Skip to comments.The Prisoners' "Peace" Plan (Media bias ALERT)
Posted on 06/06/2006 2:53:33 AM PDT by ml/nj
Much of the Western media has been referring to a document signed by Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails as a breakthrough in the peace process. A New York Times headline "Palestinian Leader Plans a Vote on Accepting Israel" refers to Palestinian President Abbas' initiative to hold a referendum on the so-called "prisoners' plan" characterizing it as a "coexistence plan." The Times states: The proposal calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Mideast war. That would include all of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with a capital in East Jerusalem, and would accept the existence of Israel.
The proposal calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Mideast war. That would include all of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with a capital in East Jerusalem, and would accept the existence of Israel.
The Times is not alone. The Daily Telegraph, the Washington Post, CNN, the Boston Globe, the BBC, and The Independent (and many others) all refer to this plan as one in which Israel is recognized and that territorial claims beyond the 1967 borders are dropped. Some even write that the plan rejects the use of violence or limits violence to the West Bank.
WHAT THE PLAN SAYS
However, the actual plan is quite different. The State of Israel is never even mentioned. While the first point refers to lands Israel occupied in 1967, it does not claim that these will be the territorial limits of a Palestinian state:
The Palestinian people... seek to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967 and to secure the right of return for the refugees and to liberate all prisoners and detainees...
Does this mean that the plan accepts a two-state solution as much of the media claims? According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:
There is no explicit statement in the accord that establishing a state within the pre-1967 borders would end Palestinian claims over Israeli territory. In fact, vagueness on two critical points of the document suggest that it can also be viewed as another iteration of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) 1974 phased plan that declared a willingness to accept the establishment of a national authority in any part of historic Palestine as a step toward "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory":
First, the national accord advocates "the right of the refugees to return." By not specifying where the Palestinian refugees would return to... it is just as likely that signers of the accord favor (them) returning to Israel, the equivalent of advocating a one-state solution (which would include all of Israel in an Islamic State).
Second, the national accord does not condemn violence, but actually supports "concentrating resistance in the territories occupied in 1967."
The plan does not limit Palestinian claims, nor does it reject violence, either within pre-1967 Israel or elsewhere. While the media is currently drawing a great deal of attention to this plan based on Hamas' opposition to it, readers should point out to their local media that in reality, the plan breaks little new ground.
WHO WROTE THE PLAN
The Christian Science Monitor's description of the prisoners who wrote the plan as a ?moderate and influential force? is typical of the way the media has been treating them. In reality, they are among the most dangerous terrorists in Israeli jails. They have been convicted of crimes including financing, planning and engaging in terror activities that have left a trail of victims:
Don't let your local media whitewash this "plan." Let them know that you expect them to report what the plan actually says and who wrote it, not what some believe might be "implied."
If the "Palestinians" want a state, I say give them Massachusetts.
Perhaps we need a conference-docuement hammered out involving Israeli and non-Islamic prisoners held by the Islamists. Oh wait--there are no prisoners. Instead they are minus a head.
I thought they recognized Israel at Oslo. Now we are negotiating this all over again with multiple orgasms by the liberal press. Abbas, Arafat, Dahlan, and Barghoutti are all terrorist criminals who have killed Jews and not brought peace. What a freakin joke.
Exactly. The PLO exchanged letters with Israel, they agreed at Oslo, and they signed it on the White House lawn.
But neither Oslo or the letters expressly state that the PLO accepts Israel as a Jewish national state. Neither does this prisoners document.
This is just a reiteration of the Palestinians maximalist demands. They want Israel to completely withdraw all settlers and forces behind the old Green Line, and then negotiate. Stupid non-starter and of course, nothing new.
The only good thing about this is that it is creating internal Palestinian dialogue. It is, in part, an attempt by Abbas and the PLO to marginalize Hamas. It does not contain anything important to the Israelis, really, it is mostly for internal consumption and thus must contain nothing controversial. Abbas wants this to pass a referendum so he can claim a mandate to speak for the Palestinians. That is all that will come of this, if anything.
This is worth its weight in Gold in propaganda value.
Concurring with the author, the Media and World governments- including unfortunately the United States- will announce that again (the media will not say again, but), the "Palestinians" accept Israel. If Israel would only do a few things there would be Peace for All Time in the Mideast.
Ignored would be that those few things include Israel's suicide.
Israel will, of course, refuse. Israel will be the bad guy. Systematic blame, threats and boycotts of Israel will gather momentum.
I respectfully demur.
To wit, see the news of Javier Solana, the EU foreign minister, who visited Abbas with suggestions to amend the document before putting it to a vote.
Abbas refused, stating that it had momentum and he didn't want to lose the momentum. This is purely internal.
I think while the media may have jumped on it, and clearly misrepresented it, it's really nothing yet (remember the Geneva Accords?) until it is put to a vote and once it is passed by the Palestinians it will be scrutinized for what it is --- actually a step backwards from Oslo because at Oslo the PLO specifically renounced violenced (BS of course) but with this document it will be accepting violence again.
Lots of propaganda value for Israel in this document. It takes the mask of Oslo off the Palestinians once and for all.
The irony in our recent disagreements is that you know I hope your view ends up correct. So far I'm not optimistic.
On this issue, I believe that were Abbas' side to win, a vote for this agreement, there would be a Media and World Governments orgy of celebration of the "fact" that the true colors of the "Palestinians" is moderate after all. What is in the document would be ignored for the headline that the Arabs accept a two State solution and that Hamas is losing influence. All will look to Israel to do its part.
That you believe the Arabs will ever be scrutinized as to their real aims flies in the face of history and experience. Maybe about a hundred years after oil is no longer needed and anti Semitism has vanished from this planet.
Ya know, if you KILLED these terrorists rather than taking prisoners, you wouldn't have these problems...
Here you go. Lead editorial.
Surprisingly, they admit that it is BS, but yet, it becomes "a welcome step in the right direction".
Now suppose it passes. The next editorial will play down the lie of the plan and will argue that it's Israel turn to prove it wants peace. That will become the diplomatic understanding.
How does Israel reciprocate to a plan calling for its destruction?
Just as you state.
Israel says that that the document is unacceptable because:
a) it is a step backwards from Oslo as it calls for violence
b) it is not in accordance to the Road Map
c) It does not accept Israel as a Jewish state
d) there is no clear authority to enforce it even if it were acceptable
e) continue to list all the other objections
The only reason it is a "step in the right direction" is that it undermines Hamas. Unfortunately, that may mean a restoration of Fatah and resumption of aid that will go towards terror.