Olmert: Convergence plan is 'inevitable,' and will be implemented
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated his controversial plan yesterday to redraw Israel's borders unilaterally if necessary.
During a visit with President Chirac in Paris, Olmert stated:"The plan is inevitable, it will be implemented, hopefully by agreement, but it will be implemented."
However, this is all simply window dressing, as he continues to make preconditions for negotiations that are simply ways of making negotiations impossible. One cannot help but feel that he plans to go ahead with his unilateral establishment of Israel's borders, which can only result in a continuation of the violence and the squandering of a great opportunity for lasting peace in the region.
He ruled out talks as long as the new Hamas-led Palestinian government refuses to renounce violence, accept past peace accords or recognize Israel's right to exist.These are simply a set of demands that the Israelis regularly use to avoid any form of negotiation. Firstly, Hamas has offered peace and has been observing a cease fire for some fifteen months now, a cease fire that the Israelis have not reciprocated. This fact is simply ignored by the Israelis and their American counterparts.
As for the demand that the Palestinians must recognise Israel's right to exist, this point is addressed by Omar Abdul Razeq, a former Professor of Finance and now Finance Minister of the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority in the Palestine Times:
I'm stunned that the Israelis are allowed to get away with this. They are demanding recognition prior to negotiation when they are the only country on the planet that has yet to define it's own borders.A: Which Israel would you want me to recognize? Is it Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates? Israel with the occupied Golan Heights? Israel with East Jerusalem? Israel with the settlements? I challenge you to tell me where Israel’s borders lie? Or do you want to sell me fish in the sea?
Q : I am speaking of the 1967 borders.
A : Does Israel recognize the 1967 borders? Can you tell me of one Israeli government that ever voiced a willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders?
Israel is allowed to make these ridiculous demands whilst we continue to starve the Palestinians for having the temerity to vote for a government that we disapprove of.
It is becoming obvious that Olmert is merely paying lip service to negotiations and that he has no intention of ever sitting down with the Palestinians.
What's more shocking is that, despite the warnings from both Blair and Chirac, he is - with American contrivance - going to be allowed to get away with this.
It's depressing beyond words that the US are going to allow this to happen. And it's the height of hypocrisy that they will allow this whilst Israel and the US continue to present themselves as the reasonable ones in this dispute.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
5 comments:
you made excellent point here, thanks.
If the USA supports Israels plan ( this one sided plan ) then I believe that the Palestinians and Israeli will eneter a new era that is most distant from peace.
Will the united states support this convergence plan ? If it does this would be a catastrophe.
Wt do u think?
and has been observing a cease fire for some fifteen months now
Well sorry Kel, but just today this came out:
The Hamas government wants a ceasefire with Israel and is willing to ask Palestinian militants to stop firing rockets from Gaza into the Jewish state, a spokesman said on Thursday.
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060615/wl_nm/mideast_dc_103;_ylt=AmMdIbprGzbApa5kxDis6_sUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
So, rockets have been fired at Israel during this entire time. Either Hamas has been unable to do anything about it, thus making it impotent, or it has been unwilling to do anything about it, thus making its "ceasefire" meaningless. In this article they seem to be suggesting the latter is more likely the case.
Hamas' definition of a ceasefire is finding a subcontractor like Islamic Jihad to do its dirty work while it pretends to be honoring the agreement.
If the US supports Olmert's plans for a unilateral solution, then the war continues as the Palestinians will have been denied their due rights under international law.
There is a unique opportunity here for Israel to negotiate with the organ grinder (Hamas) rather than the, previously available, monkey (Arafat).
If Israel is serious about peace she will grab this opportunity.
Sadly, I must conclude that I think Israel is more interested in land grabs than she is about peace.
That's why she conniving to make this deal unilaterally.
The US is being played like a fool. She's swallowing Israeli propaganda.
Israel wants land. This whole farce is about how much land she can take.
It is time for Blair and the other Europeans to step up to the plate and to tell Bush what we regard as acceptable, and what we do not.
The US does not exist in a bubble. It needs the rest of us.
We need to state how we envision the future of Palestine. And we need to fight for that state of Palestine in the same way as we fought for the abolition of Apartheid.
BTW Kel, I thought you might be interested in this piece. It suggests that Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch is, in fact, not qualified to be doing the sort of analyses he is purporting he is able to do:
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1480
If so, this is very damaging for all those who have been relying on Garlasco's "expert opinion" to bolster the case that Israel was behind the explosion on the beach.
Tommy,
Stop posting links in which you hope to allow other people to make your argument for you.
If YOU have an argument, then make it.
Be a grown up.
All that linked article tells us is that Judy Klinghoffer "likened" Garlasco's work to that of the UN team after Jenin.
Jenin was not a high point for the Israelis in terms of clearing their name. Lest we forget, the Israelis refused to allow a UN team access to that town after the purported "massacre". Why did they refuse access if they had nothing to hide?
Your link is pathetic in that it attempts to run down Garlasco through "a close friend and intelligence buddy, who's name at the moment will not be disclosed."
Why don't you deal with the evidence rather than simply attacking Garlasco?
Post a Comment