Israel May Very Well Be In For a Rough Ride eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Having had the privilege to participate via C-SPAN in Meetings such as the Council of Foreign Relations, The UN Security Council and continuous meetings in the White House with President Bush, the fact that the Clinton Era is over is very obvious. This change in leadership style in both the U.S. and Israel will have major effects on Israel and the PA. The CFR meeting held little hope becasue there was a decided lack of attraction to solve the Mideast problems. Their answer to this question from the audience was that the problem is not solvable. The United Nations is not particularly fond of Israel either because their impression is that Israel is uncooperative. Then there is President Bush. His attitude is that countries have leaders who are capable of solving their own problems. He has no desire to personally get involved in peace processes of any kind. In a recent press conference a question was posed to him about the civil war between Ireland and England, he said that they need to deal with that peace process overthere. He shows no interest in that area regardless of where in the world the problems are.
ISRAEL NEWS DIGEST - David Dolan - 24 Jan 2001 - Many Israelis breathed a colossal sigh of relief at 12:00 noon on Saturday, January 20 as former U.S. President Bill Clinton stepped down from his position as president and Middle East peacemaker, without clinching that final deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But relief was short-lived.. Oddly enough, probably a majority of Israelis were sad to see the departure of the man whom they regarded as the "best friend" the country had ever had in the White House.. However, because of his strong interest in the country he was able to encourage the Jewish nation to turn over some 40 percent of her Biblical inheritance to the control of arch terrorist PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, convince Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak that dividing Jerusalem would bring peace and leave the country strategically weakened, fighting a "low-intensity" war, in a position of weakness that many say is worse than in 1948.
Among Clinton’s broken pledges to Israel, was that of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 1995, Congress enacted the Jerusalem Embassy Act requiring the U.S. Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem by spring 1998. Clinton successfully bypassed the law by signing special security waivers every six months to delay the move. He also failed to come through with $800 million pledged to Israel before it left Lebanon last May.
Clinton, who worked with four Israeli prime ministers ­ Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu and Barak ­ and came to power before there was a Palestinian Authority, offered separate farewells to Israelis and Palestinians, published in their respective newspapers, the day before he left office. He encouraged them both not to waiver in their quest for peace, which he said they were closer than ever before to achieving. The overriding message was that the ONLY option for the sides was sooner or later to agree to a peace deal along the lines of the Oslo Accords.
The former president told Israelis that of all the problems he had dealt with during his eight years in office, none had meant more to him "than the future of your region and of your country. The violence does not demonstrate that the quest for peace has gone too far ­ but that it has not gone far enough," Clinton said. Whenever Israel and her Arab neighbors made peace, he said, the issues would be the same and that compromise is "often difficult and always painful."..
A DIFFERENT POLICY U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are expected to pursue a different Middle East policy, with far less concentration on Israeli-Arab relations. Exactly what that will mean for Israel is unclear but it is certain that Bush will not be as personally involved in negotiations as Clinton was. The new administration is likely to focus more on the broader Middle East picture and view Israel as America’s strategic ally, which could be very good for Israel.
BILL’S LEGACY However the specter of Oslo remains. What may turn out to be Clinton’s parting "legacy" is a set of proposals he placed on the table a month before he left office. In a last-ditch attempt to broker a deal or at least a framework agreement, he laid out a plan that he believed would bridge the remaining chasms and lead to a final Israeli-Palestinian peace pact. Among those proposals was the demand that Israel cede sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the PA as well as hand over eastern Jerusalem and more than 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and the entire Gaza Strip. In exchange the Palestinians would agree to give up the right of return for some four million so-called refugees and their descendants.
Israel reluctantly accepted those proposals as a basis for future negotiations with the Palestinians. Arafat delayed his response to the proposals for 10 days. Although Clinton said that both sides had accepted them, the Palestinians actually had submitted some two dozen reservations, which effectively indicated a "no" to the proposals. Several PA officials also rejected the ideas out of hand, refusing to give up the "right of return" and demanding more details and maps.
Clinton and his peace team said those ideas would leave the White House with him, but they must have known that once the proposals were on the table they would not be retractable. Despite their reservations both Israel and the PA adopted the plan as a starting point for further negotiations, which once again had the effect of extracting concessions from Israel prior to the bargaining.
Later, Israel agreed to Arafat’s suggestion that the two sides meet for 10 days of intensive negotiations in Taba, Egypt, to be overseen by none other than Oslo architect Shimon Peres. Arafat suggested the sides return to the Red Sea resort because of what had been achieved there previously with Yitzhak Rabin and Peres. The two sides met in Taba for marathon talks in 1995, which resulted in an interim accord..
Opposition Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon, has already said that he will not honor any more agreements reached between Barak and the Palestinians...
PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE TO JERUSALEM As Barak moved to divide Jerusalem, at least 250,000 Israelis from all over the country and Jews from around the world gathered at a rally in Jerusalem to declare their support for a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Much of American Jewry, which normally supports the Israeli government’s policies no matter what they are, voiced the opinion that Barak had gone too far.. "While our leaders need to make hard decisions and even sacrifices for peace, we cannot cut out our heart in the name of peace. If we do, we are likely to lose our soul in the process," was said.
Just hours before the rally, the Mufti of Jerusalem issued a fatwa (religious edict) declaring that the entire Temple Mount, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, belonged to the Wakf (Islamic religious authorities). Included in that, he said was the Western Wall and the entire surrounding plaza. The Wakf has also continued to excavate under the Temple Mount, reportedly in an area where there are ruins from the second Temple period.
In separate incidents, a fanatic American tourist threw red paint on the Western Wall, to symbolize Palestinian blood...
PEACE AND ELECTIONEERING If there was ever a one-issue election campaign, this is it. Israeli campaign ads, shown each evening in a 20-25 minute bloc of prime time television, have focused almost entirely on peace and security ­ understandably paramount on Israelis’ minds at this time.
Barak let voters know exactly what was ahead.. he said, in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, whether now or in the future after another war, Israel would have to cede more than 90 percent of Judea and Samaria but 80 percent of settlers would stay under Israeli sovereignty. Israel, he pledged, would never agree to the right of return for some four million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. "I don’t intend to sign on any agreement that will give sovereignty of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians The Western Wall, the Jewish quarter and the Mount of Olives will be under our sovereignty forever."
Many remember Barak’s pledge less than two years ago, never to divide the city at all. The fact that he didn’t mention eastern Jerusalem indicated that it would be turned over to the Palestinians.
Sharon, who has been presented by Barak to the public as warmonger, has refused to chant the Clinton-Barak mantra that the direction of the current diplomatic process and the proposed concessions are the ONLY path to peace, whether it’s now or later. Barak has continually warned the people that a massive war will occur if Israel does not make the concessions that the Palestinians are demanding.
Sharon has spelled out a more conservative plan, which he promises will bring about peace and security, but of course has no way of knowing whether or not that will be the case. His approach, at least verbally, is very different from Barak’s: no division of Jerusalem, no evacuation of settlements (but no new ones either), no giving up the Jordan Valley and no giving away sovereign Israeli territory in the Negev desert, which Barak has proposed in exchange for the right to
annex Israeli settlement blocs. Sharon would say, "Yes" to a Palestinian state, but only on 40 percent of Judea and Samaria as opposed to more than 90 percent.Sharon, a former major general, is having some trouble living the legacy of Lebanon. He was defense minister in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon, which led to its 18-year guerrilla war there. He is also hated in the Arab world for what it sees as his complicity in the massacres of Muslim Palestinians at the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla by Christian Phalanges militiamen, allied with Israel. But some analysts believe that his "hawkish" image may act as a deterrent factor in the Middle East. "Look at how Arafat treats [Barak]," one analyst said. "He told him to ‘go to h____.’ I doubt he ’d do that to Sharon." When Arafat met Sharon at Wye, he added, the Palestinian leader saluted Sharon, who wouldn’t even shake his hand..
WAR CRIMES OR A ‘PRO-ACTIVE’ POLICY Fatah pledged again and again to continue its bloody uprising until the PA gets what it wants and it seems to have public support for that position. In a recent survey, a full 70 percent of Palestinians polled said they believed that the uprising should continue. Some 66 percent said that they believed suicide bombings are appropriate...
PA officials charged that Barak and other officials should be charged with war crimes and tried in an international tribunal for this policy which they described as an "assassination policy." The PA has accused Israel of killing at least 12 and as many as 30 militant Palestinian leaders. PA spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi said that the PA is "collecting data, collecting the evidence [and] documenting what is happening" as part of its campaign, and will coordinate its activities with Arab States and the United Nations..
EXECUTING COLLABORATORS Nevertheless, the PA blamed Israel’s "pro-active" policy for forcing it to execute so-called Palestinian collaborators. Two Palestinian men were executed before a firing squad, accused of passing information on to Israel that led to the slaying of top Palestinian militants.
The men, blindfolded and bound, were shot before a cheering crowd after being tried by security courts, without defense or a chance to appeal the verdict. Forbidden in the Oslo Accords, the executions marked the first time that alleged traitors were officially executed by the PA..
According to an Israeli report, there is a list of some 20,000 so-called "collaborators." Allegedly, among those on the list are dissidents who oppose Arafat, human rights activists and journalists..
Two more Palestinians were killed in gangland style murders, following the executions, allegedly for collaborating.. Arafat has refused to take action against allegations of widespread corruption at the highest levels in the PA. Mikki, a close associate of Arafat’s, was rumored to have embezzled millions of dollars. His killing was seen as a warning to those in Arafat’s inner circle who are involved in corrupt activities.
More than that, there is a growing concern that Arafat may be losing control over the street. Ten years ago during the first intifada most Palestinians didn’t have guns. Today, most are armed and more apt to use their weapons to take personal revenge or take the law into their own hands.
Israel may very well be in for a rough ride in the coming weeks and months. But one thing is certain, no matter from which direction opposition comes or in what form, the plans of God for her will prevail over the plans of man.
BACK