December 23, 2003
MONTHS, NOT YEARS:
Report: Palestinian state in 2004, no matter what (Jerusalem Newswire, December 22, 2003)
The Middle East News Line (MENL) reported Sunday Israel has acceded to a Bush administration demand that an interim Palestinian state be established in the entire Gaza Strip and most of Judea and Samaria during 2004.This state will come into being whether or not Palestinian terrorism continues and whether or not the Palestinian Authority cracks down on the terror groups, according to the MENL.
It is believed that the establishment of Palestine will have a powerfully positive effect on President George W. Bush's aspirations for re-election later in the year.
The US proposal for Israel to recognize an interim Palestinian state in the coming year was reportedly predicated on the Washington-sponsored Road Map plan, which calls for a de facto Palestinian state to be established in 2003, and its final borders to be determined by 2005.
But whereas the Road Map stipulated that there first be an end to terrorism and the disarming and dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure in the PA areas - something the PA simply refused to do - this new proposal apparently will award the Palestinians a state without demanding any Palestinian action.
The MENL report states that, "Sharon has accepted a US proposal for an interim Palestinian state in 2004 regardless of Palestinian Authority agreement to end the more than three-year-old war and dismantle Palestinian insurgency groups."
It's been disturbing this week to read folks who should have figured this out by now--Daniel Pipes, Zev Chafets, etc.--try to convince themselves that Sharon isn't serious. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 23, 2003 10:51 PM
The second paragraph you quoted should read:
"This state will come into being whether or not Palestinian terrorism continues, whether or not the Palestinian Authority cracks down on the terror group, and whether or not the PA wants that state to come into being."
Regarding the first two conditions, Palestinian terrorism will most cetainly continue and the PA will most certainly not crack down on it (actually, the PA will continue to help coordinating it); but these, as has been stated, are clearly not reasons for the enlightened to deny the Palestinians their state (and may even be reasons to encourage such a state's establishment).
However, the last condition---that the PA does not want that state to come into being---should be sufficient to squelch the project.
Certainly, if the US is for such a state, and if Israel acquiesces to it, no self-respecting Palestinian will be able to, in good faith, accept it, especially as compromise will be a necessary part of the package.
And one wouldn't want to create any additional reasons to cause Palestinian humiliation....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 24, 2003 3:30 AMThey can reject it from behind the Security Wall.
Really, isn't the objective to get Israel loose from the tarbaby of a failed state ? Who cares what the Palestinians do once they're on their own, short of developing WMD.
Judging solely by their actions, the UN, the EU, and the Arab street certainly don't care what happens to Palestine.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 24, 2003 5:50 AM"...short of developing WMD."
But that is precisely what is in the cards.
And if not exactly WMD, then an extensive battery of missiles, say, on the scale of Hizbullah's arsenal in South Lebanon, is on the menu. The possibilities are indeed limitless.
Making the wall an expensive white elephant (though it does help prevent access by suicide bombers!!), and leaving its supporters scrambling to figure out just what might be the next glorious defensive plan.
The idea being that Israel and the west will be so exasperated and desperate over the insolubility of "the problem" that they will be prepared to give the Palestinians, who seek only justice, whatever it is they want.
(Which is one way to respond to hysterics, in any event.)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 24, 2003 6:08 AMYes, yes, oj, we all know that.
Except that "choice" (at least in
this context) does not appear to
exist in their lexicon.
So that you may give it to them, but
it's immaterial.
It's not easy for us to grasp; but
keep it in mind next time you tell
your dog to fetch you your red
slippers instead of your blue ones.
Barry:
The problem is the Israelis have spent fifty years trying to teach the Palestinians to fetch, instead of putting them out of the house altogether.
Posted by: oj at December 24, 2003 10:21 AMA less than good example, I guess.
Besides, the Palestinians were "out of the house" (for the most part---at least as you mean it) between 1949 and 1967).
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 24, 2003 10:32 AMBarry:
But Oslo made statehood an inevitability, so get on with it
Posted by: oj at December 24, 2003 10:36 AMOnly if one understands Oslo as a Palestinian attempt to gain statehood.
I would have thought that events and words by Palestinian leaders in late 2000 and early 2001 (and since then---as well as various speeches made during the seven intervening Oslo years, when examined in retrospect) have since made such an understanding entirely untenable.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 24, 2003 11:05 AMThe only feasible alternative to statehood (or whatever kind of 'hood you want to call it) is Madagascar.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 25, 2003 6:30 PM