Israel Rejects Arafat Peace Initiative

[a_unique_person]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20030922/wl_nm/mideast_dc

I believe every time the idea of international monitors has been proposed, Israel has rejected the idea. Why, I can't see. It must be cheaper than building that wall.



Arafat Says Wants Total Truce; Israel Rejects Move
Mon Sep 22, 5:25 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Wafa Amr

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian President Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) declared a commitment to reaching a total cease-fire with Israel in a letter given to envoys of the peacemaking "Quartet," Palestinian officials said on Monday.

But the letter cited conditions, including an international observer force to help enforce U.S.-led peace moves, that Israel has already rejected. Israeli officials swiftly dismissed Arafat's initiative as a ploy to avoid threatened expulsion.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20030922/wl_nm/mideast_dc

I believe every time the idea of international monitors has been proposed, Israel has rejected the idea. Why, I can't see. It must be cheaper than building that wall.



Here is the problem I see with that idea. Let’s say -- nay let’s hope Israel will wise up and remove all the settlements and drop the wall idea and bombings continue, this leaves Israel completely powerless to respond to those bombings since Monitors will make sure Israel can't violate the sovereignty of Palestine airspace/borders. And let’s say the bombings continue with the Palestinian government condemning the bombings but not really doing much to stop it. What actions does this live Israel with? Only one: remove the monitors and invade and remove those terrorist groups themselves and draw anger and condemnation from the world.

Before you say it's impossible, this is basically what's going on right now. All of this could be Palestine destroying those terrorist groups and at the same time Israel removing settlements. I see it as the only "road map" to piece.

[a_unique_person]

Observers are not enforcers. They are there to watch and give an indepdenent view of what is really going on, rather than just a he said/he said game.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Observers are not enforcers. They are there to watch and give an indepdenent view of what is really going on, rather than just a he said/he said game.

Uhm...

But the letter cited conditions, including an international observer force to help enforce U.S.-led peace moves, that Israel has already rejected. Israeli officials swiftly dismissed Arafat's initiative as a ploy to avoid threatened expulsion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Uhm...



By observing, they help enforce the cease fire. That is, any violations are noted, and the offenders publicly humiliated. That is my understanding of the role of observers.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


By observing, they help enforce the cease fire. That is, any violations are noted, and the offenders publicly humiliated. That is my understanding of the role of observers.

I don't know, it said enforce. It did not have to say enforce but that word was specifically included.

What can't you "observe" right now that you would like to AND that would be helpful to the peace process.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't know, it said enforce. It did not have to say enforce but that word was specifically included.

What can't you "observe" right now that you would like to AND that would be helpful to the peace process.

Perhaps it was a journalistic error, giving the wrong emphasis to the meaning. The UN has long been criticised because it's obervation teams don't enforce. That is, they are there and observe many terrible things, but do not act to stop them, or, if they call for help, are ignored. At least we have found out what has happened, and can hopefully improve errors in the future.

Israel does not appear to even want people to know what is really going on, which is nothing new.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Perhaps it was a journalistic error, giving the wrong emphasis to the meaning. The UN has long been criticised because it's obervation teams don't enforce. That is, they are there and observe many terrible things, but do not act to stop them, or, if they call for help, are ignored. At least we have found out what has happened, and can hopefully improve errors in the future.

Israel does not appear to even want people to know what is really going on, which is nothing new.

I saw nothing about UN in the article, then again I read through it quickly so it could have been somewhere in the end or something.

What specifically do you want to know that you already do not? Also just because Palestine says they want observers does not mean you'll know everything.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I saw nothing about UN in the article, then again I read through it quickly so it could have been somewhere in the end or something.

What specifically do you want to know that you already do not? Also just because Palestine says they want observers does not mean you'll know everything.

We will know more than we know now. You are correct. The story specified 'International Observer Force'. My assumption was that that means UN.

[Cleopatra]

Arafat proposed a peace plan?? Mwahahahaha


The Road Map Plan that Israel has accepted and Arafat undermined had International Observers...apart from USA

[Shinytop]

Gee, AUP, has it occurred to you that Israel may really be looking at Arafat's record and finally learned he has no intention of keeping any treaty or agreement he enters? How many agreements has he broken? How many times has he promised to hold back the killers of children and women doing their shopping? I wouldn't blame them if they quit talking to the lying SOB period. Eventually, if they truly want peace, the Palestinians will replace him with somebody with leadership and who is trustworthy. But, of course, the Palestinians have not shown any desire for peace, only for killing.

[ZeeGerman]

Hmm, apparently there will be no peace as long as Arafat is araound. Killing the guy or evicting him would be like pouring gazoline onto fire, so that doesn't work either. Seems we have to wait 'til he dies of old age. He is 74 now and a hard-bitten bastard, so that might take a while. Not a very promising prospect :(

Zee

[crackmonkey]

A profile of the sainted man of peace...
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB106419296113226300-H9jeoNjlaZ2nJ2oZnyIaaeBm4,00.html

[Skeptic]

The reason israel is rejecting Arafat's "peace initiative" is the same reason England rejected Hitler's "peace initiative" in 1940: both learned, from bitter experience, that these mass murderers and liars, Hitler and Arafat, talk about "peace" only as part of their plans of agression.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Misnomer
The reason israel is rejecting Arafat's "peace initiative" is the same reason England rejected Hitler's "peace initiative" in 1940: both learned, from bitter experience, that these mass murderers and liars, Hitler and Arafat, talk about "peace" only as part of their plans of agression.

Okay, now it's *my* turn to invoke Godwin's law. "Mass murderer" is an interesting term here. I'd think Sharon is closer to "mass murderer," especially in light of his involvement in Lebanon, but no. His greatest crime is over-eating, I guess. :rolleyes:

[Shinytop]

Wow, I completely missed that. I thought the discussion was about Arafat. Maybe you could charge Sharon in another thread. Is is possible Arafat can be judge for more than the period Sharon is in power?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Wow, I completely missed that. I thought the discussion was about Arafat. Maybe you could charge Sharon in another thread. Is is possible Arafat can be judge for more than the period Sharon is in power?

Sharon has always had some sort of power, and has always abused it. He has been one of the driving forces of the settlement movement.

But if you want to refer to the topic of the thread, it was the peace initiative.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cain
Okay, now it's *my* turn to invoke Godwin's law. "Mass murderer" is an interesting term here. I'd think Sharon is closer to "mass murderer," especially in light of his involvement in Lebanon, but no. His greatest crime is over-eating, I guess. :rolleyes:

Since the topic is Arafat and you mention mass murder in Lebanon, you must be referring to the Massacre of Damour.

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html

http://www.flaym.org/Occupied%20Lebanon/damour.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Since the topic is Arafat and you mention mass murder in Lebanon, you must be referring to the Massacre of Damour.

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html

http://www.flaym.org/Occupied%20Lebanon/damour.htm

OK, so now that we all agree that there are people with blood on their hands on both sides, as has already been noted by many people, how do we get some peace happening?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The reason israel is rejecting Arafat's "peace initiative" is the same reason England rejected Hitler's "peace initiative" in 1940: both learned, from bitter experience, that these mass murderers and liars, Hitler and Arafat, talk about "peace" only as part of their plans of agression.

Arafat has asked for independent peace monitors to be present. Any transgressions of the rules would presumably be noted.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


OK, so now that we all agree that there are people with blood on their hands on both sides, as has already been noted by many people, how do we get some peace happening?

When did we agree on that?

[Skeptic]

I believe every time the idea of international monitors has been proposed, Israel has rejected the idea. Why, I can't see.

Long experience in Lebanon and elsewhere had taught israel that international monitors are like a semi-permeable memberane: they never stop ANY attacks by terrrorists on israel, but merely raise a big rockus whenever israeli forces try to hit back. The reason, of course, is that the israeli forces do not threathen to kill them if they don't let them through, like the terrorists do.

It is easy enough to imagine a Finnish or Australian obnserver (for instance) making official demands of the israeli forces not to "violate the agreement" by crossing into palestinian territory in search of so-and-so from the Hamas. Do you really see them going to Hamas headquarters making the same demands and coming out alive? Of course not, so they don't do it.

It must be cheaper than building that wall.

So would sending flowers to Arafat with a big Hallmark card saying "please continue to kill us!". But both methods would also be a bit less effective, I dare predict, in stopping suicide bombings than the fence. Not that that's saying much, considering the fact that the international observers' efficiency in stopping terrorism against israel is precisely 0%.

[Skeptic]

OK, so now that we all agree that there are people with blood on their hands on both sides,

Just like Eisenhower was guilty of sending the 8th air force to bomb Berlin, while Hitler was guilty of sending Himmler to operate Auscwitz. Obviously, in WWII there were "people with blood on their hands on both sides", so what's all this fuss about this being a war of good vs. evil?

[Shinytop]

You may talk all you want about blood on both sides and I may be naive as hell.

But I see a big difference in the sides by who they target. The Israeli's are targeting the leaders of the groups attacking them. Yes, the leaders often use innocents as shields and I regret their loss of life but that blood is on the hands of those "leaders".

The Palestinians are setting off bombs on buses, at weddings, in shopping centers, making no effort to target the Israeli Army or the leaders of their opposition. They are cowards. How do you expect anybody to deal with people who send their children to die. You target their leadership with missiles and whatever means it takes to wipe out the vermin. And maybe one day one Palestinian mother will decide she would rather her child live than be a martyr. On the second day maybe this will spread. Until this happens, until the Palestinians find a leader who leads to peace instead of genocide, then this battle will continue. And while the Palestinians target who they target I know who I consider is on the high road.

If it is difficult for you to see the difference I suggest you think about your relatives, your loved ones on the next bus blown apart. War, I don't think so. Exterminating vermin is all it can be called.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I believe every time the idea of international monitors has been proposed, Israel has rejected the idea. Why, I can't see.

Long experience in Lebanon and elsewhere had taught israel that international monitors are like a semi-permeable memberane: they never stop ANY attacks by terrrorists on israel, but merely raise a big rockus whenever israeli forces try to hit back. The reason, of course, is that the israeli forces do not threathen to kill them if they don't let them through, like the terrorists do.



You appear to have missed the point. They are not peacekeepers that are being requested, but monitors to observe what is happening. It is better to at least have an independent source of information on what is really happening. Maybe peacekeepers can come later.