Open to Debate In Israel - Op-ed

[Cassandra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33312-2003Dec26.html

"If the value of options and even the substance of the Geneva accord are not necessarily problematic, what makes it so disturbing is what I would call the "government-in-exile syndrome" associated with it. The way these discussions and their presentation to the world have been carried out smacks of an approach more appropriate to a country that has no free government and does not embody a healthy democracy. When countries are not free, as during World War II or the Soviet era, the notion of government leaders, intellectuals and other influentials choosing to deal with opposition figures and their proposals makes sense and is constructive.
<snip>
Why, then, this disrespect to Israel's democratic institutions, particularly at a time when the need for democracy in the Arab world is being emphasized as the most important weapon to combat Islamist terrorism?

I would suggest that there is a tendency in some circles to psychologically delegitimize the Sharon government without stating it so bluntly. Reflexive and distorted reactions to Sharon, whether calling him a Nazi or unrepentant hard-liner or war criminal or racist or drinker of Muslim children's blood, all have an impact. Such outrageous reactions, repeated time and again in the media, in Islamic conferences, in some parts of Europe and in international organizations, have their cumulative effect. The result is to treat a proposal by nonofficials, legitimate as it may be, in a way that would never occur with any other democratic government.

What we are witnessing, in sum, is not a constructive step that could bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to agreement but one more in a series of steps to delegitimize and isolate the Israeli government. Whether we agree or disagree with the prime minister, all of us have an interest in resisting a process that, in its attack on Israeli democracy, ends up as an attack on Israel's fundamental legitimacy as a sovereign state. "

[bluesoul]

1. So we should not

critisize Sharon and his RW policy? :crazy: WP has already gone to much to the right, this just shows it. Liberal media bias my ass. Even those that are supposed to be aren't...

[Valarauko]

2. It's not the critic of Sharon that bothers me

it's the innate assumption of the pseudo-elite that they still run this country.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

5. Good op-ed

"I would suggest that there is a tendency in some circles to psychologically delegitimize the Sharon government without stating it so bluntly. Reflexive and distorted reactions to Sharon, whether calling him a Nazi or unrepentant hard-liner or war criminal or racist or drinker of Muslim children's blood, all have an impact. Such outrageous reactions, repeated time and again in the media, in Islamic conferences, in some parts of Europe and in international organizations, have their cumulative effect. The result is to treat a proposal by nonofficials, legitimate as it may be, in a way that would never occur with any other democratic government."

excellent part.

[legin]

6. Why do all this pseudo-interlectual slop ?

It just irrates the hell out of me and makes me even more ill-disposed towards israel than i am already.

Why not just tell it like it fucking is ?

"The only peace deal we are making with the Palestinians is going to be on our (israel's) terms, and if you don't like it you can shove up your arse."

Bold, blunt and to the point. Fucking annoying but I could appreciate the honesty.

[bluesoul]

7. LOL Legin

:yourock:

[Gimel]

12. They've only gotten

Five or six package deals, several piece-meal attempts, and now a possible unilateral withdrawal. Tsk Tsk. Up the ass.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Foxman is full of baloney

EDITED for typing

While there will be and must be opposition views to those of the party in power, the surge of ideas for change reflects the sense that solutions -- even partial ones -- have not been found and that options should be explored.

That is because solutions have not been found nor options explored. Sharon has been in power for just over two and a half years and has failed. His reliance on military solutions has not crushed Palestinian resistance, as if anything could. It isn't even designed to bring anybody to the negotiating table; Sharon would be loathed to deal with Arabs as equals. If Israel goes to liquidate a terrorist leader, it does so by shooting a one ton missile into a residential neighborhood at midnight; when the hue and cry rises over the sleeping children who were inevitably killed in such an operation, Sharon and his people barely offer an embarrassed "oops." If a road map tells the Palestinian Authority it must rein in terrorists while Sharon must stop building settlements simultaneously, then ignore the word simultaneously, do nothing and insist the Palestinians have to move first -- but don't stop building those settlements. Sharon tells Palestinian farmers in occupied territory that he cannot guarantee their safety, but he has plenty of resources to guarantee the safety of expanding settlements. It is no surprise that Sharon "threatens" unilateral action. That's not a threat; that's a promise. Sharon doesn't know any other way to deal with the Palestinians. If bombing refugee camps doesn't work, then just build a fence.

It is not as though the Palestinian leadership have given Sharon a lot with which to work. Arafat may as well not be there. He kicks back in Ramallah while Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the armed resistance (such as it is), attack the Israeli threat as it eats lunch in a cafe. That isn't resistance; that's murder. Not only does it deliberately take the lives of noncombatants, it does nothing to prevent the bulldozing of one Palestinian home to make way for a segregated settlement or a segregated access road in Palestinian Territory.

As things stand, the extremists hold sway. These are the people who will shed the last drop of blood for the last acre of land. However, the land is already divided between two nations. The Israelis are not going to jump into the sea and the Palestinians are not going to dance across the Allenby Bridge. The two nations are facts on the ground that no army can alter. There is nothing to do but accept those facts. Arms can no longer protect these people. It is time to lay down arms.

There is no effective leadership on either side. Sharon and Arafat each knows little more than how to kill people and act like it's not his fault. The hour calls for responsible and reasonable people to accept the facts of two nations and stop the killing.

Thus it is for others to do the leaders' job for them. Yossi Beilin, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh have taken up the mantle of virtual leadership to fill the vacuum left by the failure of those in power.

This is a revolt of reasonable men in the face of tired and unimaginative fools. The situation is too urgent and too critical to wait for Sharon and Arafat to discover wisdom. If they will not act to make peace -- and they will not -- then others must work around them. To merely propose is insufficient. It is time for reasonable men to act. It is time for all people of goodwill to support the revolt of the reasonable.

When the king became old and impotent and no longer able to protect his kingdom, he would be vanquished by a young, virile challenger and cast aside. It is time for the young peacemakers to challenge the old warriors whose war can no longer bring anything but more death and destruction to their lands. It is time to cast aside the foolish old leaders and look to a new generation of wise peacemakers.

[bluesoul]

9. Wow Jack!

Your post left me without words, truely inspiring ;)

[legin]

10. Great post Jack Rabbit

the Foxman article does hilight the main trouble that the Geneva Accords are going to face, i.e. that they were not proposed by a Government, but by 'outsiders'. Ruling politicians tend to be very iffy about other people usurping their authority.

You get the impression that they look back on the trials, and up's and down's, of 8000 years of civilisation and say to themselves "it's taken us this long to get our ruled over peoples doing exactly what we want them to, we are not blowing it for some short term gain."

It would be nice if some facing saving formulae could be concocted that would allow the israeli government to adopt the plan without looking like the total smegheads that they are.

I am, given the above logic, still very surprised that Powell was seen publically backing the idea.

[legin]

11. The temptation would be

to ram the Geneva Accords down the throats of the israeli government as punishment for being so bad at their jobs, but I think that would be a mistake because then it is not only the merits of the Accords that are in play, but also in-built psycological ideas like people's conceptions of Order (governments are supposed to rule over people)start kicking in, which just makes the adoption of the Accords more difficult.

I can quite imagine a situation whereby the Accords are adopted by the israeli government and Arafat, made to look like theirs, signed, and then everybody says what enlightened peace-loving people Arafat and Sharon are whilst the real authors of the Accords are thrown into prison for treason.

[Gimel]

13. The governed

in a democracy choose those in the government, not the foreign nations or the people of foreign nations.

I don't know which country you are from, but I bet you'd not like the rest of the world to veto your government's legislation.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Under the present circumstances

I'd like it very much.