Sunday, March 5, 2006
Natan Sharansky's ideas have to have been the most "straw manned" in recent history. Here he is writing in the LA Times setting the record straight. Be sure to take a look. If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times...elections alone do not a democracy make.
I believed this when I submitted a plan to Ariel Sharon in April 2002 for a political process that would culminate in the creation of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state alongside Israel. At the time, no one was thinking seriously about peace because, after the worst month of terror attacks in Israel's history, we had launched a large-scale military operation to root out the infrastructure of terrorism in the West Bank.
I believed, however, that the crisis presented an opportunity to begin a different kind of political process, one that would link the peace process to the development of a free society for Palestinians. I had argued for many years that peace and security could be achieved only by linking international legitimacy, territorial concessions and financial assistance for a new Palestinian regime to its commitment to building a free society.
Despite my faith in "democracy," I was under no illusion that elections should be held immediately. Over the previous decade, Palestinian society had become one of the most poisoned and fanatical on Earth. Day after day, on television and radio, in newspapers and schools, a generation of Palestinians had been subjected to the most vicious incitement by their own leaders. The only "right" that seemed to be upheld within Palestinian areas was the right of everyone to bear arms.
In such conditions of fear, intimidation and indoctrination, holding snap elections would have been an act of the utmost irresponsibility. That is why I proposed a plan calling for elections to be held no earlier than three years after the implementation of a series of democratic reforms. Three years, I believed, was the absolute minimum for democratic reforms to begin to change the atmosphere in which free elections could be held. Unfortunately, the plan was never implemented...
The rest. (via The Corner)
Sunday, February 26, 2006
BLAIR : IRA :: BUSH : HAMAS - NOT!!!
When Blair - with the help of the USA and George Mitchell - moved the northern Ireland situation toward a peaceful NEGOTIATED resolution it was predicated on the IRA DISARMING. They could not be a part of the negotiations because they were armed, and NO final deal could be reached until THEY VERIFIABLY DISARMED.
Blair basically stuck to this ESSENTIAL point, and let Northern Ireland governments fall over it. It is still a sticking point. And rightly so: a terrorist group which also does crimes for profit cannot be part of any legitimate peace process or legitimate governing process. Terror and criminality are ANTITHETICAL to both.
Bush and Rice made an UNBELIEVEBALY HUGE MISTAKE when they pushed Israel to allow Hamas - a group even worse than the IRA - to particpate in the elections without DISARMING and WITHOUT ANNOUNCING THAT THEY ACCEPTED ALL PREVIOUSLY SIGNED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PLO AND/OR PNA.
The result is that Hamas won. SURE: this has brpought some clarity to the situation; it poroves that a majority of so-called Arab Palestinians support terror - like the Taliban and the pakistanis of Waziristan and the Sunnis and many in Northern Ireland. It proves that Israel has a REAL SERIOUS SECURITY PROBLEM BECAUSE THEIR TERRORISTS ARE RIGHT ON THEIR BORDERS.
Bush and Rice should NOT have had a double standard, and demanded of Irael something that they would NOT have EVER accepted themselves for America. The result has greatly complicated things and made armed conflict more likely, not less. And - because Hamas is a repressive and fanatical religious party- it doesn't bring the Arabs living in the territories any closer to attaining liberty; it merely means they are becoming more Taliban-like.
We should NOT trust a single agreement with Hamas; they are no more trustworthy than the Taliban or Saddam or al Qaeda or Iran. There will be no peace in Israel until jihadism is defeated EVERYWHERE - defeated in "Palistan" the way it was in Afghanistan.
" Over the previous decade, Palestinian society had become one of the most poisoned and fanatical on Earth. Day after day, on television and radio, in newspapers and schools, a generation of Palestinians had been subjected to the most vicious incitement by their own leaders. "
I think that Sharon's "unilateral" disengagement from Gaza was because of the realisation that to set up the required democratic institutions of Law, Security, Education and Administration to base elections on would take from 20 to 30 years to counter the decade of incitement and require actions by Israel which the world would not accept to extirpate the thuggery and despotism.
" Three years, I believed, was the absolute minimum for democratic reforms to begin to change the atmosphere in which free elections could be held. "
But only once the elements of incitement and violence had been removed.
Newt Gingrich had an article in The Middle East Quarterley
http://www.meforum.org/article/729
" Israeli negotiators began engaging Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the 1987-91 Palestinian intifada. But, the Arab League, European Union, and, eventually the U.S. State Department, instead pushed for the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership, long exiled and resident in Tunisia, to be recognized as the voice of the Palestinian people. That decision effectively purged local Palestinians—who had a self-interest in a durable peace—from the process. Gangs and vigilantes loyal to Arafat often intimidated and even murdered those Palestinians who sought to raise an independent voice. "
Unfortunately one must look at the context which includes the Madrid Conference and State Department attitudes to the Shamir govt., which did not accede as the Rabin govt., did.
As Newt writes:
" Ignoring warnings about the nature of their Palestinian negotiating counterpart, the Israeli government supported the creation of a 15,000-man Palestinian police force, composed largely of terrorist cadres and armed with modern weapons. Israel accepted this in the belief that these Palestinian police would hunt down and stop the terrorists. "
It's just spilt milk now.
Sharansky knows what a democratic state entails but appears a bit naive as to its implementation with respect to Gaza and the West Bank.
He resignation from Sharon's Govt., to show his displeasure with the disengagement indicates a certain naivety as Israel is not the Soviet Union.
As has been shown there is no way that Israel or the US will get Abbas to institute those reforms. A lot of violence will be necessary to pave the way and the US will not threaten its current, although unsatisfactory, relationship with Egypt, for one, to push an ideal where rhetoric will do.