| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| The New Road Map |
| 2003-01-27 |
| The road to hell paved is bad intentions Make no mistake; Israel must refuse to go down it. There is nothing to negotiate. In essence it is an attempt to change the rules of the game once again, in favour of the Palestinians, without any concession to Israel. Every time there is a new plan it increases the rights of the Palestinians at Israelâs expense. In â67 UNSC Re.s 242 did not recognize the Palestinians. It authorized Israel to remain in the territories until they had an agreement for secure and recognized borders. It was acknowledged that Israel would be retaining some of the land to achieve secure borders. The Oslo Accords were intended to create a body, the Palestinian Authority, with whom Israel could negotiate such borders. As a condition precedent to its execution, Arafat agreed to renounce violence and incitement and agreed that all disputes would be resolved by negotiation. The PLO also agreed to recognize Israel and remove all offending parts of their Charter. There was no mention of a Palestinian State. There was no restrictions whatsoever on settlement activity. Both parties committed to a just settlement of the refugee issues. There was no mention of a right to return. There was to be security cooperation. Israel was in full control. Regardless of its agreed terms, Arafat violated every term right from the get go. As a result of the Intafadah, which Arafat choose to begin, we got the Mitchell Plan, which recommended a freeze on settlement activity. This was a concession to Arafat beyond Oslo. But Arafat still didnât follow it. Then we got the Tenent Plan for security cooperation, which was not needed because Oslo spelt it all out. This also went nowhere because Arafat wouldnât abide by its terms. After which we started to hear that there should be international monitors, which Israel wouldnât agree to. Then everyone said we had to offer âhopeâ to the Palestinians or that there must be a political tract etc. Then the pressure started to build on the settlements. No one insisted that Oslo had to be adhered to. The NY Times introduced the Saudi Peace Plan and went gaga over it. This plan required the right of return and â67 borders. Everyone including the US wanted to accommodate the Palestinians and kept offering them more then they were entitled to by Oslo. Finally Bush came out with his vision speech in which he envisioned a Palestinian State. But he laid down many safeguards. Two months later we had the first draft of the New Road Map by the Quartet. This New Road Map was negotiated at the same time as the Security Council was debating what to do with Iraq so there was lots of linkage. Now that Bush had broken the ice with the vision of a Palestinian state, this Plan ran with it but dropped all of Bushâs safeguards. It also required the Quartet to be the judge of performance by consensus so the US wouldnât have a veto. No longer is Israel in control of anything. Israel is expected to proceed in parallel with the Palestinians as though they were equally at fault. No longer must they effectively stop the terror. It is enough to make visible efforts to confront it and take steps. Israel is to be ruled by the Quartet even in matters of security. It also brings the Saudi Plan into the mix. Finally, there should be âan agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issueâ as well as a ânegotiated resolution to Jerusalemâ. |
| Posted by:Ted Belman |
| #12 OK,compromise on opinion pieces on Rantburg:500 words and you gotta post pix of 2 chicks at least as hot as the 2 on the Miller Lite mud-wrasslin' ad. |
| Posted by: Hugh Jorgan 2003-01-28 00:41:17 |
| #11 Tony, The Kuchays is one of my favorites, too. All the best stories seem to come out of Pakland. I also like "Pashtun Hatfields, McCoys shoot it out in Gulistan", and "These are the guys who're gonna fight that war." But then, I have a weakness for the ridiculous... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-01-27 22:45:49 |
| #10 Add it all up, and you should conclude that the current international-legal regime - the UN and related organizations - is fatally undermined by Sharia-subversion, as practiced by Muslims. Islamania has their own versions of the UNESCO, the |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-01-27 19:52:11 |
| #9 Ok, I can live with the new guys and their opinions (hey, it's Freds' blog - if he can handle it so can I!). But please, please don't lose the unique style that is Rantburg. I have learnt so much about the Jihadi, Pak and Indo press from this site, and I get a real kick out of the comments and yellow stickies (favourite story is one about the Kuchays taking it in the shortz - http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?D=6/21/2002&ID=5246 - june of last year and it *still* cracks me up!) |
| Posted by: Tony 2003-01-27 17:14:47 |
| #8 "I'm on "liberal"'s side...(Ohmigawd! I said that and my lips fell off!)" :) im more hawk than liberal in here, since the focus is on international matters. (in LGF I'm still a house liberal, but that is after all, LGF) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-27 13:35:41 |
| #7 If I want to read Israpundit, I can go there. When I want to read Rantburg, I come here. It's simple, really. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-01-27 12:57:03 |
| #6 I'm on "liberal"'s side...(Ohmigawd! I said that and my lips fell off!) Everybody's got an opinion and a heinie. Some are more well-rounded than others, and some stink. Usually the ones that are well-rounded are grounded in fact. The ones that stink are grounded in emotion, intuition, the revelations included in one holy or unholy book or the other, or intentional distortion of facts. Most blogs are opinion blogs. Glenn Reynolds divided them into "linkers and thinkers." Rantburg's in both categories (which puts it in a category by itself, I like to think.) Articles posted have the original links. Often - though not as often as I should - I'll link to an opinion in somebody else's blog that bears on the subject under discussion. But the content here is usually based on first-level analysis of hard news pieces. I try to make Rantburg a repository for fact articles. It's modeled on the intel summary I prepared in my last job as an analyst; by the time it was passed around each day it would be chock full of marginal notes and yellow stickies. This is the same idea, only with unclassified sources. I mine the jihadi press, the Pak and Indonesian press, the Russian papers - what I tend to think of as the "unusual" suspects. Often when I run an article, it'll show up in the mainstream press a day or two later. (F'rinstance, I just deleted an article Steve posted from a mainstream source because I had it in here on Saturday.) So, while much of Rantburg's content can easily be found elsewhere, often you have to wait. When I include an internal link, it bears on the subject under discussion (more or less, anyway). The hilited smartassery is usually either an analysis of the previous paragraph or a mockery of it, and often a combination of the two. The reader comments are more opinion and dissection of same. It's the equivalent of the marginal comments and yellow stickies. I think that and the sheer volume of posts - seldom less than a dozen, occasionally as many as 40 in a day - makes Rantburg pretty unique. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-01-27 12:27:22 |
| #5 Yes. Stay On Style, respect the orientation of Rantburg as a news source interspersed with reader comments. Both of these are opinion pieces, and the two offenders are defending each other. You're doing what I detest in the liberal domination of the "news" media: under the cloak of "news", and hijacking the hard earned reputation of the media being co-opted, you attempt to turn it into a propaganda organ devoted to your pet causes. Set up your own damn blogs and quit spamming. Rantburg is truly unique. I will still come, even if the "post your own news item" feature is removed. Steve was doing just fine before he added the feature, and will do just fine after he removes it. BUG OFF! |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-01-27 11:59:50 |
| #4 there are dozens of blogs ont he web filled with opinions regarding this topic - some of the largest include Instapundit and little green footballs. AS for the news, this site tends to gather together things i would normally not find (maybe you have time to follow the Pakistani press, for examle, i do not) as well as to link things together in ways the mainstream press does not do. I note that you have also posted an opinion piece. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-27 11:18:47 |
| #3 I disagree with "Liberal". Opinion and original articles are much more important than news, which can easily be found elsewhere, whether on the web, TV or radio. Opinions, on the other hand, are much more rare and useful. |
| Posted by: Joseph Alexander Norland 2003-01-27 10:39:57 |
| #2 er. i come to rantburg for up to the minute news on the WOT. There are lots of other places on the net to see opinions on the Israeli situation. If the user postings result in less news and more opinions this place will get very cluttered, and far less unique. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-27 08:30:42 |
| #1 "I'm on "liberal"'s side...(Ohmigawd! I said that and my lips fell off!)" :) im more hawk than liberal in here, since the focus is on international matters. (in LGF I'm still a house liberal, but that is after all, LGF) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 1/27/2003 1:35:41 PM |