The "The Jews did it" article would've been funny, if it wasn't so disturbing, Buck... Just emblematic of the ridiculous propaganda one has to sift through in this debate. I have yet to see glynch admit that Arafat is a terrorist, which is why it's so hard to take him seriously. Arafat was the OBL of the 70's and 80's, and it is *crystal* clear that he's up to his old shenanigans again...
None of those articles were meant to be funny. My comments under the link were just to signify how preposterous the Arab claims are (printed mostly in state-run newspapers, even in "friendly" states like Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait etc...).
Wow! Right as I was commenting on it... glynch admits that Arafat's a terrorist! Of course, he couldn't do it without branding Sharon a terrorist as well... But it's a start. How do you know that this proposal would give them those guarantees? There's no text, and the Arabs won't "clarify" for the Israelis... It is also supported in principle (land for recognition and peace) by the Israelis. So what? The Israelis have always expressed a willingness to negotiate under those terms. The only difference here is that the Arabs won't negotiate the terms which they "proposed"... There is no real proposal until there is a text to be agreed upon!!! Now, the Arabs are *refusing* to meet with the Israelis and give "clarification" on the proposal??? How f*ing serious can they be about it if they won't even negotiate its terms with the Israelis??? Can you not see why the Israselis would be *slightly* dubious of the Arabs' intentions here? The Arabs say "We propose a land-for-recognition peace deal", the Jews say "OK, we're listening. What's your idea?", and the Arabs say "Go away! We don't want to talk to you!"... You are very naive if you think that there can be a peace while Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, etc are still blowing up Israeli busses and pizzerias. You seem to think that there's a Vietnam-dynamic at play here - that the Israelis will lose the war when public opinion hits a low. You could not be more wrong. If their morale sinks that low, then they will not pack up and leave - they will roll in full force and solve the Palestinian problem full force. Why? Because the problem is right on their doorstep and directly impacting their lives and prospects for national survival. Unlike us in Vietnam, they cannot run away from this war. I wasn't aware that Sharon and I had had any strategy meetings of late, but... If you mean "rolling back the terrorists and wiping them out" (my strategy), Sharon hasn't tried it yet, so it's a bit premature to say it's failed. We'll see if it works. I *know* yours will fail, because it has already been tried and it has failed utterly. It was called the Oslo process, in case you've forgotten.
Except that, the recent Hezbullah rocket attack notwithstanding, most of the recent violence has been perpetrated by al-Aqsa Martyrs & the Tanzim (sp?) Fatah militia - groups over which Arafat has extreme influence if not control. So I ask again, what exactly has Arafat & the PA done over the last 18 months to aid the peace process?
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah members get a paid vacation to the local jails where they get free lessons in bomb making and suicide tactics.
<A HREF="http://www.middleeastwire.com/atlarge/stories/20020306_5_meno.shtml">In Middle East, Gaps Widen Over Saudi Peace Proposal"</A> <i> President Bush has warmly welcomed a Saudi proposal for a deal to bring peace to the Middle East - but in the region, a gulf is developing between Israeli hopes and Arab expectations of the plan. Speaking in Washington at a joint press conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Tuesday, Bush said the proposal by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was "a very positive development." He also praised an offer by Mubarak to host a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat. "I appreciate the efforts of both leaders [Abdullah and Mubarak], and I applaud those efforts of those willing to explore opportunity," Bush said. "But I want to remind everybody that it's going to be difficult to achieve any kind of peace, so long as there is a cycle of violence." The comments come amid some of the worst violence in the region since the Palestinians launched an uprising 17 months ago. Since Saturday, at least 27 Israelis have died in gunfire and bomb attacks, with at least 21 Palestinians killed in Israeli military operations. Bush and Mubarak said peace was only possible if there was maximum effort by both sides, starting with PA actions to stop attack against Israelis. For his part, Mubarak called on Israel to stop "the use of military power and unilateral measures against the Palestinian population." In a plan first floated in a newspaper interview last month, Abdullah proposed that the Arab world normalize relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal "from all the occupied territories" - an expression generally taken to mean a return to the borders between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria that existed before the 1967 Six Day War. He did not elaborate on the initiative, which he plans to present to an Arab League conference in Beirut later this month. Refugees included? Abdullah's comments made no reference to the question of Palestinian refugees -- a deal- breaker in previous Israeli-PA negotiations. Israeli governments on both the left and right have rejected the notion that millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants should be allowed to return to lands lost when Israel became a state in 1948. Sharon expressed cautious interest in Abdullah's plan, and Israel's ceremonial president, Moshe Katsav offered to travel to Riyadh to seek clarity on the proposal. But the idea was shot down by Saudi state media, and kingdom officials have been quoted ruling out meetings on any level between Saudis and Israelis. Mubarak said in a television interview Monday Sharon had asked him to arrange a private meeting with Abdullah, but the crown prince had completely rejected the idea. But if Israel has been unable to learn more about the initiative directly from the Saudis, Arab leaders have had more success. Although the PA, Egypt and some Gulf states backed the plan, Syria appeared wary, and President Bashar el-Assad traveled to the kingdom Tuesday to clarify "minor differences" over the proposal. He left happy, according to the Saudi News Agency, as the Saudis made it clear the plan included "the right of the refugees return in accordance with related U.N. resolutions." An official Syrian statement afterwards confirmed that Assad had "expressed his satisfaction with the position of Saudi Arabia." Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Moaasher also made it clear that Jordan's reading of the Saudi plan included the "right of return." Even as Arab support for the proposal was solidifying, however, it was becoming less and less likely that Israel would accept it, because of the refugee issue. Saudi motive Analysts meanwhile have expressed skepticism about the Saudi plan, which some see as more an attempt by the kingdom to improve strained relations with Washington in the post-Sept. 11 era than a genuine bid to end the conflict. The U.S.-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs even questioned whether Abdullah was only referring to withdrawal from land captured in 1967. "According to the piece that started it all, the prince said, 'withdrawal from all the occupied territories,' " Jinsa said in a report on Abdullah's plan. "For most Arabs that means all of Israel." Richard Bennett of the British-based think-tank Armed Forces Intelligence Research said that unless Abdullah's plan envisaged a dismantling of Israeli settlements on the disputed territories, the refugees' return and the surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria, it would "probably prove to be a far from acceptable deal for most Palestinians and is unlikely to impress the most antagonistic Arab states." Lending credence to that assessment, Iraq's ambassador to the U.N. said Tuesday Baghdad would not recognize Israel. In the view of the Texas-based intelligence analysts Stratfor, the Saudi plan has little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and everything to do with Riyadh's relations with Washington. "The motive has to do with deflecting U.S. pressure on Saudi Arabia over its participation in U.S. military operations in the region and on dealing with al-Qaeda sympathizers in the kingdom." Stratfor also questioned the enthusiasm that has met the proposal, saying it had no chance of succeeding. The Saudis were hardly in a position to deliver all Arab states in normalizing ties with Israel, it said, and neither did the plan deal with the rejection of Israel by non-Arab, Islamic states like Iran, which remained "one of the major threats to Israel." Pro-Israel commentators argue that the "normalization" of ties is a vague term - that the only two countries to have signed full peace treaties with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, maintain the coldest and most limited of relations possible with the Jewish state. "This smacks of historical amnesia," said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America. "Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority already agreed to full normalization of relations with Israel when they signed their peace treaties with Israel in 1979, 1993, and 1994, respectively," he said. "Yet neither Egypt, Jordan, nor the PA have ever fulfilled their obligation to have normal relations. Now the Saudis are trying to sell Israel the same rug again." </i> The <i>right of return</i> issue makes the entire concept a waste of time. Mango
