Skip to comments.Terms of Surrender (for Israel)
Posted on 02/17/2002 2:26:27 PM PST by LarryLied
The op-ed page of today's New York Times offers not one but two plans for an Israeli surrender. One is by Times columnist Thomas Friedman; the other is by Jerome M. Segal, "president of the Jewish Peace Lobby." Let's take them one at a time.
Mr. Friedman's plan is that "In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees."
The Saudi crown prince, Abdullah, seems open to this idea. But it's extremely unlikely that Israel would ever accept it, for the following reasons:
As Yitzhak Rabin, the peacemaking prime minister, said in Washington on October 25, 1995, "My Jerusalem is the focus of the Jewish people's yearnings, the city of its visions, the cradle of its prayers. It is the dream of the return to Zion. It is the name millions murmur, even on their death bed. It is the place where eyes are raised and prayers are uttered. . . . In Israel, we all agree on one issue: the wholeness of Jerusalem, the continuation of its existence as capital of the State of Israel. There are no two Jerusalems. There is only one Jerusalem. For us, Jerusalem is not subject to compromise, and there is no peace without Jerusalem. Jerusalem, which was destroyed eight times, where for years we had no access to the remnants of our Temple, was ours, is ours, and will be ours -- forever."
Why should the winning side surrender all the land it won? It's as if, 25 years after the Axis powers lost World War II, a columnist for the New York Times fetched up and suggested that France, Austria and Poland surrender to Axis sovereignty in exchange for the Axis powers granting full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees to America, Britain and the Soviet Union. What kind of peace plan involves the losing side getting all the territorial concessions?
Were Israel to have an ambassador hobnobbing with the thugs that surround Bashar Assad in Syria or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, what sort of message would that send to the brave souls fighting for freedom and democracy in those countries?
Israel supposedly has full diplomatic relations with Egypt and look at what it has brought Israel and the Egyptian people: a government-controlled press full of anti-Jewish blood libels, an Egyptian dictatorship that throws political opponents in prison, and an Egyptian army that is arming itself with the latest in North Korean missiles for use against Israel while the Egyptian population languishes in poverty.
As for trade, Israel's economy is so first-world that its natural trading partners are America, Japan and the European Union. The Arab states are so poor in comparison that a trade relationship wouldn't mean all that much to Israel. Mr. Friedman may have been wowed by the royal surroundings in Riyadh, but even the once-rich Gulf oil states have fallen on hard economic times.
The funniest of the carrots is the idea of security guarantees. The 22 Arab states are going to guarantee Israel's security against an attack by -- which country? Liechtenstein? First of all, these 22 Arab states haven't won a war yet, so any guarantees they make are not likely to make Israel feel very secure. But just as important, they are tyrannies, with a long history of double-crossing and of the rejection of Israel's right to exist, and with a need to distract their own citizens from the fact that they are living in oppressive tyrannies.
Why would a "security guarantee" from these guys be worth any more than the paper it is written on -- or than the paper that Yasser Arafat wrote his worthless security guarantees to Israel on back in 1993?
Particularly rich is the news article that the Times writes about its own op-ed piece. The article runs under the headline "Arab Experts Fault Saudi's Idea Based on Land-for-Peace Trade."
The article contains only Arab reaction to the Friedman-Abdullah plan; not a single Israeli reaction is included. The Times news article summarizes the plan as "declaring that if Israel withdrew from all the occupied territories, including the Arab quarters of Jerusalem, then the Arab states would offer full normalization of relations."
But, as described in the op-ed column, the Friedman-Abdullah plan involves Israeli withdrawal not only from "the Arab quarters of Jerusalem" but to the June 4, 1967 borders -- in other words, withdrawal from the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Mount of Olives cemetery, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. The Times news department may consider these places "the Arab quarters of Jerusalem." But they are not.
Mr. Segal's peace plan is just as bad. It proposes that the United Nations establish and recognize a state of Palestine in all of Gaza and in land that amounts to 100 percent of the land in the West Bank. In return, the Palestinian Arabs must recognize Israel, import no weapons, agree not to enter into any treaty with a country not at peace with Israel, and disarm terrorist groups.
Mr. Segal writes, "It is quite possible, of course, that the P.L.O. would refuse to meet the conditions necessary to get the process started. That would leave us where we are today, with one great difference: The onus for the continued occupation would fall squarely on the P.L.O." Mr. Segal is trying to sell the same camel twice.
The conditions that he sets for the Palestinian Arabs are the same ones that were set in the 1993 Oslo accords and in all the subsequent agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Agreement. The PLO has refused to meet those conditions. And now most everyone except for the likes of Mr. Segal realizes that the onus for the continued occupation falls squarely on the PLO. Mr. Segal does not explain why he thinks the Oslo approach will succeed under U.N. auspices when it has failed repeatedly under American auspices. There are other problems with the plan -- the "Auschwitz borders," issue, for instance, applies here the same way as it does in the Friedman-Abdullah plan.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Alan Keyes agrees completely with the conclusions drawn by this piece.
Just something for you to think about.
My guess is they would liikely recommend the same solution as for the rest of the "settlements"--Juden 'raus!
Why did Jordan use the Paki Air Force to drive out the Palestinians from Jordan?
This is a part of human nature - nobody cares about any commitment not supported by the use of force.
"Why did Jordan use the Paki Air Force to drive out the Palestinians from Jordan?"
Because they could.
1. Annex the Gaza Strip to Egypt.
2. Transfer Jews from the Gaza Strip to Israel or America (their choice)
3. Annex the West Bank to Israel
4. Transfer Palestinians from the West Bank to Egypt or Jordan (their choice)
5. Shoot Thomas Friedman dead
Why is it so impossible? For one, Jerusalem is 80% Jewish. Why on earth should a city that is 80% Jewish (and 100% Israeli) assent to being turned over to the eventual Palestinian state? Second, splitting the city would destroy it's character, charm, and economic vibrancy. Third, even the so-called "Arab East Jerusalem" is 45% Jewish, and maybe not even 30% Palestinian. Why would or should a minority group comprising only 30% of only a small part of the city be granted sovereignty over it?
Moreover, it has been reported numerous times that there is major disagreement even within this 30% Palestinian population of the city being handed over to the PA. It's questionable if even a majority of this 30% minority group would be willing to surrender their Israeli passports, Israeli standards of living, Israeli freedoms of speech and due process for that of Arafat's PA. (It's not really that questionable.. you already know the answer. They might be angry, hurt, dismayed... but they are no fools!). In short, it would be an enormous atrocity for outsiders to dictate the terms of the settlement. It would be the equivalent of repeating what the Palestinians claim happened to them, by either forcing the residents to abandon their citizenships or their homes on the demands of foreigners.
I don't think it's workable at all. The saddest part of all is that only the Israelis are being asked to make such a sacrifice. Why aren't the Palestinians and Arabs being told to forget about Jerusalem, that they have no claim and no chance to get it. At the very least, the residents of "Arab east Jerusalem" should be allowed to have a referendum. Do you want to become part of Palestine, or do you want to remain under Israeli control? 45% of the vote is already a lock for the Israeli side. You would need near 100% unanimity among the remaining 55% to throw the vote to the PA side. By any standard, any way you look at it, Jerusalem should remain undivided and Israeli. Only meddlesome liberal fools who beleive in the inherent good nature of men like Arafat would make such a sacrifice in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and against the wishes of the people such a decision would effect. Friedman is just another of the many blathering Chamberlainesque fools who have a public voice in this ongoing struggle.
What is it with the New York Times pushing this stuff? Makes as much sense as the NRA coming out for banning handguns or the National Review calling for tax hikes.
Once again, I'm thankful a Republican or Christian conservative did not write this stuff. The New York Times would have savaged him or her.
I am surprised that they let William Safire stay around.
For the same reason they printed Yasser Arafat's ghost-written op-ed without allowing anyone from the Israeli government to have the opportunity--if it was even offered (which I doubt)--to either respond or write an op-ed on the same day for balance. Their leftist bias is omnipresent.
(June 29, 1967 declassified: June 1979)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (JCSM-373-67)
Subject: Middle East Boundaries
Reference is made to your memorandum, dated 19 June 1967, subjects as above, which requested the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without regard to political factors, on the minimum territory, in addition to that held on 4 June 1967, Israel might be justified in retaining in order to permit a more effective defense against possible conventional Arab attack and terrorist raids. [emphasis added]
From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders. [emphasis added] Determination of territory to be retained should be based on accepted tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles, elimination of enemy-held salients, and provision of defense in-depth for important facilities and installations. More detailed discussions of the key border areas mentioned in the reference are contained in the Appendix hereto. In summary, the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding these areas are as follows:
a. The Jordanian West Bank. Control of the prominent high ground running north-south through the middle of West Jordan generally east of the main north-south highway along the axis Jennin-Nablus-Bira-Jerusalem and then southeast to a junction with the Dead Sea at the Wadi el Daraja would provide Israel with a militarily defensible border. The envisioned defensive line would run just east of Jerusalem....
It should have been dont 30 years ago, but it would still work today.
The Times could have, however, prevented Americans from supporting communism and perhaps saved some lives had they not covered up the murder of 7 million in the Ukraine.
Bad me, thinking common sensen!
Then and only then will Israel have peace. Of course the world will be shocked that the Jews took the same solution that all the Arab states have already used on the Palestinians, (it takes one to know one)and then invade, but that is the next chapter in the book.
Just an added point, make the whole "palestine" and "syrian golan" demilitiarised zones or have UN (US) toops peace keeping there.
The land isn't fully israel's either, if it was israel would have annexed it, wouldn't it?
Sadly, it does not appear that they are at all inclined to want peace in the forseeable future.
Promises and treatys from Islamic nations should all be printed on toilet paper so that they have some use and value. They will promise anything that will make you give them something for the promise. Then they kill you. If you keep giving them things till you run out, then they kill you. If you do nothing but give them things till they no longer fear you then they kill you. What have we ever done to the Arabs but give them Billions in aid, and buy trillions in oil? Oh, yeah, we built them some towers to practice on, then they killed us.
Tell me AussieLeftie, how is things in Ozzyland with the "asian" (arab) youth's sexual tastes? Had enough gang rape? Perhaps you can give them a little corner of Australia to set up shop and they can promise you normalized relations and trade practices! Come on, quit stopping the pooor moslem immigrants on the ships and let them set up a nice little Jihad for entertainment. Stop the anti Moslem Aparthied in Ozzyland! The only reason they are raping your women is they are oppressed and poor, give them money! That reminds me, when you gonna give the occupied territories back to the abborgines?
Thats living in the past, besides Israel has nukes, and unlike the USA, israel has an atitude and a record of winning wars. Its the strongest country militarily and economically in the region. There is no way it could ever come close to coming close to loosing a war. I think peace would be better there, it is such a nice country, and were it not for the sate of ware in the region it would be the nicest country in the world.
'Promises and treatys from Islamic nations should all be printed on toilet paper so that they have some use and value. They will promise anything that will make you give them something for the promise. Then they kill you. If you keep giving them things till you run out, then they kill you. If you do nothing but give them things till they no longer fear you then they kill you. What have we ever done to the Arabs but give them Billions in aid, and buy trillions in oil? Oh, yeah, we built them some towers to practice on, then they killed us.'
thats not quite true, thats generalizing. Not worth a responce even.
'Tell me AussieLeftie, how is things in Ozzyland with the "asian" (arab) youth's sexual tastes? Had enough gang rape? Perhaps you can give them a little corner of Australia to set up shop and they can promise you normalized relations and trade practices! Come on, quit stopping the pooor moslem immigrants on the ships and let them set up a nice little Jihad for entertainment. Stop the anti Moslem Aparthied in Ozzyland! The only reason they are raping your women is they are oppressed and poor, give them money! That reminds me, when you gonna give the occupied territories back to the abborgines?'
mate you don't know shite about my country if you think that that's the way it is. The gang rapists are a minority, and what is at fault is really our soft touch justice system. Apart from a few bad eggs the rest are just good Australians. Your whole rhetoric is pathetic. True there is a problem with the illegal arrivals, but we're dealing with it (much better then you deal with your illegals from mexico). And we have a process of reconciliation and a program of native title for the aborigines (some of whom are actually converting to islam).
I was just saying, that the peace plan presented is the most realistic and acceptable peace plan. And that the palestinians have as much right to a state of thier own as the israelis, and as a final point israel shouldn't be above UN resolutions.
Besides you have to remember that close to a quarter of israel's population is arab, and most of that being muslim arab. Peace between the people is possible, its not a silly stoned hippy pipedream.