Sincerity, contiguity and viability
In his speeches while visiting Israel, Pres. Bush has said that both PM Olmert and Pres. Abbas are "sincere" in their desire for peace. PM Olmert in his speeches has said that he and Pres. Abbas are sincere in their desire for a peace agreement. My question is, how do they know that Abbas is "sincere." They have only his words on which to judge his sincerity, a notoriously bad basis. Remember how many times Arafat said he wanted "the peace of the braves." What annoys me most is why is the Israeli leader vouching for the Palestinian leader's good faith. I'll bet Abbas never says that Olmert is "sincere."
Of course, a better means of judging Pres. Abbas' sincerity for peace is to look at his actions. As the Editorial in today's J'sam Post says, Pres. Abbas says one thing and does another. For example, one of the first things he is supposed to do is to stop terrorism, but when the IDF went into Nablus last week they found a huge terrorist operation in full swing, and no evidence that the PA is attempting seriously to curtail it. The PA let out wails of outrage, partly at being found out for the liars they are. Another area is incitement, the JP pointed out that the PA official radio station, that is now (since the Hamas takeover in Gaza) directly under Abbas' control, has the idolization of martyrs in its children's programs. This had been removed for some time, but while Pres. Bush was there in the PA today, it was showing.
So on what basis do Bush and Olmert vouch for Abbas' sincerity. They are attempting to bolster him as "their" Palestinian leader, as opposed to Hamas and the other terrorist groups. And no doubt he is more "moderate" than they are. But, to call him "sincere" and vouch for his honesty and good faith in the glare of media attention is really too much! Let him first prove his sincerity by his deeds, and then we might be able to believe him.
Certainly Pres. Bush has shown that he is a brave man, to actually go to Ramallah, into that nest of terrorists and killers, during a large and violent anti-US demonstration. Of course, he had excellent security, but still it was a risk. Especially since in Gaza, Hamas had a major demonstration calling for Bush to be killed, and there was an American al Qaeda video also calling for him to be greeted by bombs and not applause. Even if Bush believes that Abbas is sincere, he knows that he does not control the terrorists in Ramallah and elsewhere in the West Bank, and so going there was definitely risky.
After his meetings in both Israel and the PA, Bush made a statement this evening in Jerusalem, in which he projected a "viable and contiguous" Palestine State. How is that going to be accomplished without splitting Israel? In order for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be joined there must be a connection east of Jerusalem, which would cut Jerusalem off from the Dead Sea. In order for Gaza and the West Bank (Judea) to be contiguous that would divide Israel across the middle. I don't see how this can be accomplished without Israel suffering irreparably. If one State has to be non-contiguous, let it be the Palestinian State, not Israel that is already contiguous. In any case, probably no Palestinian State can be viable, given the economic conditions, the welfare mentality, the internal divisions, the lack of democracy and the endemic violence. I salute Bush for trying, even if belatedly in his term, but it really can't be done, certainly not in one year.
Of course, a better means of judging Pres. Abbas' sincerity for peace is to look at his actions. As the Editorial in today's J'sam Post says, Pres. Abbas says one thing and does another. For example, one of the first things he is supposed to do is to stop terrorism, but when the IDF went into Nablus last week they found a huge terrorist operation in full swing, and no evidence that the PA is attempting seriously to curtail it. The PA let out wails of outrage, partly at being found out for the liars they are. Another area is incitement, the JP pointed out that the PA official radio station, that is now (since the Hamas takeover in Gaza) directly under Abbas' control, has the idolization of martyrs in its children's programs. This had been removed for some time, but while Pres. Bush was there in the PA today, it was showing.
So on what basis do Bush and Olmert vouch for Abbas' sincerity. They are attempting to bolster him as "their" Palestinian leader, as opposed to Hamas and the other terrorist groups. And no doubt he is more "moderate" than they are. But, to call him "sincere" and vouch for his honesty and good faith in the glare of media attention is really too much! Let him first prove his sincerity by his deeds, and then we might be able to believe him.
Certainly Pres. Bush has shown that he is a brave man, to actually go to Ramallah, into that nest of terrorists and killers, during a large and violent anti-US demonstration. Of course, he had excellent security, but still it was a risk. Especially since in Gaza, Hamas had a major demonstration calling for Bush to be killed, and there was an American al Qaeda video also calling for him to be greeted by bombs and not applause. Even if Bush believes that Abbas is sincere, he knows that he does not control the terrorists in Ramallah and elsewhere in the West Bank, and so going there was definitely risky.
After his meetings in both Israel and the PA, Bush made a statement this evening in Jerusalem, in which he projected a "viable and contiguous" Palestine State. How is that going to be accomplished without splitting Israel? In order for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be joined there must be a connection east of Jerusalem, which would cut Jerusalem off from the Dead Sea. In order for Gaza and the West Bank (Judea) to be contiguous that would divide Israel across the middle. I don't see how this can be accomplished without Israel suffering irreparably. If one State has to be non-contiguous, let it be the Palestinian State, not Israel that is already contiguous. In any case, probably no Palestinian State can be viable, given the economic conditions, the welfare mentality, the internal divisions, the lack of democracy and the endemic violence. I salute Bush for trying, even if belatedly in his term, but it really can't be done, certainly not in one year.
posted by Jack Cohen at 9:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home