Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Condi's Mideast roadmap is being influenced by whom!?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Condi's Mideast roadmap is being influenced by whom!?

    Condi's Mideast roadmap is being influenced by whom!?
    By Caroline B. Glick

    Jewish World Review
    February 9, 2005

    As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embarked on
    her maiden voyage, it was reported that she departed
    from America armed with a new policy paper on how to
    implement the Quartet's road map produced by the James
    Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

    According to Edward Djerejian, the former US
    ambassador to Syria who directs the Baker Center, the
    paper, with its detailed recommendations, is a "street
    map to the road map."

    One of the things that make the paper significant is
    that it bears former US secretary of state James
    Baker's name. Not only did Baker serve under the
    president's father, he now plays a formal role in
    mobilizing international support for Iraqi
    reconstruction efforts.

    As well, the team that composed the report included
    senior policy makers from the US, the Palestinian
    Authority, Egypt, Canada and the World Bank. The US
    was represented by current Assistant Secretary of
    State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns as well
    as by Norman Olsen, the political counselor at the US
    embassy in Israel. The PA was represented by security
    strongman Jibril Rajoub and by senior aides to Mahmoud
    Abbas, Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Qurei. Egypt was
    represented by Dictator Hosni Mubarak's senior adviser
    Osama El Baz and by General Hossam Khair Allah.

    Israel had no official representation. Rather, the
    Jewish state was represented by none other than Yossi
    Beilin's Geneva Accord crowd. Amnon Lipkin Shahak and
    Shlomo Brom, signatories to that subversive agreement
    where private citizens tried to abscond with the
    government's sovereign power to determine foreign
    policy by negotiating the scandalously anti-Israel
    "accord," participated. They were joined by members of
    Beilin's EU-financed think tank, the Economic
    Cooperation Foundation.

    Not surprisingly, the product this team produced and
    delivered to Rice is soft on Palestinian terrorism,
    soft on Palestinian democratization, and relentlessly
    harsh toward Israel — its sovereignty, its right to
    defend itself, and its ability to claim any right to
    retain any of the Israeli communities in Judea and
    Samaria.

    The document makes no clear statement on the need for
    the Palestinians to dismantle terrorist organizations.
    Indeed, the term "terror organizations" is absent from
    the report. Instead, the Palestinian requirement to
    combat terrorism is reduced to demands on Israel to
    facilitate the training, arming and operation of the
    "reformed" Palestinian security services while not
    interfering with them in any way.

    While the report pays lip service to the need for the
    PA to reform its governing institutions, its only
    clear statement on the end-product of reform is
    unabashedly authoritarian. The aim of all the reforms
    must be the "consolidat[ion of] Fatah as the main
    political player in Palestinian society."

    While the report makes no call for the destruction of
    Palestinian terror organizations and bucks up the
    authoritarian, corrupt PA, it calls for Israel to be
    treated with hostility and suspicion.

    The paper calls for the establishment of a
    multinational force that will implement the
    agreements. Implicit in this statement is the
    assumption that Israel will be prevented by the
    presence of this force from taking any measures to
    defend itself against attacks.

    International border crossings in Gaza and Judea and
    Samaria, including the weapons smuggling hub at the
    Philadephi Corridor which separates Gaza from Egypt,
    are to be controlled by the Palestinians. The report
    gives Egyptian forces a more prominent role in
    implementing the agreements than the IDF.

    WHERE THE report's anti-Israel bias is most blatant is
    in its discussion of the Israeli communities in Judea
    and Samaria. The authors refer to their desire to see
    "The Palestinian people establish a viable state in
    the West Bank and Gaza" and make it clear that a
    precondition for the state's viability is that it be
    racially pure — entirely cleansed of Jewish
    communities. At the same time, they express their
    desire to "assure that Israel will continue to exist
    as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people and
    its other citizens." So in the authors' view, Israel
    is to be a state of all of its citizens while
    "Palestine" is to be Judenrein.

    The report calls for the institution of a draconian
    regime in the Defense Ministry and the Justice
    Ministry to effectively prevent any building
    activities whatsoever from being conducted in the
    Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. This regime,
    "The Special Office on Settlement Activities," will be
    obliged not simply to act as the enforcer of the
    attrition of these communities. The report determines
    that this body will be subordinate to the US embassy
    in Israel — effectively ceding Israeli sovereignty to
    the US.

    The study even dares to dictate what propaganda moves
    must be made by the Israeli government to force the
    Israeli public to accept this policy. A close reading
    makes it clear that the result of this policy will be
    the expulsion of more than 400,000 Israeli Jews from
    their homes. This is so because the destruction of
    Israeli neighborhoods in Jerusalem is implicit in the
    section's opening paragraph, which mendaciously
    claims: "The US government policy has been based on
    the principle that there can be no acquisition of
    territory by war."

    Not only does this sweeping and totally false
    statement necessarily include Jerusalem; it can easily
    be interpreted as saying that the only borders Israel
    can legitimately claim are the UN partition borders
    from 1947 since much of the land that makes up the
    1949 armistice lines was acquired in war.

    Perhaps it is reasonable that officials pushing a plan
    that would cause Israel to effectively become the ward
    of the international community should not feel limited
    by the positions of the Israeli government as it makes
    its plans — sufficing instead to have Israel
    "represented" by radical free agents with Israeli
    citizenship.

    But two questions still arise: Why is the US
    government sending its officials to participate in a
    "working group" which works to undermine the
    sovereignty of a US ally; and why is the Israeli
    government not taking legal action against private
    citizens who travel the world "negotiating" away the
    sovereign rights of the state while undermining the
    prerogatives of the Israeli government?


    Jewish World Review contributor Caroline B. Glick is
    the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for
    Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy
    managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0205/glick2005_02_09.php3

    --Boundary_(ID_U+8v2OK9IL7QKtjDWHHR1Q)--

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X