Palestine Media Watch
HOME  |  ACT  |  MENTIONS  |  DONATE |  VOLUNTEER |   DEBATE | ADVISORY BOARD |  ABOUT   |  CONTACT | 
 
 
Ariel Sharon's fiction vs. the cold facts

The Way Forward in the Middle East
ARIEL SHARON
The New York Times - June 9, 2002
     

JERUSALEMThirty-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

 

Your email address
Your first name
Your last name
City
State
Country
Subject

Your letter

 

   
HOME |  ACT  |  MENTIONS  |  DONATE |  VOLUNTEER |   DEBATE | ADVISORY BOARD |  ABOUT  |  CONTACT |