutional structure of status
of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since
1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal
validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling
parts of its population and new Immigrants in those territories
constitute a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva convention
relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of
war and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving
a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally,
in order to reach a stable peace there has to be regional
scope to diplomacy. In the Six Day War, Israel faced a coalition
of Arab states. It is logical that Israel cannot reach a
permanent peace with the Palestinians in isolation. Israel
needs peace with the entire Arab world. For this
reason, Israel has proposed a regional peace conference
of like-minded Middle Eastern states that reject terrorism
and seek to enhance regional stability. The idea of the
conference is based on the principle that eradicating terrorism
will set the stage for peacemaking, and not the reverse.
A little
over a decade ago, the American victory in the Persian Gulf
war established the necessary conditions for convening the
Madrid peace conference. It was proved then that security
is the prerequisite of peace. Similarly, a victory in the
war on terrorism today will provide a new diplomatic basis
for a stable Middle East peace.
Ariel
Sharon is the prime minister of Israel.
|
|
[Arab
Peace Initiative -- March 28, 2002 ] "[....]
3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:
a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter
into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security
for all the states of the region.
b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context
of this comprehensive peace. 4. Assures the rejection
of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with
the special circumstances of the Arab host countries. 5.
Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to
accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects
for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling
the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good
neighborliness and provide future generations with security,
stability, and prosperity. 6. Invites
the international community and all countries and organizations
to support this initiative. 7. Requests
the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed
of some of its concerned member states and the secretary
general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary
contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels,
particularly from the United Nations, the security council,
the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the
Muslim States and the European Union."
|
|
| Please
help counter Ariel Sharon's cynical manipulation of history
and basic, elementary facts. Write your letter below and click
"send". Your letter will be posted to: 48hours@cbsnews.com
60@cbsnews.com am@cnn.com andyr@nytimes.com bdold@tribune.com
cable@msnbc.com cdavis@phillynews.com Christiane.Amanpour2@cnn.com
cmcmahon@tribune.com community@cnn.com community@cnn.com csatullo@phillynews.com
dan.fisher@msnbc.com diehlj@washpost.com eason.jordan@turner.com
editor@reuters.com editor@usatoday.com evening@cbsnews.com
foreign@phillynews.com foreign@washpost.com friends@foxnews.com
hraines@nytimes.com inquirer.letters@phillynews.com jacoby@globe.com
kingc@washpost.com letter.editor@edit.wsj.com letter@globe.com
letters@iht.com letters@latimes.com letters@nytimes.com letters@time.com
letters@washpost.com letters@washtimes.com mcooke@suntimes.com
michael.moran@msnbc.com mmatza@phillynews.com nightline@abcnews.com
Nightly@NBC.com nwarwick@phillynews.com nytnews@nyt.com ombudsman@npr.org
oreilly@foxnews.com oregion@msnbc.com rick.davis@turner.com
Speakout@foxnews.com srowley@tribune.com tauth@phillynews.com
tom.johnson@turner.com trubin@phillynews.com Viewerservices@foxnews.com
World@MSNBC.com |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|