 |
Contents:
A Reporter's Diary: April 13th, 2004: In a democratic system, if a head of state's foreign policy initiative is rejected by his cabinet, government, legislature, and the political party of that head of state, such a leader would normally be expected to at least drop his foreign policy initiative, if not resign. And so it is occurring that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's January 2004 initiative to demolish 21 Israeli farming communities in the Katif district of Gaza and hand them over to the PLO, now at war with the state of Israel, was not approved by the Israeli government, the Israeli security cabinet, the Knesset parliament or by the Likud central committee. As Hebrew University Law Professor Eliav Schochetman put it, an Israeli prime minister who wished to demolish or relocate Jewish communities would require a clear majority of the Israeli Knesset to support new legislation in that regard. Otherwise, notes Schochetman, the Prime Minister simply has no authority to act in that way. Despite this, Sharon brings his Katif demolition plan to the White House this coming Wednesday, openly stating that he wants a situation where the U.S. government will endorse Sharon's program for unilateral retreat and removal of Jews from anywhere in the Gaza strip. Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said it more explicitly, saying that that if the Israeli Knesset or the Israeli cabinet were then to reject the idea, then the U.S. and other nations would place international sanctions on Israel. And since Olmert oversees the Israeli government controlled radio and television, he has seen to it that the Israel State TV and Israel State Radio, known as the Israel Broadcasting Authority, drum into the heads of the Israeli people that the 8500 Katif residents live "in the heart of Gaza", even though the Katif farming communities were developed on sand dunes which are located far from the city of Gaza or from the UNRWA camps which dominate the Gaza strip. Sharon and Olmert have engaged the services of PR experts to market the idea of the Jews in Katif as being a "burden on the people of Gaza" to both the American government and to Jewish organizations throughout the U.S. They do this to galvanize support for their plan. For the first time since the Israeli Labor Party left power in February 2001, the Israeli government will work with the Americans for Peace Now to lobby Congress to support a program that calls for unilateral eradication of Israeli communities established in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Sharon's closest friends and colleagues have abandoned Sharon. Sharon's closest friend in the media for the past 55 years, Uri Dan, issued an open letter to Sharon on the day before Passover, in which Dan posed ten questions to Sharon which challenged the wisdom of the plan for the removal of the 21 Jewish farming communities of Katif. One of those questions warned Sharon that the vacuum left from unilateral retreat could very well transform Katif into an Arab terror haven. Sharon has not responded to the hard questions put to him by Uri Dan. Sharon has a new friend and advisor: Dov Weisglass. Weisglass acts as Sharon's lawyer and office manager. Before directing Sharon's affairs in government, Weissglass acted as the lawyer for the Director of PLO finances, Muhamad Rashid, and as the Lawyer and head of investments for the PLO's casino in Jericho. In his position, Weissglass has renewed Israeli financial transfers to the armed forces of the Palestinian Authority that are directly involved in terror actions against Israeli citizens, throughout Israel. To make matters worse, the man responsible for running the terror operations of the PLO for the past four years, Jibril Rajoub, will also be coming to Washington this week to ask the U.S. for appropriate weapons to help him take over the Gaza strip once Israel withdraws its civilians. Rajoub is the same PLO official who requested and received sophisticated weaponry from the U.S. during the first stage of the Oslo process, under the pretext that the PLO was going to fight Islamic terror groups. Israel was then under the leadership of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, both of whom went along with the idea. However, Rajoub openly incorporated Islamic terror groups within the PLO security forces who launched a terror war against Israel, while introducing police state control of his own people. Today, the situation is repeating itself: Rajoub asks for weapons from the U. S., again under the pretext of controlling Islamic terror, and proclaims he has the support of the Israeli security establishment and the Israeli government to take over Gaza. In other words, Rajoub intends to ethnically cleanse Gaza of its Jews-- with the approval of Ariel Sharon. And since the PLO claims the Negev and Israel's coastal region under the premise of the "right of return" to lands lost in 1948, Rajoub's army will not stop with Katif. Katif will be only another step to taking the rest of Israel as Hamas has said it will do all the long. Sharon's office was asked if the Israeli Prime Minister would deny giving sanction to arming Rajoub. Sharon's office would not deny giving sanction to arming the Palestinian warlord. The Israel Foreign Ministry and Israel Defense Ministry also refused comment. Most recently, Rajoub addressed the board of governors of the American Jewish Committee and, indeed, endorsed terrorism against Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria or Gaza. The director of the AJC Jerusalem office would issue no statement attacking Rajoub, saying that Rajoub's appearance was approved by the Israeli government. The question remains whether the Bush Administration will accept a situation of an Israeli government ruled by the arbitrary decrees of Ariel Sharon and a Palestinian Arab entity ruled by a thug. President Bush has long stated that his purpose is to see a democratic Palestinian Arab entity co-exist with Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East. If President Bush welcomes Sharon's imposed initiative and arms Rajoub, the American government will snuff out one democracy and create yet one more Arab totalitarian regime in the Middle East. Will this path only further serve to set the world on fire?
April 14th, 2004 April 14th, 2004 marked 139 years to the date of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the American president who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. On that day, "Ethnic Cleansing" talks commenced at the White House between President George W. Bush and Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as Sharon proposed the unilateral expulsion and ethnic cleansing of 8,000 Jews from 21 prosperous and productive farming communities, pioneered more than thirty years ago in the Katif district of the Gaza Strip on sand dunes where Arabs had laid no claim. Until this time, only totalitarian regimes had suggested such forced ethnic cleansing policies , which in this case would quash the most fundamental human rights of families who are simple, productive home-owners and farmers. Imagine, if you would, if Sharon had proposed a unilateral ethnic cleansing policy to exile residents of an Arab city or an Arab farming community. We would witness an outcry from every possible voice in the world of human rights. Where are the voices of human rights today? Is this because we are dealing with the proposed ethnic cleansing of Jews, where other standards of human rights may apply? Human rights advocates may have forgotten about the ethnic cleansing of Jews which took place when the old city of Jerusalem was under Arab control from 1949 until 1967, at a time when UN guarantees were ignored and when all Jews were expelled, all synagogues were burnt to a crisp, and even the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was defiled by the construction of a hotel and army camp on the grounds of that cemetery. The voices of human rights were silent to the policy of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem, while those same human rights advocates now demand that Israel should once again cede the old city of Jerusalem to Arab control. And it does not seem to bother the world of human rights that the advocates of proposed Palestinian Arab entity promise to ethnically cleanse any Jews from any future Palestinian Arab state. . On April 13th, 2004, the day before the Sharon-Bush meeting, Moshe and Rachel Saperstein, American born school teachers and residents of Neve Dekalim in Katif, met with reporters and asked how it is that a government can make an arbitrary unilateral decision to expel citizens from their homes. Moshe Saperstein, who lost his arm in the Yom Kippur War and two fingers in a PLO terror attack in Katif, said matter of factly that he had no intention to willingly leave his home. Rachel Saperstein put it succinctly, that "if you think that this will stop here, you are mistaken. This would be a precedent. Jewish communities anywhere in Israel or anywhere in the world could then be uprooted in Hebron, in Jerusalem, or in any other country. They can always say ˜You see, Arik Sharon expelled Jews from their homes. We can do that too".
April 15th, 2004: Israeli government radio and TV offered an instant analysis that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had made a major accomplishment following his meeting with U.S. President George Bush. In the four hours before the Bush memo to Sharon was issued for the press and public to read and peruse, Israeli government airwaves featured tens of commentators who lauded what they surmised was a formal Bush commitment to endorse some Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and that President Bush had committed the U.S. to abandon support for the "right of return" for Palestinian Arab refugees (the opportunity to go back to live inside Israel's 1948 borders). This followed a build-up by Israeli government radio and TV commentators, who boasted that, indeed, the President of the United States would use the full weight of his office to help Israel in its time of need. The PLO public relations people reacted according to script and denounced the results of the Sharon-Bush meeting as a sell-out by the Americans. PLO spokespeople appeared on CNN, BBC, Sky News and every other TV outlet possible to make their protestations heard. And the more the PLO attacked the Sharon-Bush meeting, the more the Israeli news commentators affirmed that, yes, Sharon must have made a valuable achievement with his friend, George W. Bush, because the PLO was so angry. It would seem that Sharon's new spin-masters were hard at work to make Sharon look like a hero. All that was before anyone released the text of the Bush memo to Sharon. Anyone who reads the memo will understand that Sharon accomplished nothing new in the US-Israeli relationship. In fact, he may have hurt Israel tremendously. Bush's letter does note that Israel may now wish to "further develop the Galilee and the Negev", yet without offering any assistance to help Israel resettle anyone there. Meanwhile, Bush's letter made it quite clear that the U.S. will accept none of the fourteen Israeli reservations to the Roadmap, such as a guaranteed end to terrorism, so vital to Israel's survival, a proviso the Israeli government had conditioned for its acceptance of the Roadmap. The letter explicitly stated that the "United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan." Surprisingly, Bush's letter also does not reject the "right of return" of Arab refugees to the sovereign state of Israel. Instead, the U.S. simply encourages Palestinian Arab refugees to settle in a future Palestinian state, "rather than Israel". Bush could have said "only" in a Palestinian state. He did not. All this occurs exactly at a time when the US has added $26 million to its allocation for UNRWA, which operates UN refugee camps in the region. Those camps run intense educational programs that promote the "right of return" to homes and villages from 1948, inside Israel, effectively calling for Israel to be dismantled. What the Bush letter does say explicitly is that Israel would be able to make decisions "regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages" only after Israeli withdrawals take place. And for whatever reason, the Bush letter surmises that the U.S., working with Jordan and Egypt, will build "Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations," despite ten years in which the PLO has done nothing of the kind. While the Bush letter charges the PLO with fighting terrorism, as President Bill Clinton did eleven years ago, the Palestinians have consistently refused to do so even up to now. In other words, the Bush administration is reenacting the 1993 Clinton-Rabin-Peres formula of arming the PLO to fight terror, even though all Palestinian fighting factions, even Hamas, are today united and coordinated under one command - under Yasser Arafat. It is as if the Bush letter does not take into account what has transpired over the past ten years and the trail of dead Israelis and Arabs that was wrought. Were it not for the Israeli and PLO spin-masters, Jews and Arabs in Israel would read the text of the Bush letter to Sharon and know the truth. Instead, in the hours after the Bush-Sharon press conference, the PLO is bitterly criticizing and attacking the Bush-Sharon meeting. And as Sharon returned to Israel to push his unilateral retreat, while under scathing attack of the misinformed PLO, he finds a way to convince his Likud party's membership to support his plan and policy. After all, Sharon's people are saying, if the PLO is attacking Sharon, he must be doing something right. The reality, however, has not changed. Sharon seeks support to conduct the unilateral retreat and eradication of 21 prosperous Israeli farming communities in the Katif district of the Gaza Strip, an action the PLO and Hamas will later laud as a victory, as a step to taking all of Israel. Meanwhile, Sharon can now obfuscate his retreat policy by showing how the PLO attacks him as an aggressor, not another Neville Chamberlain leading the world to more strife.
Bush's Letter to Sharon: April 14, 2004 His Excellency Ariel Sharon Prime Minister of Israel Dear Mr. Prime Minister: Thank you for your letter setting out your disengagement plan. The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. (WHAT ABOUT THE ISRAELI ARAB WAR? SINCE SAUDI ARABIA REMAINS AT WAR WITH ISRAEL AND FINANCES THE PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISTS, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A WORD ABOUT THE "SPONSOR"?) remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there. We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee (AT ISRAEL'S EXPENSE). We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap. The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points. First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. (NO ALLOWANCE FOR THE FOURTEEN RESERVATIONS OF THE ISRAELI CABINET). Under the roadmap, (WHAT THE PLO WON'T DO): Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. (WHAT THE PLO WON'T DO): The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. (WHAT THE PLO AGAIN WON'T DO): Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister. Second, (WHAT THE PLO WON'T DO) there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats. Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including taking actions against terrorist organizations. (NO DEFINITION OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS) The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after (WHAT'S THIS "AFTER"): Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel. (NO EXCLUSIVE DIRECTIVE FOR REFUGEES. JUST THAT IT WOULD BE A NICE IDEA) As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, (WHAT DOES "MAJOR" MEAN? RAMAT ESHKOL?) it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. I know that, as you state in your letter, you are aware that certain responsibilities face the State of Israel. Among these, your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities. As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. The United States will join with others in the international community to foster the development of democratic political institutions and new leadership committed to those institutions, the reconstruction of civic institutions, the growth of a free and prosperous economy, and the building of capable security institutions dedicated to maintaining law and order and dismantling terrorist organizations.(IF THIS IS INDEED US POLICY, THEN WHY DOES THE US WORK WITH THE PLO TO ESTABLISH A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP?) A peace settlement negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians would be a great boon not only to those peoples but to the peoples of the entire region. Accordingly, the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel. These actions would be true contributions to building peace in the region. (SO WHERE IS THE DIRECTIVE FOR SAUDI ARABIA TO CUT OFF FUNDS FOR TERROR?) Mr. Prime Minister, you have described a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace. I commend your efforts and your courageous decision which I support. As a close friend and ally, the United States intends to work closely with you to help make it a success. Sincerely, George W. Bush
The Text of the Sharon Retreat
Plan: Disengagement Plan - General Outline (18/04/2004) 1. General Israel is committed to the peace process and aspires to reach an agreed resolution of the conflict on the basis of the principle of two states for two peoples, the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, as part of the implementation of President Bush's vision. Israel is concerned to advance and improve the current situation. Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process. (IN OTHER WORDS, THE PLO REMAINS AT WAR WITH ISRAEL. IF THAT IS THE CONCLUSION FROM THE OUTSET, EVERYTHING SHOULD FOLLOW FROM THAT STATEMENT) Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement, 9IN OTHER WORDS, RETREAT IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY) based on the following considerations: i. The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. (NOT DEPENDENT? THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT DEMONSTRATES DEPENDENCY) ii. The plan will lead to a better security situation, at least in the long term. (PROPHECY WAS NULLIFIED AFTER THE SECOND TEMPLE'S DESTRUCTION) iii. The assumption that, in any future permanent status arrangement, there will be no Israeli towns and villages in the Gaza Strip. ("NO JEWS" IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT?) On the other hand, it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas which will be part of the State of Israel, including cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel. (WHO DEFINES THESE PLACES OF SPECIAL INTEREST?) iv. The relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria (as delineated on Map) will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions. (WHY ARE THE 21 KATIF FARMING COMMUNITIES THE CAUSE OF FRICTION? (WHY ARE FOUR ISOLATED COMMUNITIES IN SAMARIA THE SOURCE OF FRICTION?) v. The hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to break out of the cycle of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue. (AND IF THEY DO NOT? DIDN'T THIS TEXT SAY FROM THE OUTSET THAT THERE IS NO COOPERATION WITH THE PLO?) vi. The process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. (WHY? THE RAISON D'ETRE OF THE UNRWA CAMPS IS THAT ISRAEL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REFUGEES FROM 1948 WHO CLAIM LAND IN ISRAEL) vii. The process of disengagement is without prejudice to the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Relevant arrangements shall continue to apply. (WHAT AGREEMENTS? NONE WERE KEPT BY THE PLO) When (WHY NOT IF? PROPHECY AGAIN?) there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue. (EVIDENCE? WHEN THE PLO CONTINUES TO RULE?) 2. Main elements i. Gaza Strip: 1) Israel will evacuate the Gaza Strip, including all existing Israeli towns and villages, and will redeploy outside the Strip. (WHY?) This will not include military deployment in the area of the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt ("the Philadelphi Route") as detailed below. 2) Upon completion of this process, there shall no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or Israeli civilians in the areas of Gaza Strip territory which have been evacuated. (IN OTHER WORDS, NO JEWS FOR THE SAKE OF NO JEWS) 3) As a result, there will be no basis for claiming that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory. (SINCE WHEN DID ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE EXTREME ISRAELI LEFT CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE OCCUPIERS, AND WITH NO STATUS WHATSOVER. THIS ASSUMES THE PLO DEFINITION . . .) ii. West Bank: 1) Israel will evacuate an Area in the Northern Samaria Area (see Map), including 4 villages and all military installations, and will redeploy outside the vacated area. (IN OTHER WORDS, HAND OVER VILLAGES AND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO THE PLO) 2) Upon completion of this process, there shall no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or Israeli civilians in the Northern Samaria Area. (TO BE REPLACED BY PLO MISSILES?) 3) The move will enable territorial contiguity for Palestinians in the Northern Samaria Area. (JUST GREAT - THEY CAN THEN COORDINATE MILITARY ACTIVITIES EVEN BETTER) 4) Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation. (TO ENABLE THE PLO TO BE MORE MOBILE IN THEIR ABILITY IN THEIR WAR WITH ISRAEL) 5) The process will facilitate Palestinian economic and commercial activity in the West Bank. (NARCOTICS,ARMS, CARS, OTHER STOLEN GOODS) 6) The Security fence: Israel will continue to build the security fence, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the government. The route will take into account humanitarian considerations. (DOES 'HUMANITARIAN' MEAN THAT THE PLO WILL HAVE A VETO?) 3. Security situation following the disengagement i. The Gaza Strip: 1) Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip. (WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE PLO TERRORISTS? 2) The Gaza Strip shall be demilitarized and shall be devoid of weaponry, the presence of which does not accord with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. (WHO IS GOING TO DISARM THE PLO?) 3) Israel reserves its inherent right of self defense, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Gaza Strip. (HARDLY A LICENSE FOR ISRAEL TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO DEFEAT AN ENEMY AT WAR WITH ISRAEL) ii. The West Bank: 1) Upon completion of the evacuation of the Northern Samaria Area, no permanent Israeli military presence will remain in this area. (WHILE THE PLO ARMED FORCES WILL REPLACE THEM?) 2) Israel reserves its inherent right of self defense, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Northern Samaria Area. (WITH F-16'S?) 3) In other areas of the West Bank, current security activity will continue. However, as circumstances permit, Israel will consider reducing such activity in Palestinian cities. (WAIT A SECOND. ISRAEL MOVES OUT ITS FORCES AND WILL AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAIN ITS CURRENT SECURITY ACTIVITY? EXCUSE ME. HAVE WE MISSED SOMETHING HERE?) 4) Israel will work to reduce the number of internal checkpoints throughout the West Bank. (WHY? SO AS TO FACILITATE THE MORE EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND KILLERS?) 4. Military Installations and Infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria In general, these will be dismantled and removed, with the exception of those which Israel decides to leave and transfer to another party. (TO ANOTHER PARTY? LIKE WHO? THE PLO?) 5. Security assistance to the Palestinians Israel agrees that by coordination with it, advice, assistance and training will be provided to the Palestinian security forces for the implementation of their obligations to combat terrorism and maintain public order, by American, British, Egyptian, Jordanian or other experts, as agreed with Israel. (PREVIOUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLO WAS ABUSED TO TRAIN THE PLO TO MURDER JEWS) No foreign security presence may enter the Gaza Strip or the West Bank without being coordinated with and approved by Israel. (WAIT A SECOND!! THE PLO WAS TRAINED TO COMBAT TERROR IN 1993 AND 1994 AND USED THAT CAPABILITY AGAINST ISRAEL. WHY WILL THAT NOT CHANGE?) 6. The border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route) Initially, Israel will continue to maintain a military presence along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi route). (WHY- "INITIALLY"? IS THE SITUATION EXPECTED TO CHANGE? This presence is an essential security requirement. At certain locations security considerations may require some widening of the area in which the military activity is conducted. (OF COURSE. AND WHO WOULD ALLOW THAT?) Subsequently, the evacuation of this area will be considered. (SUBSEQUENT TO WHAT? THE PLO BECOMING A LADIES AUXILIARY ASSOCIATION?) Evacuation of the area will be dependent, inter alia, on the security situation and the extent of cooperation with Egypt in establishing a reliable alternative arrangement. (RELIABLE? YOU MUST BE KIDDING?) If and when conditions permit the evacuation of this area, Israel will be willing to consider the possibility of the establishment of a seaport and airport in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with Israel. (ALLOWING A SEAPORT AND AIRPORT TO AN ENTITY AT WAR WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL? DIDN'T ISRAEL TRY THAT ALREADY?) 7. Israeli towns and villages Israel will strive to leave the immovable property relating to Israeli towns and villages intact. (AND GIVE THE SOVEREIGN PRIVATE PROPERTY TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION?) The transfer of Israeli economic activity to Palestinians carries with it the potential for a significant improvement in the Palestinian economy. (ARE YOU KIDDING? THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PLO WOULD TAKE THE PROPERTY FOR THEMSELVES.) Israel proposes that an international body be established (along the lines of the AHLC), with the agreement of the United States and Israel, which shall take possession from Israel of property which remains, and which will estimate the value of all such assets. (TO CONFISCATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF JEWS!) Israel reserves the right to request that the economic value of the assets left in the evacuated areas be taken into consideration. (TO REQUEST? ISN'T THAT NICE?WITH NO OBLIGATIONS OF ANYONE TO ADHERE TO THAT REQUEST) 8. Civil Infrastructure and Arrangements Infrastructure relating to water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications serving the Palestinians will remain in place. (IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO "DISENGAGEMENT". ISRAEL MAINTAINS CONTROL OVER GAZA.) Israel will strive to leave in place the infrastructure relating to water, electricity and sewage currently serving the Israeli towns and villages. In general, Israel will enable the continued supply of electricity, water, gas and petrol to the Palestinians, in accordance with current arrangements. Other existing arrangements, such as those relating to water and the electro-magnetic sphere shall remain in force. 9. Activity of International Organizations Israel recognizes the great importance of the continued activity of international humanitarian organizations assisting the Palestinian population. (EVEN THOUGH STAFFERS OF THESE INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS ARE DOMINATED BY THE PLO AND HAMAS) Israel will coordinate with these organizations arrangements to facilitate this activity. (HOW NICE) 10. Economic arrangements In general, the economic arrangements currently in operation between Israel and the Palestinians shall, in the meantime, remain in force. AGAIN, NO "DISENGAGEMENT". These arrangements include, inter alia: i. the entry of workers into Israel in accordance with the existing criteria. ii. the entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Israel and abroad. iii. the monetary regime. iv. tax and customs envelope arrangements. v. postal and telecommunications arrangements. In the longer term, and in line with Israel's interest in encouraging greater Palestinian economic independence, Israel expects to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel. Israel supports the development of sources of employment in the Gaza Strip and in Palestinian areas of the West Bank. 11. Erez Industrial Zone The Erez industrial zone, situated in the Gaza Strip, employs some 4,000 Palestinian workers. The continued operation of the zone is primarily a clear Palestinian interest. Israel will consider the continued operation of the zone on the current basis, on two conditions: i. The existence of appropriate security arrangements. (WHO DEFINES "APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS"?) ii. The express recognition of the international community that the continued operation of the zone on the current basis shall not be considered continued Israel control of the area. Alternatively, the industrial zone shall be transferred to the responsibility of an agreed Palestinian or international entity. (OH. ANOTHER TERRORIST ENCLAVE?) Israel will seek to examine, together with Egypt, the possibility of establishing a joint industrial area in the area between the Gaza Strip, Egypt and Israel. (WHILE EGYPT FACILITATES MORE WEAPONS TUNNELS. ?) 12. International passages i. The international passage between the Gaza Strip and Egypt 1) The existing arrangements shall continue. (WITH WEAPONS TUNNELS?) 2) Israel is interested in moving the passage to the "three borders" area, approximately two kilometers south of its current location. This would need to be effected in coordination with Egypt. This move would enable the hours of operation of the passage to be extended. b. The international passages between the West Bank and Jordan: The existing arrangements shall continue. 13. Erez Crossing Point The Israeli part of Erez crossing point will be moved to a location within Israel in a time frame to be determined separately. 14. Timetable The process of evacuation is planned to be completed by the end of 2005. The stages of evacuation and the detailed timetable will be notified to the United States. 15. Conclusion Israel looks to the international community for widespread support for the disengagement plan. (WHY NOT? THE WORLD LOVES TO SEE ISRAEL RETREAT) AREAS This support is essential in order to bring the Palestinians to implement in practice their obligations to combat terrorism and effect reforms, thus enabling the parties to return to the path of negotiation. (AND IF THEY DO NOT? WHAT SANCTIONS? IS THIS NOT WORSE THAN THE OSLO ACCORDS) U.S. obligations as part of the disengagement plan 1. On April 14, 2004, the United States, through a presidential letter, made the following commitments: - Preserving the Government's fundamental principle, according to which no political process with the Palestinians will take place before the dismantling of terror organizations, (WHAT IS A TERROR ORGANIZATION, ACCORDING THE THE US? SINCE THE US ONLY DEFINES HAMAS AND ISLAMIC JIHAD AS TERRORISTS, EVERYONE ELSE WILL NOT BE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS), as requested by the roadmap. - American commitment that no political pressure will be exerted on Israel to adopt any political plan, other than the roadmap, (THE ROADMAP IS BAD ENOUGH) and that there will be no political negotiations with the Palestinians as long as they do not fulfill their commitments under the roadmap (full cessation of terror, violence and incitement; dismantling terror organizations; leadership change and carrying out comprehensive reforms in the Palestinian Authority (NO MENTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND THE MEDIA - THE PRIME PROMOTERS OF INCITEMENT). - Unequivocal American recognition of Israel's right to secure and recognized borders, including defensible borders. - American recognition of Israel's right to defend itself, by itself, anywhere, and preserve its deterrence power against any threat. - American recognition in Israel's right to defend itself against terror activities and terror organizations wherever they may be, including in areas from which Israel has withdrawn. (BUSH AND POWELL DENY THIS) - Unequivocal American stand regarding the refugees, according to which there will be no return of refugees to Israel. (THEN WHY IS THE US FINANCING PA SCHOOLS AND UNRWA WHICH ENCOURAGE THE RIGHT OF RETURN?) - American stand that there will be no return to the 1967 borders, for two primary considerations: major Israeli population centers and the implementation of the term defensible borders. (WHAT DOES "MAJOR"MEAN?) - American stand, according to which the major Israeli population centers will be part of Israel, in any event. AGAIN, (WHAT IS "MAJOR") All the remaining areas in Judea & Samaria will be open for negotiation. (IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN MAINTAIN A CITY IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA AND NOT THE ROADS) - The United States sets clear conditions for the establishment of a future Palestinian state and declares that the Palestinian state will not be created as long as the terror organizations have not been dismantled, as long as the leadership has not been replaced and no comprehensive reforms have been completed in the Palestinian Authority.(AND WHO DEFINES TERROR ORGANIZATIONS AND WHO DECIDES WHAT IS A REFORM?) 2. President Bush's letter to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's letter to President Bush constitute part of the overall disengagement plan, and these understandings with the United States will only be valid if the disengagement plan is approved by Israel. The exchange of letters between President Bush and the Prime Minister, as well as the letter by the Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to the U.S. National Security Adviser, are attached to this plan as an integral part of it. 3. According to the roadmap adopted by the Government of Israel, Israel has undertaken a number of commitments regarding the dismantling of unauthorized (UNAUTHORIZED BY WHOM? US AMBASSADOR DAN KURTZER?) outposts, limitations on settlement growth (REQUIRED BIRTH CONTROL?), etc. In the framework of the negotiations with the Americans, all of Israel's past commitments on these issues vis-א-vis the American administration, have been included in the letter by the Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to the U.S. National Security Adviser. (THAT SAME 'CHIEF' WHO UNTIL RECENTLY WAS THE LAWYER FOR THE PLO FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND THE PLO CASINOS) CONCLUSION: A Program of Ethnic Cleansing and Recklessness
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority. |
Printer
friendly version of this article