April 15, 2004
CAN'T SEE THE FOREST IF TREES GET IN THE WAY:
Will the retreat vote hinge on understanding the roadmap? (Dr. Aaron Lerner, April 15, 2004, Israeli Insider)
A reading of the roadmap finds that a sovereign Palestinian state within the evacuated Gaza Strip may be a matter of photo opportunities away.While the roadmap does call for Palestinian security activity in both the first and second phases - with a sovereign state possible in the second phase, in truth the roadmap can be fulfilled by photo-ops since it requires that efforts "begin" and "move forward" but not that anything is actually accomplished.
It is noteworthy that the roadmap not only declines to provide for measurable standards of Palestinian security performance in either Phase I or Phase II, it gives the Quartet the exclusive right to determine if Palestinian activity is sufficient to warrant the formation of a sovereign state. Even if is grossly obvious that the Palestinians have failed to perform by any standard, the roadmap allows the Quartet to give the green light to a sovereign state since the Quartet is to judge the situation "taking into account performance of both parties." Thus the Quartet can even concede that the Palestinians haven't done much but then argue that "both parties have failed equally in their performance" and thus it is possible to progress to a sovereign state.
That's the Quartet - not the U.S.
The roadmap gives no special standing to the U.S. within the Quartet, so even if the U.S. is not satisfied with Palestinian performance this is no guarantee that the roadmap won't march on to a Palestinian state.
In sharp contrast to "final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel-Palestinian conflict" that "the Parties reach" - meaning the result of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the sovereign Palestinian state formed in Phase II is "through a process of Israeli-Palestinian engagement." The term "engagement" does not require negotiations. In fact, Sharon's retreat and the Palestinian take-over of control of evacuated areas could readily be construed as "a process of Israeli-Palestinian engagement."
To summarize: a retreat from the Gaza Strip that relies on the terms of reference of the roadmap creates conditions that allow the Quartet to decide to sanction the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state within evacuated areas - regardless of the actual performance of the Palestinians. Once this happens the key requirement of the Israeli security establishment - control of entry and exit via land air and sea from the Gaza Strip - will be beyond Israel's reach as Israel's blockade of a sovereign Gaza is challenged by various nations.
Will rank and file Likudnik see what some Israeli officials fail to fathom?
A sovereign Palestine is the point. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 15, 2004 10:12 AM
Actually, the point is, with such pressures weighted in their favor, why should the Palestinians accept anything less than the whole hog?
Especially when they see it as already theirs, and that taking it back is their moral right and sacred duty.
And if takes 2,000 years, so be it. (Bush won't be around forever.)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 15, 2004 10:42 AMSadly?
Merely a matter of opinion. There are many myriads who will exult; many others who will remain utterly apathetic.
Besides, theologically, if the reason there are no more Jews is because they've all converted, well doesn't that just mean that....? Anyway, Hosannas would certainly be in order. (Otherwise, what's a true believer going on about their disappearance?)
I would have thought that for a variety of reasons, the disappearance of the Jews would be the raison d'etre....
Bah. "Sovereign State"=="Invadable at any time once a single Kassam rocket launched from Gaza lands in Israel."
Posted by: Ptah at April 15, 2004 12:51 PMAnd that's precisely why they will refuse sovereignty (with the support of most of the rest of the world, viz. Europe's pious "only a mutually agreed-upon solution is acceptable," which is merely a scurrilously moral way of saying, "Let the savagery continue!", which it will, to be sure, with or without Europe's blessing, even if the millions of Euros flowing into PA coffers is quite useful).
The point, once again (with feeling), is not soveriegnty. They do not want sovereignty. Sovereignty endangers them by opening them up to further scrutiny, by justifying punishing counterattacks, by revealing them as the utter incompetents they are (at least where as far as civil govt. is concerned; they're quite accomplished at killing, and can be quite resourceful actually, as they comprise some of the brightest people in the Arab world, which does not always go down easily with their brother Arabs).
Besides, Israel wants them to have sovereignty; the US wants them to have sovereignty. And if your biggest (so-called) enemies want something for you, you'd have to be a fool to want it too. Thank you very much, no....
So the question is, can sovereignty be imposed on them?
Don't bet on it.
I mean, this all does have its comical side (You call it sovereignty; I call it stupidity?).
Alas it seems that not enough people have been killed. Not nearly enough. Sigh.
Of course they don't want sovereignty, that's why W & Sharon determined to force it on them.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 1:43 PMBarry:
At what point will Israel decide to kill herself, rather than Palestinians?
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 2:38 PMThat's precisely what Rantisi believes is Israel's weakness (along with the rest of the West): that Israel loves life more than death, while Hamas and its colleagues embrace death.
It's a fight to the finish, which should have been clear already several months into the intifada (i.e., early 2001). The Palestinians aren't going to give up and are daring Israel to kill them all. The alternative for Israel is getting tossed into the sea (not that any reputable news service would admit as such---I guess it's not sufficiently sophisticated).
Hence your question.
But the real reason, after all is said and done, that the Palestinians must reject their own sovereignty is that to by accepting it, they will be legitimizing Israeli sovereignty, Israel's right to exist. They will be accepting Israeli sovereignty by their actions (not mere words), by their decision to accept it for themselves.
And this they will never do. Can never do.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 16, 2004 9:39 AMIf America, England, and Israel recognize their independent statehood they have no choice--they are sovereign.
Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 9:43 AM