Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised the Israeli public that there would be no negotiations with the Palestinians under fire. This promise was one of the reasons for Mr. Sharon?s victory. His declaration was clear and to the point. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are shooting at us; and, at the same time, our representatives are sitting down with them at the negotiating table. We cannot allow this absurd scenario to continue. This is something which everyone, including the Americans, understand.
Talking is negotiating
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres went on a conciliatory trip to Amman, Cairo and Washington. Mr. Peres is the former leader of the "peace coalition" and current leader of the dovish Labor party. Despite the Left?s crushing defeat in the February elections and Arafat?s reneging on all his agreements, Peres is still incessantly seeking inapplicable agreements. The official Government communiqu? explains that he traveled to these capitals to discuss stopping the violence, but it was universally understood by Arafat, the world media, and the Israelis that he went to negotiate. The inane excuse that Peres went to discuss a cease-fire was not accepted by anyone. Peres? journey and his meetings with the leaders of these countries are negotiations according to any definition of the word. It?s true that these talks have been conducted through a third party -- Egypt or Jordan -- and not directly with the Palestinian Authority. Even so, these are diplomatic negotiations, despite the promises made to the people of Israel. These talks make the Government seem unreliable.
Egypt and Jordan are not impartial brokers
Egypt and Jordan have recalled their ambassadors and are maintaining low level diplomatic ties with Israel. Why should we respond to these countries' diplomatic initiatives? Are they objective and fair? Is Egypt?s relationship with Israel such that would justify further concessions on Israel?s part? President Mubarak has refused to visit this country (besides a brief appearance for Yitzchak Rabin?s funeral). Egyptian Ambassador to Israel, Muhammad Basionni, was recalled. The Palestinians are smuggling huge amounts of weaponry into Gaza through the Egyptian border, and the Egyptian security forces are not preventing these illegal and dangerous activities.
U.S. shouldn?t take guiding role
The Bush Administration has toned down the U.S?s involvement in the Middle East. The White House is now unwilling to host Arafat. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres isl urging the U.S. to resume a guiding role in the Mid-East peace process, a role that is definitely to our disadvantage. As middlemen, they will have to pacify both sides, to strive for a balanced perspective, and to give a little to each side. Why do we need their interference again? Foreign Minister Shimon Peres must have some kind of answer to that question.
Concessions viewed as weakness
On the same day Israel announced Peres? trip, the Fatah terror organization admitted that it was responsible for launching rockets towards the Jewish settlements in Gush Katif. The leader of that organization is none other than Arafat, who is also the head of the PLO and of the Palestinian Authority. In other words, we are now holding negotiations, through third parties, with the same organization that is firing missiles on Jews. Is this not negotiating under fire? In addition, there have been concessions in the government policy of maintaining roadblocks around large Arab population centers. The government justifies this dangerous move by explaining that it is necessary to differentiate between terrorists and innocent civilian populations. Arabs mistakenly interpret this policy as weakness. In the cafes of Gaza and in the homes of Ramallah, revelers are ridiculing our lily-livered leaders and postulating that it is imperative to continue pressuring the Jews, because the Arabs believe that violence is the only language Israelis understand.
Those who are familiar with Arafat know that he would never implement a cease-fire as the result of an agreement. He always was - and will continue to be - a terrorist who thirsts for our blood. There may be short breaks between periods of violence -- but they are unfortunately incidental. A total cease-fire can only be achieved through decisive military means.
Talking is negotiating
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres went on a conciliatory trip to Amman, Cairo and Washington. Mr. Peres is the former leader of the "peace coalition" and current leader of the dovish Labor party. Despite the Left?s crushing defeat in the February elections and Arafat?s reneging on all his agreements, Peres is still incessantly seeking inapplicable agreements. The official Government communiqu? explains that he traveled to these capitals to discuss stopping the violence, but it was universally understood by Arafat, the world media, and the Israelis that he went to negotiate. The inane excuse that Peres went to discuss a cease-fire was not accepted by anyone. Peres? journey and his meetings with the leaders of these countries are negotiations according to any definition of the word. It?s true that these talks have been conducted through a third party -- Egypt or Jordan -- and not directly with the Palestinian Authority. Even so, these are diplomatic negotiations, despite the promises made to the people of Israel. These talks make the Government seem unreliable.
Egypt and Jordan are not impartial brokers
Egypt and Jordan have recalled their ambassadors and are maintaining low level diplomatic ties with Israel. Why should we respond to these countries' diplomatic initiatives? Are they objective and fair? Is Egypt?s relationship with Israel such that would justify further concessions on Israel?s part? President Mubarak has refused to visit this country (besides a brief appearance for Yitzchak Rabin?s funeral). Egyptian Ambassador to Israel, Muhammad Basionni, was recalled. The Palestinians are smuggling huge amounts of weaponry into Gaza through the Egyptian border, and the Egyptian security forces are not preventing these illegal and dangerous activities.
U.S. shouldn?t take guiding role
The Bush Administration has toned down the U.S?s involvement in the Middle East. The White House is now unwilling to host Arafat. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres isl urging the U.S. to resume a guiding role in the Mid-East peace process, a role that is definitely to our disadvantage. As middlemen, they will have to pacify both sides, to strive for a balanced perspective, and to give a little to each side. Why do we need their interference again? Foreign Minister Shimon Peres must have some kind of answer to that question.
Concessions viewed as weakness
On the same day Israel announced Peres? trip, the Fatah terror organization admitted that it was responsible for launching rockets towards the Jewish settlements in Gush Katif. The leader of that organization is none other than Arafat, who is also the head of the PLO and of the Palestinian Authority. In other words, we are now holding negotiations, through third parties, with the same organization that is firing missiles on Jews. Is this not negotiating under fire? In addition, there have been concessions in the government policy of maintaining roadblocks around large Arab population centers. The government justifies this dangerous move by explaining that it is necessary to differentiate between terrorists and innocent civilian populations. Arabs mistakenly interpret this policy as weakness. In the cafes of Gaza and in the homes of Ramallah, revelers are ridiculing our lily-livered leaders and postulating that it is imperative to continue pressuring the Jews, because the Arabs believe that violence is the only language Israelis understand.
Those who are familiar with Arafat know that he would never implement a cease-fire as the result of an agreement. He always was - and will continue to be - a terrorist who thirsts for our blood. There may be short breaks between periods of violence -- but they are unfortunately incidental. A total cease-fire can only be achieved through decisive military means.