Both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed reservations about the latest ceasefire agreement.
One day after the agreement, in the June 13, Khaleej Times, it was “his cease-fire plan,” referring to CIA Director George Tenet. And if the truth is going to be told (which is rare in today’s world of PR and media bias), there is not a piece of paper with Sharon and Arafat’s signatures on it. The best that Tenet was able to accomplish was verbal agreements from both sides.
More importantly, Yasser Arafat “refused to personally make a public announcement of the PA’s acceptance of the plan, and he will send a letter of protest to the U.S. expressing his dissatisfaction and reservations about the plan” according to Professor Murray Kahl, a well-known Middle East analyst. But I don’t blame Tenet for this situation. I blame the United Nations.
You see, in 1967 Israel won the war, having been the defending nation against attack from her enemies. Israel captured lands that had previously been “illegally occupied” by Jordan (during the 1948-49 War of Independence). Jordan had participated in this “Six Day War,” which had been started by President Nasser of Egypt. The U.N. developed a
Security Council resolution that called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
Now, the U.N. was not very specific in its wording about these “territories.” The diplomats were concerned with making sure all the Security Council countries would agree. If they had called for Israel to withdraw from all of the territories (captured in 1967), then the U.S. (on behalf of Israel) would have not agreed to this. And had they been specific and said that Israel must withdraw from only some or a portion of the territories, then other nations (supporting the Arab cause) would not have agreed to the resolution. So, they left it unclear, or what we call in the business world “TBD” (to be determined). The Security Council only specified that Israel should withdraw from “territories” – which leaves it up to imagination (and interpretation) whether it is all the territories or just some.
This has created mismanaged expectations on the part of both the Israelis and the Palestinians regarding these “disputed” territories.
For example, when asked, “What is your position on the cease-fire?” (specifically, a ceasefire Arafat announced June 2), Hamas spokesman Hasan Yosef said, as quoted by the Palestinian Report that “A cease-fire means that there are two fighting armies. The Palestinian people are a people whose land is occupied, and whose Muslim and Christian holy sites are threatened by Judiazation [sic]. This is on top of the siege, closure and constant deprivation of Palestinians. All of these practices force our occupied people to defend themselves. Any oppressed people like the Palestinians must defend themselves” (emphasis added).
These words are intended to conjure up international sympathy for the Palestinians when their so-called defense is in reality an attempt to force their own desired outcome onto the Israelis. This is something that was against the Oslo Accords from the beginning, that either side would engage in any attempt to force outcomes, using violence as their means to achieve that end.
So, can we have any confidence in this ceasefire, as compared with the one that was announced by Arafat on June 2? Within four days from the June 2 ceasefire, there had been 90 Palestinian terrorist attacks, according to Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer. The Tzemach News Service referred to this (prior) ceasefire as “Israel Ceases, PLO Fires.” Given that, what kind of a ceasefire will the June 12 “verbal agreement” bring?
Will it be reported in the media accurately? (Check out CNN-Watch for up-to-date information on anti-Israel bias in Western media.)
It’s interesting that most of the American media are not disclosing details about this CIA-brokered agreement. Here are the basic elements of the ceasefire: 1) the PA side of the bargain is to arrest Hamas and Jihad activists, cease incitement, confiscate illegal weapons, monitor of the movement of militants, refuse militants shelter after attacks and take action against the terrorists. 2) the Israeli side of the bargain is to withdraw its forces to the pre-intifada positions, lift the blockade of the territories, ease economic restrictions and take action against Israelis who incite or plan to carry out violent acts against the Palestinians.
What is lacking in all of this planning, however, is a recognition of the “facts on the ground,” that according to a recent survey by Bir Zeit University in the West Bank, reported by Ha’aretz June 12, 90 percent of youths polled support suicide attacks against the Israelis.
“Resistance against the occupation is guaranteed by the laws of God and man alike; this [Tenet] plan deals with the symptoms of the symptoms, and doesn’t treat the root causes of the conflict, namely the Zionist occupation and domination.” So said a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, who was lambasting the PA’s acceptance of the CIA plan, as quoted by the quoted by the Islamic Association for Palestine.
So much for the Palestinian side – how about an Israeli view of the situation? Said Bar-Ilan University Prof. Gerald Steinberg, “Israel’s worst-case fears have been realized on the Palestinian front. The P.A. has decided to emulate the ‘success’ in Lebanon, using terrorism to force Israel to withdraw from the territories unilaterally. Instead of making the necessary compromises for peace, the Hezbollah model offers an alternative: Palestinian independence without a peace treaty or recognition of Israel. For precisely these reasons … a repetition of the Lebanese model in Gaza and the West Bank is unthinkable. If Israel were to withdraw unilaterally in the face of Palestinian terror, the violence would only move to the next line of attack – Israel itself.”
