Before we blame the Palestinians by Hillel Schocken 11:44pm Wed Aug 20 '03 Israel must relate seriously to the road map and demonstrate this by stepped-up action to evacuate settlements; completely refrain from harming Palestinians - even if, in its estimation, they are "ticking bombs"; remove roadblocks and withdraw from all of Area A; and, above all, totally abstain from dictating to the Palestinians how to run their own affairs. print article In "All talk and no dialogue" (Haaretz, August 15), Ze'ev Schiff states that it's "clear that the truce does not in fact exist," and explains that the Palestinian government "is incapable of implementing the hudna," that Abu Mazen cannot "enforce" the agreement among the various Palestinian organizations, and that "the leading trio - Abu Mazen, Minister of State for Security Affairs Mohammed Dahlan, and Finance Minister Salam Fayyad - is incapable of enforcing the hudna even on the armed groups within its own movement, the Fatah." The cease-fire agreement that is of interest to Israel has three partners - Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the United States - as part of the road map. Has Israel met the conditions of the agreement? Is Sharon able to (or, really, does he want to) enforce the cease-fire on his army? The continuation of the Israeli policy of targeted assinations - isn't that "fire"? The duo in charge, Sharon and Mofaz - are they able to enforce the moratorium on construction in the settlements, as the road map requires? Do they even want to? And what about the "illegal outtposts, " a few of which were dismantled under the "revolving door" system so they could pop up again on some nearby hill? Schiff gives good marks to the Palestinian Authority for managing to seize hold of $3 million sent from Iran to Islamic Jihad and for reducing incitement. What good marks can be given to Israel? Has Israel met its obligations with its stingy release of prisoners, which wasn't even part of the cease-fire agreement and was intended, so Israeli leadership claims, to build trust between the sides and to strengthen Abu Mazen? Defining the Palestinian war of liberation as "terror" is incorrect, despite being widely accepted among us and in the United States. Terror, as distinguished from war, is when part of a group uses fear and violence to influence another part of the group. The din rodef (a rabbinic pronouncement of guilt) voiced by some of the Yesha (West Bank and Gaza) rabbis against the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was an act of terror successfully designed to force on the nation's leadership a political direction different than that chosen by a democratic authority. Blowing up the King David Hotel, on the other hand, was an act of war by a people seeking to liberate itself from a foreign regime and demanding self-determination. The demand that the Palestinian Authority "dismantle the infrastructure of terror" is ridiculous and designed to thwart any future agreement. How would the Va'ad Leumi [in pre-state Israel] have responded to a similar demand to dismantle the infrastructure of the [Jewish underground groups] Etzel, Lehi, and Palmah? We dismantled our "terrorist infrastructure" (an erroneous term here, as noted) only after we achieved our goal and established our state. Throughout the conflict, and at least since 1967, Israel has tried to manage the Palestinians and name a Palestinian leadership the country would find desirable. All such attempts failed in the past, and evidently will fail in the future. Israel can, and must, do a lot more than "one thing." Israel must relate seriously to the road map and demonstrate this by stepped-up action to evacuate settlements; completely refrain from harming Palestinians - even if, in its estimation, they are "ticking bombs"; remove roadblocks and withdraw from all of Area A; and, above all, totally abstain from dictating to the Palestinians how to run their own affairs. It would seem that there are only three ways for Israel to behave. One, enforced evacuation (transfer) of the Arabs from the territories, and after them Israeli Arabs, to nearby Arab countries. Two, agreement to a binational state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. Three, division of the land, based on the 1967 borders, into two states, evacuation of all the settlements, and surrendering the right of return for Jews to Hebron, Shiloh and Beit El, while unequivocally opposing the right of Palestinians to return to Jaffa, Lod and Ramle. The first way, although most Israelis seem to prefer it, will be met with vigorous international opposition the extent of which Israel will not be able to withstand. The second way is opposed by those who believe, as does this writer, that the Jewish people deserve a state of its own. The third way is the only possible one, whether with or without Palestinian agreement. The writer is an architect. www.haaretz.com add your comments Source file

does he think that would stop the murders by bender 12:54am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment ...the writer is an absoulute fool,where do these braindead jews come from?.why not just run up a white flag and give up. and put ourselves at the arabs mercy. i am sure they would save him and his famliy,or would they? add your comments

Consider the other option by K 2:41am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment Have Israel actually tried a just and fair solution to all this issues? NO! add your comments

Response by Dan 7:14am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment Israel offered to end the conflict at Camp David and Taba by making unbelievable concessions. Please read this article by Dennis Ross who shows you who wanted peace and who wanted death and destruction. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/168lewqp.asp add your comments

To Dan by K 9:41am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment Here we go, the famaous Camp David again. The one that is offering Palestian a bantustan state, divided by Israeli settlement, that forever will be dependant to Israel, the offer that cannot guarantee fair sovereignty over its territory and the one cannot guarantee security. Did I mention about no compensation for the land that was wrongfully taken from the Palestinian? add your comments

Camp David was peaceful negotiations by Ben 10:23am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment You may not like the offer Barak made at Camp David, but that is neither here nor there. The real issue is that Israel came to Camp David in good faith to make a final status agreement to end the occupation on peaceful terms. But the Palestinians not only rejected the offer, they failed to make any counteroffer, showing they never intended to make a deal with Israel. Two months later, they started a war that targeted civilians - committing hundreds of war crimes. Like the deal or not, the Palestinians turned to violence, and they haven't stopped. Under the circumstances, it is immoral for Israel to leave the territories, since every time they loosen their closures, Israeli civilians inside Israel get killed. When the Palestinians understand that violence cannot be a tool for negotiations, they will have a state. For now, if they can't control themselves, they don't deserve one. Indepenedence means responsibility. add your comments

Peaceful negotiation by K 10:44am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment I agree with you on the part that Camp David was a peaceful negotiation and it was silly on the Palestinian part not to make a counter offer. However, even if an agreement was reached at that time, I doubt if it can be implemented. As part of the election buy line, Sharon has already made a promise not to honour it. However, Palestian and Israel already has a signed treaty, i.e. Oslo. I never understand why it is not carried through. add your comments

the truth is known. by dmsa 11:15am Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment barak accelerated the peaceful building of settlements during his term. settlement construction entails removing the original tennants by force if they don't remove themselves. it is not indicative of an intention to achieve coexistance. add your comments

The main point of Oslo by Ben 12:01pm Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment The whole Oslo agreement is based on the land-for-peace formula. In other words, it is based on the idea that violence will no longer be used to solve the conflict, rather, it will be solved through peaceful negotiations. The Palestinians didn't get what they want so they turned to violence - in violation of the central tenent of Oslo. It can't be said that there was no peaceful option: Barak was offering more and more, and continued to offer more and more up until the week before he was tossed out of office. During the build-up to the war in Iraq, I heard peace protesters saying over and over that war is the last last last option, if its an option at all. That applies here too. The Palestinians were not "silly" to fail to make a counter-offer. Only a child would think in those terms. In reality, they never intended to make a peace deal and had already started planning for war. True peace workers would realize this. One cannot expect that there will ever be peace as long as the Palestinians believe that killing innocent people is a legitimate way to get what they want from Israel. That is the real issue here. add your comments

no revisionism over here' by mx 12:10pm Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment It can't be said that there was no peaceful option: Barak was offering more and more, while continuing to steal more and more up until the very day he was tossed out of office. add your comments

The real issue by John Veldhuis 12:22pm Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment "One cannot expect that there will ever be peace as long as the Palestinians believe that killing innocent people is a legitimate way to get what they want from Israel." One cannot expect that there will ever be peace as long as the Israeli's believe that killing innocent people is a legitimate way to keep the land they stole from the Palestinians. That is the real issue here. add your comments

that Israel came to Camp David in good faith by jackslucid 1:33pm Thu Aug 21 '03 [email protected] print comment ... stop now with the jokes already ... add your comments

To Jacklucid by Ben 1:46pm Thu Aug 21 '03 print comment It was Israel that came ready to make a deal, not the Palestinians. If you want jokes, why don't you review Arab peace moves over the years. The laughter will never stop. add your comments