What, if anything, should Israel do about this situation? Pull out and leave the Pals to their fate, or try to stabilize the situation?
Palestinian Descent into Chaos
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
July 20, 2004
"There is a crisis. There is a state of chaos." That's what Ahmed Qureia said after announcing his resignation from what some call the Palestinian Authority's prime ministry. "We have an absolute state of chaos," echoes the mayor of Jenin, a West Bank town. That chaos, growing since Yasir Arafat initiated the Oslo War in September 2000, has prompted the PA to declare a state of emergency; it could signal the end of the PA itself.
According to an April poll of the Gaza-based General Institute for Information, 94 percent of Palestinians believe that a state of lawlessness and chaos prevails in Palestinian Authority territories. As Palestinian security forces have fragmented and dissolved, armed groups of unknown identity have taken their place, using strong-arm tactics against a hapless population. The Jerusalem-based Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group finds that "weapons possession has become socially legitimized in Palestinian society."
In gang-dominated Nablus, for example, some deaths have resulted from spiraling criminal activity and reckless accusations of "collaboration" with Israel. But, Reuters explains, most casualties involve mistaken identity or plain bad luck. In two typical stories dating from February 2004, "Amneh Abu Hijleh, 37, entered a pharmacy to buy cough syrup for her infant daughter only to be shot dead in a botched abduction. Firas Aghbar, 13, was killed when he walked into a gang battle on his way to the barber for a birthday trim."
As explained by the Washington Post, "the Palestinian Authority is broke, politically fractured, riddled with corruption, unable to provide security for its own people and seemingly unwilling to crack down on terrorist attacks against Israel." One unnamed Fatah member estimates that 90 percent of gang activity is carried out by Palestinian Authority employees.
In February, for example, one Palestinian police officer died and eleven were wounded when rival police factions fought each other within the confines of Gaza's police headquarters. Things climaxed on July 16, as Al-Fatah terrorists ambushed and seized Gaza's police chief for several hours; and then some recently-sacked Palestinian policemen abducted the director of military co-ordination in the southern part of Gaza.
The UN's Middle East envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, has offered choice comments on the spreading anarchy, telling the Security Council that "Clashes and showdowns between branches of Palestinian security forces are now common in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian Authority legal authority is receding fast in the face of the mounting power of arms, money and intimidation." He also reached the startling conclusion that "Jericho is actually becoming the only Palestinian city with a functioning police."
This descent into chaos prompts four observations.
The PA has joined other parts of the Greater Middle East (Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan) in the general trend toward lawlessness.
Mr. Arafat predicted in 1994 that "Either we build a Singapore in our country or fall into the trap of the tragic Somali model." He thus acknowledges that the PA's slide to Somali-like anarchy symbolizes his own failure.
The Islamic proverb, "Better a thousand days of tyranny than one day of anarchy," has an element of truth, for life in the PA territories has truly become hellish.
Although Mr. Arafat launched the Oslo war nearly four years ago with the intent to destroy Israel, he is, ironically, destroying not Israel but his own proto-government.
The question now facing Palestinians is whether they have learned the right lessons from their bitter experience. That for once they are not blaming Israel for their problems gives some reason for optimism. Cox News Service notes that, "as the disorder spreads, Palestinian intellectuals and politicians are increasingly looking past Israel as the usual scapegoat and admitting they share a part of the blame." National Public Radio quotes a Palestinian saying that the PA is in trouble "because many people are being killed or kidnapped or robbed. … We are all accusing the government of not doing anything." A poll by the Gaza-based General Institute for Information finds that just 29 percent of Palestinians hold Israelis responsible for the PA's failure to enforce law and order.
This is a good start. But to emerge from their political predicament requires Palestinians coming to terms with the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. So long as they resist this change of heart, the Somali model remains their fate."
If the PA collapse, it will give Hamas and other terrorist groups the chance to take power. And when that happens, the chances of peace are extremely remote.
antizionist2004 said this in post #2 : This isn't good news for Palestinians or Israel.
If the PA collapse, it will give Hamas and other terrorist groups the chance to take power. And when that happens, the chances of peace are extremely remote.
I agree 100% with this assessment. And I repeat the question: should Israel attempt to stabilize the situation, in which case they will receive heaps of ridicule from the Arabs and the international community, or should they pull out behind their wall and leave the Palestinians to their own devices?
I agree there is nothing Israel can do. Israel isn't going to prop up Arafat. They can't install a government of their own without backing it up with Israeli troops. Egypt, Jordan need to take the lead in trying to stabilize the situation. Both countries are at risk if Hamas or some other terrorist group gains dominance.
I agree 100% with this assessment. And I repeat the question: should Israel attempt to stabilize the situation, in which case they will receive heaps of ridicule from the Arabs and the international community, or should they pull out behind their wall and leave the Palestinians to their own devices?
They should stabalize the situation themselves. Firstly, if it wasn't for Israel, the Palestinians wouldn't be in this mess in the first place (well, let's face it, if the Jews hadn't come and created Israel in the fist place the Palestinians would still be living in their homes, in Palestine). Secondly, if they pull out then this is too big a risk security wise. It would all backfire in Israel's face.
well, let's face it, if the Jews hadn't come and created Israel in the fist place the Palestinians would still be living in their homes, in Palestine
Damn those Jews. Always causing problems. Why don't Jew's just lay down in the street and die, right antiJew? If only Hitler had been able to finish off the Jews the palestinians would have a home right?
They should stabalize the situation themselves. Firstly, if it wasn't for Israel, the Palestinians wouldn't be in this mess in the first place (well, let's face it, if the Jews hadn't come and created Israel in the fist place the Palestinians would still be living in their homes, in Palestine). Secondly, if they pull out then this is too big a risk security wise. It would all backfire in Israel's face.
Yes, yes, more blah blah. But as you've pointed out, those pesky and irritating "Jews" DID come there and establish a state. The question is what choices have the Arabs made since then. Well let's see, they rejected 3 offers of statehood, with less being on the table each time. Oops. They initiated three wars and lost all three, where in the last two they should have known they had no chance for victory. Oops.
So all this happened. Blame game aside. If you are the Palestinians leadership TODAY, what do you do now? If you are the Israeli leadership, what do you do now? Miring yourself in the past does not solve the problems of the present.
But as you've pointed out, those pesky and irritating "Jews" DID come there and establish a state.
Why do you put Jews in quotations? Are you claiming the people who wanted the state weren't Jews??
quote:
The question is what choices have the Arabs made since then. Well let's see, they rejected 3 offers of statehood, with less being on the table each time.
Yes they've rejected 3 offers of statehood, I'm sure if the Arabs could go back in time now they'd accept them, but at the time it would have seemed logical to reject the amount offered to them.
quote:
They initiated three wars and lost all three, where in the last two they should have known they had no chance for victory.
Which three are you referring to? There have been five Israeli-Arab wars.
quote:
So all this happened. Blame game aside. If you are the Palestinians leadership TODAY, what do you do now? If you are the Israeli leadership, what do you do now? Miring yourself in the past does not solve the problems of the present.
If I was the Palestinian leader my main concern would be clampdown on terrorist groups and try and make peace with Israel. Obviously, if they offered me a deal which was unacceptable to the Palestinians then I would reject it straight away, like Arafat did.
If I was the Israeli leader my main concern would be security. How would I ensure security? Not through the policies the Israeli Government is doing now. Not by building land-grabbing walls. I'd stop settlements, start listening to the Palestinians and give them the state they want.
Now, we can put this whole post in reverse.
What choice have Israel made since the state began?
Well, they've attacked American targets in Egypt hoping to start a war...they've appointed three classified terrorists as Prime Minister, they've oppressed an entire people and broken international law more times than any other country.
If I was the Israeli leader my main concern would be security. How would I ensure security? Not through the policies the Israeli Government is doing now. Not by building land-grabbing walls. I'd stop settlements, start listening to the Palestinians and give them the state they want.
Perhaps thats why you'll never be the leader of Israel. You are more interested in giving the Palestinians what they want than what Israeli's need. You'd no doubt give back every inch of land that didn't conform with the 1947 UN partition. To the losers go the spoils. You would set a precedent that the needs of the Palestinains is more important that your own countrymen. You would reward terrorism. Notice you say you start listening to the Palestinians but if you were the Palestinain leader you wouldn't start listening to the Israelis. Also as a Palestinian leader (something you should apply for) you would reject any offer unacceptable to the Palestinians, yet as the Israeli leader you woudn't reject any offer unacceptable to the Israelis.
quote:
Well, they've attacked American targets in Egypt hoping to start a war...they've appointed three classified terrorists as Prime Minister, they've oppressed an entire people and broken international law more times than any other country.
Do you want to compare the International terrorism of the Palestinians and other Arabs on behalf of the Palestinians with the actions of Israel. Why hasn't there been one single sanction against the Palestinians for their terrorism? Not a one. Why? Must be a similar reason as to why Great Britain has never faced one single sanction for it's terrorist actions like Bloody Sunday.
Now usually I just ignore you on this forum, but because I'm in a good mood I'll find the time, just to crush your feeble arguments
quote:
Perhaps thats why you'll never be the leader of Israel. You are more interested in giving the Palestinians what they want than what Israeli's need. You'd no doubt give back every inch of land that didn't conform with the 1947 UN partition. To the losers go the spoils. You would set a precedent that the needs of the Palestinains is more important that your own countrymen. You would reward terrorism. Notice you say you start listening to the Palestinians but if you were the Palestinain leader you wouldn't start listening to the Israelis. Also as a Palestinian leader (something you should apply for) you would reject any offer unacceptable to the Palestinians, yet as the Israeli leader you woudn't reject any offer unacceptable to the Israelis.
I'm more interested in giving Palestinians what they want than Israel's needs? You miss the point here. By giving the Palestinians what they want, you ARE fulfilling Israel's needs. Because by negotiating with the Palestinians, you're making a step towards peace. PEACE = SECURITY
Obviously, I wouldn't concede more than the whole of the West Bank and Gaza plus East Jerusalem. Israel have been there for nearly 60 years; you can't just turn the clocks back like that (although in 1948 the Jews turned the clocks back 2000 years).
If I were the Palestinian of course I would listen to the Israelis, that's why I've specifically said I would combat and hunt the terrorist groups. However, at the same time, I would never accept a deal unacceptable to the Palestinians.
quote:
Do you want to compare the International terrorism of the Palestinians and other Arabs on behalf of the Palestinians with the actions of Israel. Why hasn't there been one single sanction against the Palestinians for their terrorism? Not a one. Why? Must be a similar reason as to why Great Britain has never faced one single sanction for it's terrorist actions like Bloody Sunday.
Palestinians are usually condemned for suicide bombings. The reason there's no sanctions against the Palestinians is because they don't have a proper government elected by the people, and the terrorists are assembled groups among the Palestinians who the people have no control over.
Now usually I just ignore you on this forum, but because I'm in a good mood I'll find the time, just to crush your feeble arguments
Smoking crack again AntiJew?
quote:
I'm more interested in giving Palestinians what they want than Israel's needs? You miss the point here. By giving the Palestinians what they want, you ARE fulfilling Israel's needs. Because by negotiating with the Palestinians, you're making a step towards peace. PEACE = SECURITY
No point is missing. The stated goal of the Palestinians has been the elimination of Israel. Even when they FEEBLY say they recognize Israel, it is only with the intention of eventually eliminating Israel. If not by war or terrorism than by flooding Israel with 5 million Arabs. In the words of Yasser Arafat:
We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem....All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America....We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living in the West Bank and in Jerusalem....You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State....I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews."
That's what giving the palestinains what they want is all about.
quote:
If I were the Palestinian of course I would listen to the Israelis, that's why I've specifically said I would combat and hunt the terrorist groups. However, at the same time, I would never accept a deal unacceptable to the Palestinians.
But you expect Israel to accept a deal unacceptable to the Israelis. If Israel is excepted to make concessions so are the Palestinians. Even on issues unacceptable to them.
quote:
Palestinians are usually condemned for suicide bombings. The reason there's no sanctions against the Palestinians is because they don't have a proper government elected by the people, and the terrorists are assembled groups among the Palestinians who the people have no control over.
Nonsense. There most certainly can be sanctions leveled on the PLA or former PLO. To say they don't have a proper government elected by the people is a LIE. They had an election in 1996. They had a proper government in place. They have a representative at the UN. If they can't control their terrorists they don't deserve a country.
antizionist2004 said this in post #12 : PEACE = SECURITY
As usual you get it wrong. You can't have peace until you have security. The correct wording would be SECURITY=PEACE
quote:
The reason there's no sanctions against the Palestinians is because they don't have a proper government elected by the people
BULLOCKS. There are no sanctions against the palestinians because they are not Jews. Just like Sudan gets no sanctions.
Kofi Annan explained that not enough people have been slaughtered yet in Sudan to really make it a priority for him: Sudan Militia Still Attack, UN Sanctions Unlikely.
And of course, the latest United Nations “peace initiatives” in Sudan have fallen apart like wet tissue paper, as the carnage continues to mount. No rush, Kofi.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Wednesday Sudan had made little progress in curbing marauding militias in the Darfur region but diplomats said sanctions against Khartoum were unlikely.
Annan spoke as his special representative in Khartoum, Dutchman Jan Pronk, briefed the 15-member Security Council on reports that Arab militia, called Janjaweed, were continuing to terrorize African villagers in Sudan’s west. The 15-month conflict has killed at least 30,000 people, forced villagers into concentration-camp type compounds and left 2 million people without enough food and medicine.
“There have been encouraging steps on the humanitarian front,” Annan said at a news conference. “But there has been little progress on human rights and I regret to say there are continuing reports of attacks by the Janjaweed militia.”
Sudan, in an agreement with Annan two weeks ago, pledged to protect displaced civilians, disarm the Janjaweed and other armed groups, suspend visa and travel restrictions on relief workers, allow African Union human rights monitors and punish those responsible for atrocities. Pronk, who has helped organize a monitoring system for Darfur, was blunt, saying there was “no progress whatsoever as far as the security of the people themselves is concerned.”
But Annan said he could not predict how long Sudan would have before the U.N. Security Council took concrete action.
“It’s going to be a judgment call rather than an artificial deadline but the urgency is there and the Sudanese government doesn’t have forever,” he said. ...
“Any discussion of intervention in Sudan would be looked at very carefully by governments and I am not sure how quickly and how enthusiastically one would get support for that initiative. We have to be very clear on that,” Annan said.
No point is missing. The stated goal of the Palestinians has been the elimination of Israel. Even when they FEEBLY say they recognize Israel, it is only with the intention of eventually eliminating Israel. If not by war or terrorism than by flooding Israel with 5 million Arabs. In the words of Yasser Arafat:
We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem....All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America....We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living in the West Bank and in Jerusalem....You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State....I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews."
That's what giving the palestinains what they want is all about.
When you say "The stated goal of the Palestinians" who exactly are you referring to? Are you seriously telling me that all the Palestinians reflect the views of groups like Hamas??
quote:
But you expect Israel to accept a deal unacceptable to the Israelis. If Israel is excepted to make concessions so are the Palestinians. Even on issues unacceptable to them.
Ah but by the Palestinians accepting ALL of the West Bank and Gaza plus East Jerusalem, they ARE compromising. Because many feel ALL of Israel, or at least half, should be theirs. So by accepting a measly 22% of what they used to own IS a compromise in itself.
quote:
Nonsense. There most certainly can be sanctions leveled on the PLA or former PLO. To say they don't have a proper government elected by the people is a LIE. They had an election in 1996. They had a proper government in place. They have a representative at the UN. If they can't control their terrorists they don't deserve a country.
You can't expect the PLO to be able to control every Palestinian. As my article "Tea with Terrorists" highlights, is that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad get the most amount of funding, and money is very important regarding who has the power.
It's like saying, if George Bush can't control every criminal in America then Americans "don't deserve a country." Obviously there's a difference between a common criminal and a terrorist, but the Palestinians are an oppressed people that have had their homes taken away from them.
quote:
As usual you get it wrong. You can't have peace until you have security. The correct wording would be SECURITY=PEACE
No, your wrong. You need to ensure there is peace first before having security. If you have security, for example building the wall, this won't necessarily make peace. The two sides will still be at war. On the other hand, if you have peace between the two sides then obviously the security will be much better.
Why does every forum have to denigrate to this? Can we get back to the topic?
There is nothing Israel can do to stabilize Palestinian areas. Any attempt to do anything noble or otherwise would undoubtedly be met with scathing criticisms, accusations, and finger pointing from Arabs and Palestinians.
Arabs have to clean up their own mess because much of it was perpetuated on the back of hatred for the Jews. I think it’s a case of making Frankenstein here. The situation is out of control and it’s of their own making.
In order for relief to be achieved for Palestinians there will have to be unfortunately a worsening condition. Who is “really” concerned with their plight? Nothing I’ve seen from Arabs lead me to believe they are really concerned with Palestinian grievances.
Palestine needs to be cleaned up. That is something they are not willing to do because of the chaos that will undoubtedly ensue afterward. Unfortunately it’s the only road that can be taken other than that wall being built. The problem is that if real clamp down occurs, how long will the war last until peace is actually achieved.
When you say "The stated goal of the Palestinians" who exactly are you referring to? Are you seriously telling me that all the Palestinians reflect the views of groups like Hamas??
It's not just groups like Hamas, AntiJew. Why do you feel the need to be a historical revisionist? It was the stated goal of the PLO who were the representivie of the Palestinian people. It is part of the PLO charter.
Article 19: The establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has elapsed ...
Article 15: [We call for] the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine
Article 22: The liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East ...
The Covenant also denies the existence of the Jewish people as a nation and any ties that it might have to the Land of Israel [Article 20: "Nor do Jews constitute a single nation"]. It declares in Article 9 that "armed struggle is the only [emphasis added] way to liberate Palestine".
In a letter dated September 9, 1993 -- part of the Oslo Accords -- signed by Yasser Arafat as Chairman of the PLO, Arafat agreed that:
... the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators
... those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid
... the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant .
But nothing was done to change the Covenant. The requirement was restated in another letter from Arafat to Rabin which accompanied the May 4, 1994 Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area (the Cairo Agreement), but no action was taken by Arafat and the PLO.
The Oslo II agreement was signed on September 24, 1995 but the change was not made within the time period specified. On April 24, 1996 there was a vote by the PLO's Palestine National Council. The vote was widely reported in the media as having repealed the clauses of the PLO Charter which deny Israel's right to exist and call for its destruction through violence. The governments of the United States and of Israel welcomed the vote, stating that it marked the fulfillment of the Palestinian obligation on the Covenant.
But, again, that was not actually the case. The PNC action, which has not been officially fully disclosed, only stated an intention to make changes at a future date and did not specify, in detail, the changes that would be made. The matter was referred to a legal committee for study. No specific anti-Israel clauses in the Covenant were declared officially abrogated. Moreover, the process was incomplete because the PNC did not draft a new Covenant. After winning the election in May 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu declared the failure to revise the Covenant to be a violation of the agreements by the Palestinians.
In the 1997 Hebron Agreement, it was specifically noted, again, that the PLO was commited to, "Complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter." Thereafter, Arafat and the PLO governing bodies insisted that they were in compliance based on the PNC vote in 1996, but legal analysts do not agree. In January 1998, Chairman Arafat sent letters to President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair purporting to "put to rest" concerns about the PNC resolution and setting out a list of articles supposedly canceled or amended by the decision. But personal statements by Arafat have no legal effect; only a vote of 2/3 of the PNC can ammend the Covenant (Article 33). On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, which required compliance with the earlier agreements, convened in Gaza in the presence of US President Clinton and voted to reaffirm their decision to amend the Covenant. But, again, this was insubstantial window dressing. Their action didn't actually amend the Covenant and the Palestinian Authority remained in violation of the lengthening series of agreements.
Although the Palestinian National Council (PNC) has twice taken formal decisions to revise the Palestinian National Covenant (1996 and 1998) calling for Israel's destruction, the PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun, stated on February 3, 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Palestinian Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 3 February 2001, as translated by MEMRI].
Former CIA Director James Woolsey said:
Arafat has been like Lucy with the football, treating the rest of the world as Charlie Brown. He and the PNC keep telling everyone they've changed the charter, without actually changing it.
This saga of the Covenant revision is an example of the lack of good faith on the part of Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs in the course of the Oslo peace process. But, it probably does not make a difference whether the Covenant is actually revised or not. The hatred and violence directed against Israel by the Palestinian Arabs does not originate with the piece of paper called the Palestinian National Covenant.
Ah but by the Palestinians accepting ALL of the West Bank and Gaza plus East Jerusalem, they ARE compromising. Because many feel ALL of Israel, or at least half, should be theirs. So by accepting a measly 22% of what they used to own IS a compromise in itself.
They have no choice but to accept that they weill never get all of Israel or even half. That's no compormise. They don't have control over it. It is a non Issue. They rejected the partition in 1947. They don't get to say now that they accpet it. They lost the war in 1948. They don't get to dictate the terms of their lose. You claim that they used to own more than 22% is propganda. They never owned any of Israel. They never ruled any of Israel. They never controlled any of Israel.
quote:
You can't expect the PLO to be able to control every Palestinian. As my article "Tea with Terrorists" highlights, is that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad get the most amount of funding, and money is very important regarding who has the power.
It's like saying, if George Bush can't control every criminal in America then Americans "don't deserve a country." Obviously there's a difference between a common criminal and a terrorist, but the Palestinians are an oppressed people that have had their homes taken away from them
.
You're making excuses again. If the PLO which is a terrorist group itself can't control the other terrorists groups how can there ever be peace? There can't. Israel will always be at risk because these groups are bent on the destruction of Israel. Your analogy is ridicules. We are not talking about internal matters here. We are talking about terrorists threatning the well being and security of another country. Palestinians are oppressed because they made themselves oppressed. They turn to violence in place of settlement. You approve of violence in place of settlement. I see little difference between your views and terrorists. You excuse their use of violence. You excuse the massacring of Jews. They've lost almost 4 years that could have been used to improve the lives of their people because they turned violent. They have nothing to show for it. Just a lot of death and destruction. It is unlikely they will ever get a deal better or even as good as what they were offered and might have improved on had they not become violent.
quote:
No, your wrong. You need to ensure there is peace first before having security. If you have security, for example building the wall, this won't necessarily make peace. The two sides will still be at war. On the other hand, if you have peace between the two sides then obviously the security will be much better.
Peace without security is not peace. You can not have peace with terrorists.
