Israeli-Palestinian Roadmap - Sharon Not Complying

You are missing the point. The Palestinian Authority security forces under Arafat have been part of an organized effort to kill Israeli civilians. They also purposely aided suicide bombers, according to records found in bombed out PA police stations.

Since the PA police were facilitating terrorism, how does attacking them hurt the fight against terrorism?

 

They've also engaged in combat with terrorists and Islamic fundimentalists groups.

Your beef is with the observers from the UN who spent time in the area talking to both sides, and witnessing the turmoil firsthand. The results of those observations is what I'm quoting, and the best evidence I've seen on the matter. I remember the documents being found, and they did show payment to a group which has carried out bombings. Do I think that's wrong? You bet I do. But it is possible for them to give money to the wings that take in orphans etc, and still arrest and put a halt to suicide bombers.

 

This is my interpretation of what is being said......

<i>The PA can't act forcibly against terrorist/radical elements because the IDF has in the past sometimes targeted Palestinain security forces and reduced their ability to function.</i>

The following article is too long to post in its entirety, but I will post a few parts here. I hope HRW is considered a credible source.

<a HREF="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-07.htm#P1084_290550">VII. THE ROLE OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY</a>

<i>One of the most contested questions in the debate about Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians is what, if any, role has been played by the Palestinian Authority and specifically, President Arafat. Israel charges that the PA has ordered and systematically participated in "terror," a term it applies to all armed activity against Israeli targets, whether military or civilian. It holds the PA responsible every time an attack occurs. The PA denies having any role in attacks against civilians.

The PA, under the terms of the Oslo Accords, assumed law enforcement responsibilities for those areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under its control-namely, the major cities and Palestinian population clusters, amounting at the time of the outbreak of clashes in September 2000 to approximately 26 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.62 The PA thus has had an obligation to take all available and effective measures consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law to prevent suicide or other attacks against civilians by the armed groups operating from these areas.

Human Rights Watch found that there were steps that the PA could have taken to prevent or deter such attacks, but that it remained unwilling to risk the political cost of acting decisively. The PA routinely failed to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons believed to be responsible for these attacks, and did not take credible steps to reprimand, discipline, or bring to justice those members of its own security services who, in violation of declared PA policy, participated in such attacks. In addition, although President Arafat repeatedly condemned suicide attacks against civilians, he consistently failed to insist that terms of honor and respect such as "martyr"-which Palestinians use to designate persons who have died or suffered grave loss in clashes with Israeli forces or settlers-should not apply to people who die in the course of carrying out indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

Moreover, President Arafat and other senior officials authorized payments, in several cases, to individuals who were known to have participated in attacks on Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories and, more commonly, without apparent regard for the known or alleged involvement of the recipients in attacks on civilians. As discussed above, President Arafat and the PA also took no steps to ensure that welfare payments from the PA and others did not privilege the families of suicide bombers who attacked civilians. Indeed, one document made public by the Israeli government, hereafter referred to as the "memo to Tirawi," suggests that at least one senior PA intelligence official may have had a positive view of people who carry out attacks on civilians.63

The PA's failure to act in an effective and consistent manner against Palestinian attacks on civilians contributed to an atmosphere of impunity, allowing the armed groups to conclude that there would be no serious consequence for those who planned or carried out attacks that amounted to war crimes, and in the cases of suicide bombings, crimes against humanity. This failure reflects a high degree of political responsibility on the part of President Arafat and the PA leadership for the many civilian deaths that have resulted.

However, on the basis of evidence available through the end of September, 2002, Human Rights Watch did not find evidence demonstrating that President Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out suicide bombings or other attacks against civilians. While senior PA officials fostered an atmosphere of impunity, we also did not find evidence that they authorized specific attacks or attacks against civilians generally, or that PA officials or institutions organized or assisted in preparing or carrying out attacks against civilians systematically or as a matter of policy. The "memo to Tirawi" suggests that at least some senior PA officials viewed these attacks favorably, but, as discussed in Section V, the PA and the Fatah political leadership did not have the effective control over the actions of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades necessary to establish criminal liability under the doctrine of command responsibility. .......</i>

<b>Conclusion</b>
<i>
High-ranking PA officials, including President Arafat, failed in their duty to administer justice and enforce the rule of law in compliance with international standards. <b>Through their repeated failure to arrest or prosecute individuals alleged to have planned or carried out suicide attacks against civilians, they contributed a climate of impunity-and failed to prevent the bloody consequences. Their payments to, and recruitment of, individuals responsible for attacks against civilians likewise demonstrate, at least, a serious failure to meet their political responsibilities as the governing authorities, if not a willingness to support them. However, there is no publicly available evidence that Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out such attacks. </b>

Was this failure of President Arafat and the PA so egregious as to establish criminal liability for the actions of armed groups under the doctrine of command responsibility? In relation to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP, there is no suggestion of the supervisor-subordinate relationship that is required to apply the doctrine. The PA could and should have exerted greater political pressure to bring these groups to halt suicide and other attacks on civilians, but that does not reflect the requisite control over their activities. In the case of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, any supervisory link appears to have been weak at best. Nor does the PA's capacity to prosecute perpetrators, which it possessed for much of the uprising but did not apply, meet on its own the requirement of "effective control"-the ability to issue instructions, enforce obedience, and punish disobedience-that is necessary for the doctrine of command responsibility to apply. For example, even a government such as Colombia's, with a far more substantial law enforcement capacity, has not been found to have command responsibility for atrocities committed by paramilitary forces simply by virtue of the government's failure to prosecute them.169 But this is no excuse for inaction: the PA has a clear duty to act, in concert with regional leaders and the international community, to prevent suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, ending the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Palestinian armed groups.</i>

The PA will do better when it has a country to administer.

 

Thank you Mango for those exerpts. That's very informative indeed. I would hope they enforce security more when they have a real Palestinian state to enforce it in. They've definitely been lax and selective in the arrests they've made, and the punishment given to those arrested.

I can't remember how we got on this subject, but it's important to realize the difficulties and stumbling blocks that are inherent with the process.

I do think that statehood is a good thing for the Palestinians, it will be very difficult under a corrupt Arafat, but it might give hope to an oppressed people.

 

Wouldn't it be ironic if the one president that came into office with no international experience, was able to finally bring peace between Israel & Palestine? I realize that a lot of things can & probably will go wrong, but at least he's got them talking & Israel has finally accepted Palestine's claim to eventual statehood. Let's hope & pray that it comes to pass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/i...00&en=9dc836d8019042ad&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

In a First, Israel Accepts Palestinian Claim to Statehood
By JAMES BENNET


ERUSALEM, May 25 — The Israeli government for the first time officially accepted a Palestinian claim to eventual statehood today, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon persuaded his right-wing government to endorse the steps of a new American-backed peace plan, known as the road map.

The action came after Mr. Sharon made his most sweeping statement about the need to compromise for peace, telling an Israeli newspaper, "The moment has arrived to divide this tract of land between us and the Palestinians."

The two sides remain deeply at odds over how to put the plan into practice. But Israel's decision, following the creation last month of a new Palestinian government led by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, showed that a peace process viewed with cynicism and suspicion on both sides was nevertheless gaining traction, shoved by President Bush.

The Israeli action opens the way to a second meeting between Mr. Sharon and Mr. Abbas this week, officials said, and to a possible three-way summit with President Bush early next month.

The new plan is far more explicit about its overall goals and more ambitious about reaching them than the Oslo accords of 10 years ago. It calls for achieving in just three years a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and a sovereign state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in the Six-Day War of 1967. The state's precise borders are to be negotiated.

"I have not hidden my position on the issue of the future Palestinian state," Mr. Sharon, 75, told the newspaper Yediot Ahronot. "I am no less connected to those tracts of land that we will be forced to leave in time than any of those who speak loftily. But you have to be realistic, what can and what cannot stay in our hands."

Mr. Sharon envisions parting with far less land, over a much longer time, than the Palestinians would like, his associates say. He reluctantly sought approval of the peace plan after the Bush administration rebuffed his demand to first make significant changes, saying that it would "fully and seriously" address Israel's reservations as the plan moved ahead.

The White House called Israel's decision "an important step forward." Palestinian officials welcomed it as well, while saying that the plan should not be changed.

On Saturday, Mr. Abbas told Egyptian television that the plan "must be accepted as it is, from A to Z."

The vote today was 12 in favor and 7 against, with four ministers abstaining, including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The government held a second vote to overwhelmingly reject a Palestinian right of return to what is now Israel for refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Mr. Sharon unsuccessfully sought to have the Palestinians concede that right before he moved on the peace plan, which calls for the matter to be resolved in the last of three phases.

The vote on the right of return, together with pressure from the United States, prompted seven members of Mr. Sharon's Likud party to join the five ministers from the centrist Shinui party to support the peace plan.

"I think the document is not a good one, but we have to choose when we battle the U.S., and now is not the time," Ehud Olmert, a minister from Likud who voted for the plan, told Israel Radio.

But Yisrael Katz, also of Likud, said, "I object to a Palestinian state being established, and I could not support a plan that envelopes an Israeli recognition." He voted against.

As Mr. Sharon did on Friday, the government today accepted the steps of the plan, rather than the overall plan. But creating a Palestinian state — first with "provisional" borders, then with full sovereignty — is a central step. While Mr. Sharon had previously said he accepted statehood as an inevitability, no Israeli government had done so.

The ministers resolved that all of Israel's proposed changes "will be implemented in full" as the plan is put into practice.

 

There have been many Presidents with no international experience, including Clinton (unless you count dope smoking and flag burning overseas).

Bush will bring a Palestinian State, but that won't guarantee peace. Peace will come when the moderate Arabs decide that enough civilians have died, and they hold the fanatical Islamists responsible for the 50 years of bloodshed that has cursed their culture. The Arab world must have a cultural civil war, and there are hints this conflict has already begun.

 

I would love it if the plan worked. Hopefully though both sides will be held to the plan, and Bush will stop backing down when Sharone says he won't stop building settlements.

 

Here's what should happen (treeman's version, of course) - in order:

1) Israel immediately freezes all settlement activity.

2) The IDF pulls out of the West Bank and Gaza.

3) The PA security apparatus cracks down on Hamas, PFLP, PIJ, etc, and paralyzes their efforts.

4) The intifada officially ends.

5) The US, Israel, and the PA sit down and draft a plan for a Palestinian state and government that is acceptable to all sides, with a security agreement between the new government's military and the IDF to jointly eliminate terrorist groups. All settlements are to be erased, and those Israelis who decide not to stay (ie, probably all of them) are to be relocated to Israel and compensated for their losses. Travel routes between the two states will be reopened and secured, and water agreements are to be equitable. The US, not Europeean govts, is to be the guarantor of both the new state viability and the agreement's stipulations.

6) The state's existence is immediately procraimed upon ratification of the agreement, and the stipulations go into effect immediately. The state is created, the settlements withdrawn, and the terrorists are crushed under Israeli, Palestinian, and American weight.

This is what should happen. Here is what will happen:

1) Sharon accepts all of the demands placed upon them.

2) We have a short period resembling the Oslo period of the 1990s where the Israelis go through the motions of complying while the Palestinians plead noncompliance.

3) Terrorist strikes continue and increase due to the failure (again) of the PA to crack down on them in any meaningful way.

4) The IDF moves back in.

5) The intifada starts up again. Back to square one...

You see, Sharon has cemented his reputation as a warrior. Now he wants to add "peacemaker" to his legacy. Whether he succeds or not, he will want to at least be able to say "I gave it a real shot". All he has to do is call the Palestinians' bluff to be able to say that, no matter whether or not it results in peace. But now he can safely try it.

 

ALL settlements and occupation must be entirely withdrawn without compensation as part of any phase I.

they were absolutely illegal to begin with and Israel merely uses them as bargaining chips.

to reward them with peace for simply NOT commiting future crimes is wrong. just as compensating them for PAST crimes is wrong.

but i guess that is the way it works in this part of the world. if you want political leverage, do something illegal, whether it is terrorism, settlements, or occupation. and then ask others to pay you to stop. sounds like the north korean mantra got around... or did they learn it here?