While the fever for solving the Middle East crisis is still on vogue, new and old peace processes come and go. The extinct old process, known as the ?Roadmap,? sponsored by the dysfunctional quartet led by the U.S., is trying to revive itself from the ashes. Nevertheless, the new ?unofficial? peace process, known as the ?Geneva Accord,? is stealing the limelight, but despite much publicity, is more idealistic than a realistic process. What is the future of Israelis and Arab-Palestinians?
The problem of past peace processes, including the failed 2000 Camp David negotiations, the Roadmap, and the Geneva Accord, stems from the lack of realistic measures for eradicating effectively the ongoing terrorism, which appears to have a green light from the Palestinian Authority. The PA is, in turn, none other than the former terrorist group known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization, led by the same leader, Yasser Arafat.
The emergence of the Geneva Accord shows one thing: Despite its idealistic approach, it demonstrated that the Roadmap was not the only solution to solve the crisis. However, the realistic point is that good intentions are not enough. Everyone has an idea on how to solve the crisis. Yet, Yossi Beilin, one of the leaders of the Geneva Accord, is not even part of the Israeli government. So, who appointed him? Furthermore, neither the Israeli government, nor Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has endorsed the plan. In other words, all argumentation are just empty words; blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, the Israeli government has given a deadline to Arab-Palestinians to implement the Roadmap and stop the violence, or else. In other words, an ultimatum has been given. Does this mean that Israel can take a unilateral decision in case the violence still goes on? Yes and no. The decision will depend on how much Israel feels it is backed by its main ally, the U.S.A.
Israel, alone, at least in theory, cannot take a unilateral decision of that dimension, because it will be risking losing the support of the U.S. Simply, if taking a unilateral decision, Israel will be challenging the U.S. This is in case Washington decides to continue with the idea of the two states living peacefully side by side, despite open statements from terrorist groups aiming to destroy Israel as a state.
On the other hand, the U.S. is not so clear about its position. On one hand, it supports Israel, and on the other hand, appears to have restrictions. The fact is that the U.S. will not welcome new confrontations between Israelis and Arab-Palestinians. A unilateral approach by Israel will only complicate U.S. policy in the Middle East, because it will create tensions within the Arab world. Besides, it will appear to be an imposed measure.
So far, according to the White House spokesperson Scott McClellan, the U.S. opposes any unilateral decisions that ?block the road towards negotiations under the Roadmap that leads to the two-state vision.? The turning point for U.S. policy in the Middle East will be if terrorism continues to increase in Israel. That will only help PM Sharon and his unilateralist position. Then, the Bush administration will have to weigh whether the concept of the ?two-state vision? is viable or not. In the end, the losers will be the Arab-Palestinians. The practice of terrorism cannot be rewarded. Period.
Why is this an ultimatum? It is an ultimatum because Israeli PM Ariel Sharon believes in making a unilateral separation from the Arab-Palestinians if they fail to stop the violence. Either Arab-Palestinians negotiate now, or face a unilateral decision and the possibility of killing the dream of a Palestinian State.
Yet the atmosphere is not easy. Reportedly, most Israelis from the Left and the Right support the unilateral approach. The problem is that some settlers do not agree with this approach and consider it a betrayal. However, settlements per-se will never lead to peace, as long as Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank) and Gaza continue to be seen as occupied territories and not as disputed lands. Moreover, neither the Palestinian Authority, nor the terrorist groups of Hamas and Islamic Jihad consider it realistic. Let us remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad openly call for the destruction of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority uses maps of a future state with no Israel in sight.
Here, again, the Arab-Palestinians sooner or later have to come to terms and swallow the hard truth that they are not the only people living in the region. The settlers and the Arab-Palestinians in general have to realize that the only road (no map) to peace is to swallow their own pride and recognize that they have to work together, and without the Arab-Palestinian policy of terrorism. Until this is accomplished, no peace can ever result.
Ironically, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei is disappointed with Sharon, because he considers him a threat. Qurei says, ?We are committed to the Roadmap.? However, if they are committed to the Roadmap, then why are homicide bombings still going on and terrorist infrastructures not being destroyed? Isn't that total hypocrisy? Let us remember that Phase I of the Roadmap calls for an immediate stopping of the violence. That has not happened, but instead, it has increased. So, who is fooling whom?
Then what can Israelis do if terrorist acts continue? Do they have to endure the suffering and killing of innocent civilians? What about the innocent Arab-Palestinians who do not agree with the policy of homicide bombings? Unfortunately, they have to remain silent, for fear of being punished by the Palestinian Authority and other terrorist groups. Still, sitting somewhere in Congress is the so-called ?Arafat Accountability Act? that calls to punish Arafat for supporting terrorism.
The bottom line, and perhaps the only solution to stop the violence, is to effectively eradicate the infrastructure of terrorist groups, including the immediate renovation of the Palestinian Authority. Otherwise, the world is fooling itself with the Roadmap, the Geneva Accord, and future peace processes. Guts is what it takes to condemn and hold accountable the ones responsible for terrorism. Lastly, does the future of Israelis and Arab-Palestinians rely on the U.S.? Well, the answer is complicated, and I will leave it open for you, the reader. What do you think?
The problem of past peace processes, including the failed 2000 Camp David negotiations, the Roadmap, and the Geneva Accord, stems from the lack of realistic measures for eradicating effectively the ongoing terrorism, which appears to have a green light from the Palestinian Authority. The PA is, in turn, none other than the former terrorist group known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization, led by the same leader, Yasser Arafat.
The emergence of the Geneva Accord shows one thing: Despite its idealistic approach, it demonstrated that the Roadmap was not the only solution to solve the crisis. However, the realistic point is that good intentions are not enough. Everyone has an idea on how to solve the crisis. Yet, Yossi Beilin, one of the leaders of the Geneva Accord, is not even part of the Israeli government. So, who appointed him? Furthermore, neither the Israeli government, nor Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has endorsed the plan. In other words, all argumentation are just empty words; blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, the Israeli government has given a deadline to Arab-Palestinians to implement the Roadmap and stop the violence, or else. In other words, an ultimatum has been given. Does this mean that Israel can take a unilateral decision in case the violence still goes on? Yes and no. The decision will depend on how much Israel feels it is backed by its main ally, the U.S.A.
Israel, alone, at least in theory, cannot take a unilateral decision of that dimension, because it will be risking losing the support of the U.S. Simply, if taking a unilateral decision, Israel will be challenging the U.S. This is in case Washington decides to continue with the idea of the two states living peacefully side by side, despite open statements from terrorist groups aiming to destroy Israel as a state.
On the other hand, the U.S. is not so clear about its position. On one hand, it supports Israel, and on the other hand, appears to have restrictions. The fact is that the U.S. will not welcome new confrontations between Israelis and Arab-Palestinians. A unilateral approach by Israel will only complicate U.S. policy in the Middle East, because it will create tensions within the Arab world. Besides, it will appear to be an imposed measure.
So far, according to the White House spokesperson Scott McClellan, the U.S. opposes any unilateral decisions that ?block the road towards negotiations under the Roadmap that leads to the two-state vision.? The turning point for U.S. policy in the Middle East will be if terrorism continues to increase in Israel. That will only help PM Sharon and his unilateralist position. Then, the Bush administration will have to weigh whether the concept of the ?two-state vision? is viable or not. In the end, the losers will be the Arab-Palestinians. The practice of terrorism cannot be rewarded. Period.
Why is this an ultimatum? It is an ultimatum because Israeli PM Ariel Sharon believes in making a unilateral separation from the Arab-Palestinians if they fail to stop the violence. Either Arab-Palestinians negotiate now, or face a unilateral decision and the possibility of killing the dream of a Palestinian State.
Yet the atmosphere is not easy. Reportedly, most Israelis from the Left and the Right support the unilateral approach. The problem is that some settlers do not agree with this approach and consider it a betrayal. However, settlements per-se will never lead to peace, as long as Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank) and Gaza continue to be seen as occupied territories and not as disputed lands. Moreover, neither the Palestinian Authority, nor the terrorist groups of Hamas and Islamic Jihad consider it realistic. Let us remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad openly call for the destruction of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority uses maps of a future state with no Israel in sight.
Here, again, the Arab-Palestinians sooner or later have to come to terms and swallow the hard truth that they are not the only people living in the region. The settlers and the Arab-Palestinians in general have to realize that the only road (no map) to peace is to swallow their own pride and recognize that they have to work together, and without the Arab-Palestinian policy of terrorism. Until this is accomplished, no peace can ever result.
Ironically, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei is disappointed with Sharon, because he considers him a threat. Qurei says, ?We are committed to the Roadmap.? However, if they are committed to the Roadmap, then why are homicide bombings still going on and terrorist infrastructures not being destroyed? Isn't that total hypocrisy? Let us remember that Phase I of the Roadmap calls for an immediate stopping of the violence. That has not happened, but instead, it has increased. So, who is fooling whom?
Then what can Israelis do if terrorist acts continue? Do they have to endure the suffering and killing of innocent civilians? What about the innocent Arab-Palestinians who do not agree with the policy of homicide bombings? Unfortunately, they have to remain silent, for fear of being punished by the Palestinian Authority and other terrorist groups. Still, sitting somewhere in Congress is the so-called ?Arafat Accountability Act? that calls to punish Arafat for supporting terrorism.
The bottom line, and perhaps the only solution to stop the violence, is to effectively eradicate the infrastructure of terrorist groups, including the immediate renovation of the Palestinian Authority. Otherwise, the world is fooling itself with the Roadmap, the Geneva Accord, and future peace processes. Guts is what it takes to condemn and hold accountable the ones responsible for terrorism. Lastly, does the future of Israelis and Arab-Palestinians rely on the U.S.? Well, the answer is complicated, and I will leave it open for you, the reader. What do you think?