Sharon to tell Knesset: Road map is sole diplomatic option

[Gimel]

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will open the Knesset's winter session Sunday with a declaration affirming the road map, and Israel's 14 comments about the plan, as "the only acceptable diplomatic option." Israel is committed to the road map, Sharon will say; and the moment a responsible Palestinian partner arises, Israel will engage talks with him about the road map.

Sharon will reiterate Israel's demands that the Palestinian Authority carry out internal reforms, and crack down on the terror infrastructure in the territories.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said this weekend that by early November it should be possible to judge the stability of the PA government headed by Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala). Should this new PA government remain in office, Israel, "under our obligation in the road map plan...will continue dialogue with the Palestinians, as we did in the case of Abu Mazen's government," said Mofaz.
More...

[Darranar]

1. If he's so committed...

why doesn't he freeze settlement construction?

As the roadmap tells him to?

[Gimel]

2. Because

a unilateral following of the Road Map will lead nowhere. Both parties must walk the distance.

[Maple]

3. But of course they can't do that

because this week the excuse is Arafat's presence.

When he's gone, there will be something else that 'prevents' walking the distance.

[Darranar]

4. Then criticize both, or none...

From now on, I don't expect to see any "he didn't dismantle terrorist infrastructure" posts from you.

[Gimel]

5. The Map has two legs

Restricting my freedom will do nothing to help the progress towards peace. Dismanteling terrorist infastructure is as important as the freezing of settlement activity. You brought up the criticizm, not me. Please follow your own advice.

[Darranar]

6. But the PA can't dismantle...

terrorist infrastructure successfully without concessions on Israel's part.

[Gimel]

7. Concessions

were given. The answer was a horrendous suicide attack. Sorry. That is not acceptable.

Prisoner releases and troop redeployments were made on June 30. No follow-up action on the part of the PA. The response was three more suicide attacks.

[Darranar]

8. AFTER...

the arrest of a Hamas leader.

The release of prisoners is a joke; a distraction from the real problem. Whether Israel releases 100 prisoners or 1,000, the settlements still remain, growing. Ariel doesn't begin to collapse as prisoners are given up.

Real action - in the form of actual settlement dismantlement and an end to encouragement of more settlements - would give the PA a chance to crack down on terror a bit more. They are certainly at fault in part.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Bullcrap

The Palestinians NEVER go after the terrorists and that is the heart of the problem. Frankly, Israel shouldn't give an inch on anything until they do.

[Darranar]

10. But until Israel GIVES an inch...

any effort to go after terrorists will go to waste.

And so it continues...

[Gimel]

11. The removal of outposts

was specified as the initial step. This was done with vigorous effort. Still, the terrorist attacks in August interrupted this action.

[Darranar]

12. One or two were removed...

as the other settlements expanded. Give me a break.

Sharon is not a man willing to make concessions in any real amount.

[Gimel]

13. The time frame

Settlement expansion plans were announced later. The constuction could not have taken place yet. Gime me a break.

[The Magistrate]

14. Still, Ma'am

It seems to me clearly in Israel's own best interests to put the settlement venture obviously on a path to liquidation. They are not tenable in the long run: they are a drain on the nation, and far from adding to its security, undermine it in the present situation. Much better to get the political capital from doing the thing now, before the other side can comply with its end of the program. There is a good deal to be said in circumstances like this for calling the opponent's bluff: if the result is not a reduction in hostility from the other side, it will be clear who is obstructing peace, and in the meantime, nothing of real long-term value will have been sacrificed.

[Gimel]

15. Your points

While your points are well taken, the comprehensive plan for the settlements future cannot be produced or implemented in a matter of weeks. I do not have any information on the government's plans, or strategy in this respect. From what has occurred recently, the will of the settlers themselves must be considered in this. Forceful removal has been undertaken in some instances. The consequences must also be considered. The building of new neighborhoods on Israel's northern border as an alternative site for the settlers has been proposed and initial steps taken.

However, some of the settlements, for example Ariel, Beitar Illit and Me'ele Adumim (26,500; 1981) have considerable strength in population and years such smaller communities like Tekoa (1977) and Rosh Tzurim (1969)in existence. It is uprooting a sizable population and transporting them elsewhere that you are proposing. This seems to me to be in violation of the rights of these families, and certainly in some moral respects it is.

There is an interview with Richard Perle in today's JPost online. What he says may be surprising to some here:

Perle: How many of the settlements are indefensible?

Oren: There are 200,000 settlers, not talking about the neighborhoods around Jerusalem. About 150,000 can be put in blocs.... Then you have far-flung settlements, Gaza settlements, that are categorically indefensible. You are talking about 50,000 people.

Perle: What motivates somebody to live in a Gaza settlement?

Oren: Faith. The further out you are, the more faithful you are. There's a settlement where I once did reserve duty. I saw a big banner over the entrance. It said, "In our entire lives, we will never leave here." But it also meant, "We will never leave here alive," and you get that message. These are the guys who are going to stick, they're going to shack up and hold out with M-16s and they'll fight."

Perle: Well, they have greatly complicated Israel's problem. If you're compelled to defend the indefensible, then you're really on the horns of a dilemma.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066540915673
Edit: To correct name spelling

[Darranar]

16. They're on stolen land!

The settlements are against international law, and because tehy are on occupied territory, they are not legitimate.

The Palestinians have a right to every inch of the West Bank and Gaza. The settlements interfere with their lives and their rights.

If Israelis want to live in a Palestinian state, fine. First, one such has to be created. Second, they must agree to be law-abiding Palestinian citizens. Third, they must legally buy the land.

All they're doing now is abusing land rights of the Palestinians.

[The Magistrate]

17. It Is Unfortunate, Ma'am

But to my view, the desires of the settlers need no more be consulted than the desires of any young man conscripted to Army service in a time of war and emergency. The national interest requires of them certain things, and the nation has every right to impose these upon them if they will not volunteer. Certainly my proposal involves uprooting a population, possibly against its will, and might be viewed as a violation of its rights. That does not much matter to me: put bluntly, many people have had, and will continue to have, their rights violated in this unfortunate situation, and there does not seem any reason to privilege this particular bunch over the rest.

Mr. Perle has, indeed, said lately some unexpectedly sensible things: in one of my city's papers two days ago, a column of his ran in which he suggested the French proposal for immediate turning over of sovereignity to the Iraqi council was the most sensible possible policy in that situation, and predicted the U.S. would be driven ignominiously from Iraq if it were not adopted.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. They don't have to forcefully remove the settlements

Just tell them they are Palestinians, unless of coarse they want to come and live in Israel. No force necessary.

[Gimel]

19. "Go to waste.."

Just what does that mean? Actually, arresting terroists and dismantleing the infastructure would help Arafat consolidate power. I hear the weak excuse that the PA can't control the terrorist structure. Would a wild state like that make a peacful neighbor? Wake up! Wasted effort is not the problem. The problem is long over due effort.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. The PA doesn't govern the west bank so why even give Sharon

that much. It is silly to pretend that they do. Arafat is just giving Sharon a foil.

[tinnypriv]

18. LOL

Ha'aretz must be taking lessons from the US press for it to quote Sharon like this and not give the backstory:

...

"I don’t like the roadmap, but we are in a situation where we have to choose between what’s bad and what’s worse"

"If we support the plan now, we will fight less with the Americans"

"If we accept the plan we may have future conflict with the Americans, but its not at all certain because the Palestinians may not be able to do their part according to the roadmap. Therefore its better to postpone conflict, in the hope that there will be no conflict."

"Why are you talking about these dates? These dates (in the Roadmap) are not serious"

...

All of those are Ariel Sharon, the day the Roadmap was adopted, speaking in cabinet.

He doesn't take the text seriously, he intended (and succeeded) in getting "amendments" adopted to alter the document, he only accepts it so as to not quarrel "with the Americans" (barely concealing his hope that the Palestinians fail their obligations), and he doesn't "like the Roadmap".

No wonder fat-boy thinks it should be the only diplomatic game in town. :eyes:

[Gimel]

20. He accepts a compromise

No one likes the Road Map when it comes to giving something that he cherishes. But peace is necessary. Sharon sees the necessity. Talking to the cabinet on day one is not necessarily the written in stone final opinon either. Look at what Sharone is saying today, not last June, and certainly not in some fictional conversation in 1953.

[bluesoul]

21. Sharon

You have much faith and confidence in Sharon as I see. I wouldn't trust him a bit, not with a history as he has..

[Gimel]

23. Look, he's the only PM

He has to set a policy. You can't take what he said to the cabinet on day one as his position today. Every thinking person changes constantly. The situation in I/P changes every day. The Road Map is still a struggle. Read Sharon today. I said nothing about having great faith in him or that he is a brilliant leader. But he's the PM. To consistently confuse the issues with ridiculous attacks will never accomplish anything. It will not help in examining the nature of the problem.

Darranar says that the settlements are the whole problem. Since the 1967 War, in his view, they have been part of Palestine and not Israel. In my understanding, however, that is untrue. Jordan took part of the British Mandate, and Israel was created in part. Israel's eastern border is the Jordan River.

Now one state is in the process of dividing into two states. The territories are still technically part of Israel.

[Darranar]

24. Uh... okay...

So the UN partition of 1947 never happened, the truce between Israel and the Arab states that actually lasted never happened...

You're funny, Gimel. How you could come to that conclusion is beyond me.

[bluesoul]

25. Oh my

You can't be serious Gimel! Tehnically part of Israel? What part of OCCUPIED, ILLEGAL settlements according to international law and UN conventions don't you understand? Come on, this is where we end?

[tinnypriv]

22. Anytime you feel like reading what I wrote

Go right ahead.

[Gimel]

26. I read it the first time. eom

[Jackie97]

29. Of course.

"Sharon will say; and the moment a responsible Palestinian partner arises, Israel will engage talks with him about the road map."

Sharon gets to take the easy way out and not make peace because he doesn't like the current Palestinian leaders. He can't just pick and choose who he will negotiate with. It doesn't work that way. What if the Palestinians said that they wouldn't make peace as long as Ariel Sharon was the PM?