babble home - 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   » Sharon denounces peace proposal

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sharon denounces peace proposal
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 October 2003 07:58 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That would have Palestinians give up right of return:

The Geneva Plan

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 October 2003 10:48 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not a surprise to me. As I have often said, Sharon will never agree to an independent, viable Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. He will only agree to a carved up, canton-like, "state."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 October 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While Sharon's reaction was not unexpected, the plan was criticized by Barak, who is probably dreaming of a political comeback:

"Former prime minister Ehud Barak, who left
office in early 2001, several months after the
intifada broke out, said Monday it was
unfortunate that the Labor Party had permitted
some of its members to formulate such a
"delusional" peace plan.

"This is a fictive and slightly peculiar
agreement... that clearly harms the interests
of the State of Israel," Barak told Israel

And the plan was greeted by silence from Peres, probably because he did not have a hand in it:

"Though two top Labor party politicians, MKs
Amram Mitzna and Avraham Burg, were involved in
the drafting of the Geneva Accord, Labor
responses to the plan yesterday were mixed.
Silence maintained by party chairman MK Shimon
Peres fueled speculation about the veteran
peacemaker's stance on the new plan."

However, in Beilin's words:

"Israelis would eventually come to view the
agreement as best answering their own vital
interests, Beilin argued. "Even if it's not
today or tomorrow, within a relatively short
time span, the Israeli public will become
convinced that this is the best plan for it ...
The alternative could be much, much worse if
within seven years, this nation cannot be a
democratic and Jewish state."

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 October 2003 05:12 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The language of the official Israeli responses to the proposed plan is instructive in how alternative voices for peace are silenced by the Zionist mainstream:

The Israelis who put their names to the plan are marginal people who represent nobody but themselves and who paid the price for that at the last elections.

Marginal? Interesting, because it doesn't actually address the ideas in the plan itself, but the supposed political standing of those who drew it up in relation to the 'mainstream'. But when the mainstream is militarist and warlike and relies on this stance for its political momentum, peace is 'war'. One of the key facets of fascism. But what would one expect from Revisionist Zionist Likudites? What is more telling is that the 'moderate' Barak, who represents the so-called 'left' of the mainstream has condemned the plans in essentially the same sort of terms.

"These people are the playthings of [Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat."

Essentially, traitors. One can easily glean the kind of fascist jingoism this statement is born out of. Alternatives to war and militarism are treachery, weakening the resolve of the state. This is also why they are called 'marginal'.

From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 October 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"What does the axis of automatic rejectionists
Shalom-Livnat-Landau-Olmert and Co. want? That,
while Sharon's "painful concessions" turn out
once again to be a cunning advertising slogan
for a dubious product, the Palestinian
Authority will stand at attention and recite
the document, singing "Hatikvah"? And why
should some of the Labor Party be so sour - if
not out of sheer green envy over an important
platform that they did not produce?

The argument over the document should be one of
the most important debates held here since
Rabin lifted the boycott of the PLO. But the
right, which pretends to be democracy's nanny,
is doing everything possible to make sure that
a rational discussion of the document won't
take place, except in an atmosphere of
political terror and incitement. The right,
along with the hasty critics in Labor, are
going after the document without reading its 50
pages, without yet knowing exactly what it
says. Why? Because the brutal discourse that
erupted from the right is against the very
concept of an agreement."

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008