The Winds of Peace?

12/07/2004

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000318.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 11:19 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 10 comments

I've been reading Clayton E. Swisher's book about Camp David and it speaks very clearly about ways of not achieving peace. The best one is Israel insisting in not use 242 as a basis and trying to invent ways of cheating Palestinians about the subject. Another very good option is to try to implement peace by slices. For instance, Palestinians want a generic acknowledge of the right of return as part of their giving up on the subject (which they know they will need to do at some point). It is self evident that this two things must be stated in the same document and try to state only one will cause the other part to pull out inmediately. I do not think Israel is ripe for peace and keep blaming the palestinian side is absurd. Before Israel truly accepts 242 any move is wishful thinking. This periodic swaping between "greatest hopes" mode (current one) and "lost opportunities" mode is just an appearance and a way that Israel uses to relieve world presure to make him accept 242. The only one who wasted the opportunity in Camp David was Barak and Sharon is ready to repeat the manouver so being able to come back to the favourite mode for some people in Israel which is "lost oportunities" (blaming Palestinians). If Israel is not going to pull back the settlers, please do not create hopes. Like or not, Palestinians have stated that for them ilegal settlement is a form of terrorism.

Posted by Aleph @ 12/09/2004 03:14 PM CST

I don’t usually do that, but in this case the first gut reaction is probably the right one:

To “Aleph” – Have you asked yourself who has more at stake here when comes to Palestinian self governing? I would readily admit to all Israel’s sins, accept for our right to exist. Have the Palestinians and their leaders created opportunities for piece? Fully capitalize on all opportunities that came along? You must live in a different universe, one that the real middle east doesn’t exist.

Posted by Zvi Goldman @ 12/09/2004 06:39 PM CST

Whether it be one international politician or another, they seem obsessed with getting the Peace Process or the Road Map going again in the Middle East Peace Process. The obsession appears to be focus on the journey rather than the destination. Like many projects connected with governments, there appears to be more concern about being seen to be doing something rather than actually achieving any tangible results.
It occurs to me that much of the failure of the “Peace Process” is due to a failure to agree the objectives of the process. US and EU politicians and most of their electorates seem to identify the establishment of a two state solution as being the final objective. For the most part it seems that Israel agrees with this, but that there are grave reservations about the Palestinian capacity to deliver. There are significant elements within Israel that hanker after Greater Israel in one form or another. The Palestinian leaders at least seem far less certain that this two state solution is the final objective. On one hand some seem to reject the idea of any treaty with Israel. Others seem to think that the two state solution is merely an interim solution, which prefaces the eventually establishment of a single Palestinian state covering all of the former Mandated Territories.
If Israel intends to maintain occupation of the West Bank and Gaza through the application of security measures. Then the Peace Process is doomed as the Palestinians will never agree to this, and nor should they.
If the Palestinians aspire to return to May 1967 in the vain hope that in the medium terms they can deploy their resources to attain their 1948 war aims. Then the Peace Process is doomed as the Israelis will never accept it, and no occupying power would relinquish control to a government that intends to use it as a precursor to initiating another war.
The evident lack of consensus between Israelis and Palestinians renders all discussion largely meaningless. It descends too frequently into simply a litany of complaint about the other. Perhaps the aspiration for the establishment of “normalcy” between an Israeli and Palestinian state is misplaced. Perhaps both sides should simply establish the benefits to themselves of disengagement in the first place, leaving the discussions about any joint activity until much later. Then simply let go of each other.
Actually sometimes it seems as if the Israelis / Palestinians don’t need anymore Peace Envoys, but a half way decent Divorce Lawyer!

Posted by Rod Davies @ 12/09/2004 10:43 PM CST

I must say, after reading the above postings, I wonder why the following question has not been raised: Is there an American partner for peace?

My fear at the moment is there is not. And, as one of your commentators observed, I regret to say my country, the United States, has still not reconciled the mistakes it made in the last round (detailed more fully in my book, entitled, "The Truth About Camp David").

Shalom, Salaam, Peace!

Clayton E. Swisher

Posted by Clayton E. Swisher @ 12/11/2004 07:36 PM CST

The 50 year plight and misery of the Palestinians is a reprehensible comment on those supposedly championing their cause. By deflecting internal criticisms from their own illegal and immoral regimes, they use (in the worst sense of the word0 the Palestinians as a buffer between their own suffering populous and their immoral regimes. Given the level of wealth and availability of land ammassed by other Arabic regimes, the fact that they have opted to press forth for violence and incited terrorist activities against Israel speaks volumes as to teir true agenda. If the situation were reversed, you can be certain that the Jews of the diaspora would have banded together to provide comfort and compassion. Why have the oil rich nations left the Palestinians to live in squalor? If true humanitarianism drives them, they could have built schools, hospitals and university in any of a thousand carved out pieces of pan-arabic territory and allowed the Palestinians a real chance for dignity and advancement. No, my friends; the world's overall desire is to create a global position depicting Israel as an agressive, uncaring nation and to exert enough force to ultimately undermine the most advanced (morally, economically, socially,agriculturally) country in the region. The total destruction of the State of Israel is a goal that is way out in front of any desire for the restitution of Palestinian rights. To think anything else is sophistry of the highest order.

Posted by Bruce Burnett @ 12/12/2004 04:52 AM CST

To Aleph,
Israel has accepted 242 as a basis for peace. I suspect that you think 242 says something other than what it actually says. UN SC Res 242 does not call for total Israeli withdrawal from all territories. See 242
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
The word "all" that had been part of the resolution at one time, was removed after extensive negotiations and upon Israeli insistence, and several letters from US officials affirm that the resolution does not require total Israeli withdrawal to the lines of June 4, 1967.

Ami Isseroff

Posted by Moderator @ 12/18/2004 03:26 PM CST

Not only has every grandiose or even trivial peace plan for the Arab Israeli conflict failed, every one of those plans has always ended up with the Israeli First Aid services bagging the bodies of murdered Israeli citizens, mopping up gallons of Israeli blood, and marking and tagging the various Israeli body parts left behind by their Arab Palestinian murderers. It is always the same lethal story, the Americans or Europeans envision a window for peace, the Israelis agree with them, and they all sit down with the Arabs to discuss just how Israel can disarm herself or give up a little more defensive territory, and within hours or days, ten or fifteen Israeli somen and children are blown to bits, and dozens of others are injured, and the delusional peace makers go into hiding, never acknowledgeing their responsibility for the butchery of more innocent Jewish civilians.

Posted by Kenneth S. Besig @ 12/20/2004 05:10 PM CST

Dear Ami: Through 30 years I read 242 text many times and probably this particular clause is my "most readed". I think that Israel must use it to not give back Golan because Siria behaviour and Israel security justifies it. However when we come to Palestinians I think 1967 frontiers must be the basis (for me Israel can keep Latrun and Jerusalem neighborhoods but nothing else). Apart from my opinion, the comment was that what it was offered to Arafat in Camp David did not fit at all 242 (Jordan Valley, web of roads , tentacles slicing palestinian territory, etc...) and that this was the reason they rejected because they understand that the clause you named is a window for doing some changes but it is not a window to completely ignore 1967. I was not judging if Israel must or not negociate over 1967 basis. I was saying that in spite of what many people said, Israel did not accept it in Camp David and I also said that keeping doing this do not lead to peace. I am still under shock after reading this book because it demonstrates that Oslo was a mortal trap for Palestinians and it makes me understand the hate for Arafat in certain people and the feeling of palestinian negociators towards Israel. I do not know if you have read it but I will really appreciate your comments. Answering Zvi Goldman and Swisher himself, my comment was certainly biased because the book shows a coral failure and Barak cannot be blamed alone for the failure (or for the cover-up). Finally I want to say that if should a person alone must be blamed for the Oslo wrecking and the Second Intifada start (and BTW the anti-USA feeling amongst muslims), it would be not Arafat or Barak but it would be Dennis Ross. Barak and Arafat did their jobs with more or less good faith and more or less ability but Ross did not at all for 15 years. He thought was helping Israel when was driving it towards a horrible nightmare.

Posted by Aleph @ 12/20/2004 05:47 PM CST

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST STILL IS A STRANGER IN THE ATMOSPHERE. ONE DAY I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO HELP PREVENT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST. I DONT USUALLY LIKE TALKING ABOUT ISSUES SIMILAR TO THIS ONE BUT I FEEL THAT PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT WILL HELP THIS WORLD IMPROVE.

Posted by WAT EVA @ 01/06/2005 06:55 PM CST

I AM FROM THE MIDDLE EST. I AM VERY INTRESTED IN WHAT U PEPLE HAVE TO SAY. I HAVE BEEN BEETEN TO THE POINT I THINK ILL DIE . I AM GRATFUL TO U ALL FOR HELPNG MY COUNTRY . SOMDAY I WILL RETRN THE FAVOR.

Posted by MIKE MAZZARATI @ 01/06/2005 07:07 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.