babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The road map for peace

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The road map for peace
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 May 2003 10:42 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I may have missed this somewhere, but has anyone linked or even seen the new "road map for peace" that's now being touted around the media? I'd like to read it (or at the least a summary of it's key concessions) before forming an opinion. Crazy, I know.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 May 2003 10:51 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here ya go:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3173.htm


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 May 2003 11:03 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Wingy! Lunchtime reading.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 May 2003 11:14 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is not much to it. I don't hold out much hope for its success either.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 01 May 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 01 May 2003 02:03 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.

This will be a problem.


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 May 2003 02:05 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A couple of thoughts on what I've read:

The removal of Israeli troops is presented as being dependant on a visible crackdown by the PA against extremist groups, without defining which groups they are (although they would certainly include Hamas, Al Aqsa, PFLP, I presume). There are no guarantees that the best efforts of a Palestinian police force will be considered if some groups slip from their grasp. Which means that the IDF will be able to define it's own timetable for withdrawl, regardless of the actions of any Palestinian police force.

No mention is made of the land grab currently underway by Sharon via the apartheid fence. Any peace agreement needs to include clear provisions demanding that land illegally appropriated on the Israeli side of the fence be returned, unequivicolly.

The security section in phase one of the agreement states "Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror." without defining who those groups are or how to separate political groups from true terrorist groups. This lack of definition worries me, in that some political groups (within Palestine, Israel, or the Quartet) could curtail any future democratic process by decrying a political opponent as a terrorist group. Rights to assembly could similarly be curtailed by claiming that the assemblants are terrorists. Loose clauses like this are very much open to abuse.

The final clause in the security section of Phase 1 is "As comprehensive security performance moves forward, IDF withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed prior to September 28,2000. Palestinian security forces redeploy to areas vacated by the IDF." Personally, I see this as a first step, not a last step. The violence is unlikely to stop while the increased occupation continues, and demanding such links to a removal of the IDF will only serve to stall the process. Sending UN peacekeeping troops (not US forces) into the areas currently occupied by the IDF is a more timely, and secure, way of ensuring the withdrawl of the IDF. Waiting for a Quartet-approved Palestinian security force to grow large enough to assume this role is only going to take extra time and allow certain pots to simmer over.

Phases II and III are actually better than I thought they'd be going in, but they do not address one key point strongly enough: The post-1967 settlements. There are words addressing the territorial contiguity of Palestine, and action on settlements, which is good, but they demand new negotiations on existing settlements. I can't see the Palestinian leadership accepting an agreement that legitimizes post-1967 settlements (nor should they). A serious agreement would include a timetable (say 5-10 years) for Israel to dismantle those settlements, after Phase I and Phase II are accepted.

Anyway, I've only skimmed the document. I need to read it more fully...maybe some of my concerns are addressed and I just missed it.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
tyoung
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3885

posted 01 May 2003 02:18 PM      Profile for tyoung        Edit/Delete Post
When Daddysno says "this will be a problem":

quote:
Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.

How about including this problem

quote:
A third difference is the sheer amount of aid the U.S. gives to Israel, unparalleled in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Israel usually receives roughly one third of the entire foreign aid budget, despite the fact that Israel comprises less than .001 of the world's population and already has
one of the world's higher per capita incomes. In other words, Israel, a country of approximately 6 million people, is currently receiving more U.S. aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined when you take out Egypt and Colombia.

quote:
In addition to nearly $3 billion in direct aid, Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid: military support from the defense budget, forgiven loans, and special grants. While some of the indirect aid is difficult to measure precisely, it is safe to say that Israelÿs total aid
(direct and indirect) amounts to at least five billion dollars annually.

Perhaps the proposal should read "All states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror."

Edited to fix link

[ 01 May 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 May 2003 02:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with your read on it Sarcasmobri.

It appears there is no method of measuring performance which means that, likely, the process will never actually get started. Already they are disagreeing on who has to do what first and the US, which has been firm up to now, has begun to waffle (one whole day after releasing it!) on whether the Road Map is written in stone or still open to negotiation.

Further, the issue of settlements up to 1981 will probably be a bigger sticking issue then the right to return and Jerusalem.

A nation interspersed with alien enclaves connected by alien "security corridors" is not a nation at all.

Finally, there is no mention of resources. It is almost certain Israel will try to keep control of Palestinian water resources. How can any state surreder control of its most vital resources?

If this is the best they could come up with ...


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 May 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I noticed that too, tyoung. The onus from this document is very much on Palestine to change it's ways, and puts Israel in a more reactionary mode (i.e. the IDF will not withdraw until x conditions are met...post-2000 settlements will not be dismantled until y conditions are met). There is no acknowledgement that the continued settlement activity up to and after Barak helped create the conditions that led to the second intifada. No real responsibility is being placed on Israel to rein in the IDF, until after Palestinian leaders start catching and prosecuting terrorists. It really is one-sided. Unfortunately, I don't think a balanced road-map (with simultaneous demands on both Israel and Palestine) would be accepted by Sharon's government. A one-sided road-map is the only tenable choice at this time. And don't think that I don't hate that admission, but I'd rather see a workable peace than the continued bloodshed that's going on now.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 01 May 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bullshit. They avoid mentioning UNHCR 192 and put back the most important issue of refugees back till 2005. *yawn*

Meanwhile, another 12 people are killed in Gaza. A clear signal that the Israeli killing machine will not let any peace plan put it out of business.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 May 2003 03:25 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, the day after a suicide bombing. I think those committed to violence are undeterred by this road map.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 May 2003 03:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sending UN peacekeeping troops (not US forces) into the areas currently occupied by the IDF is a more timely, and secure, way of ensuring the withdrawl of the IDF. Waiting for a Quartet-approved Palestinian security force to grow large enough to assume this role is only going to take extra time and allow certain pots to simmer over.

I agree, Sarcasmo, that this could be the strategic refinement that would make genuine progress possible.

It's not going to happen, though, is it? It makes me wonder just how purposeful all the slagging of the UN has been. In just a couple of years, such serious damage has been done.

Anyone know whether the Bushes have a vendetta against the Roosevelts?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 May 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Political conservatives have had a hate-on for the New Deal since it was implemented. It's no surprise to me that their greatest efforts have been to roll back every achievement that program (and its successors, such as Truman's Fair Deal, and Kennedy's New Frontier, and Johnson's Great Society, and even Clinton's health care proposal) has wrought.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca