HHMI Newsgroup Archives

Official: US Working on Peace Plan 
By Karin Laub
Associated Press Writer
Friday, Oct. 12, 2001; 3:15 p.m. EDT 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011012/aponline151530_000.ht
m

JERUSALEM -- The United States is putting together a Mideast peace plan that
calls for establishing a Palestinian state with a foothold in Jerusalem, and
Palestinians have won assurances that the ideas will be unveiled despite
initial delays, a Palestinian Cabinet minister said Friday. 

Israel said Friday it has not been presented with the ideas but registered
reservations about key elements that have been reported. Israeli Cabinet
minister Dan Naveh said Israel staunchly opposes "ideas which include at
their core the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its
capital." 

In Washington, a U.S. official confirmed that a Mideast proposal is in the
works, and that it should be ready in about a month. A tentative time for
going public is mid-November, during the U.N. General Assembly, said the
official who spoke on condition of anonymity. He would not discuss details
of the plan. 

The United States has not presented the emerging proposals to Israel or the
Palestinians, officials from both sides said. 

But Palestinian officials say the United States has been discussing the plan
with some other Arab nations. The Palestinians have been briefed on the U.S.
ideas by Arab leaders, most recently this week when Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat visited Saudi Arabia, said Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian
planning minister. 

The Bush administration was to have unveiled the peace initiative in
September before the U.N. General Assembly. However, that move was disrupted
by the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States. The General Assembly
was postponed in response to the attacks, which Washington has blamed on
accused terrorist Osama bin Laden. 

Shaath said the Palestinians were told that President Bush remains committed
to the ideas. "In President Arafat's last visit to Saudi Arabia, just two
days ago, our brothers informed us that the Americans assured them that they
are still sticking to their positions," said Shaath. "All the indications
coming now from the United States are positive and encouraging." 
According to Shaath, the U.S. plan would affirm the Palestinians' right to
statehood, the principle of trading land for peace and U.N. resolutions 242
and 338 that call for an Israeli withdrawal from lands it occupied in the
1967 Mideast War. 

The initiative also states that the fate of disputed Jerusalem must be
determined in peace talks, and that Islamic and Christian holy places in the
city would come under Palestinian control, Shaath said. 
That outline is similar to various proposals made by Israel and former
President Clinton about a year ago. But the Palestinians rejected the
proposals as insufficient, and fighting erupted in September 2000. 
A key problem was Israel's rejection of the Palestinians' demand that
refugees from the 1948 war - potentially numbering up to 4 million - be
allowed to return to its territory. 

The renewed U.S. efforts come at a time when Washington is trying to win
Muslim and Arab support for airstrikes against Afghanistan, which has
rebuffed requests to surrender bin Laden. 

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday that Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon already sees that any Mideast peace settlement would
involve a Palestinian state. Asked about provisions for Jerusalem, he said:
"We're not at a moment where somebody is going to plunk down a map of
Jerusalem." 

Naveh said Israel has not been informed by the United States about a peace
plan but that "what's being said by the American government these days is a
program that Israel cannot accept." 

Naveh was sharply critical of previous U.S. initiatives, including ideas put
forth in the 1980s by then-President Reagan. "All history shows that when
the Americans put a plan on the table, like the famous Reagan plan, the
programs did not achieve their aims," Naveh said. 

"The United States helped achieve progress between Israel and the Arabs only
when it did not publicly put a plan on the table, but conducted quiet
contacts between the sides." 

Arafat is now not doing enough to prevent attacks on Israelis, Naveh said,
and should not be rewarded. "In the present situation, there is nothing to
talk about and no one to talk to," Naveh said. 

Naveh's comments came a day after Bush reaffirmed his support for eventual
Palestinian statehood and Washington's backing for Israel. 
"I have met with Prime Minister Sharon, and I have assured him every time
we've met that he has no better friend than the United States of America,"
Bush said. 

The president also said at a news conference that if Israel and the
Palestinians end fighting and resume peace talks, "there ought to be a
Palestinian state, the boundaries of which would be negotiated by the
parties." The Palestinian nation would have to recognize Israel's right to
exist, the president said. Bush also said he was also pleased that Arafat
"is trying to control the radical elements within the Palestinian
Authority." 

"I think the world ought to applaud him for that," Bush said. 
c Copyright 2001 The Associated Press 

*******************************************************************

Nation set to push Sharon on agreement 
By John Donnelly, Boston Globe Staff, 10/10/2001 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is prepared in the next few weeks
to publicly increase pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
to accept not only a Palestinian state but a viable Palestinian
homeland that includes a ''shared Jerusalem,'' according to US
officials and a State Department draft statement. President Bush - who
was described by officials as ''incensed'' over comments made last
week by Sharon that Bush should not ''appease the Arabs'' as the Nazis
were in 1938 - will have final say over the US position. State
Department officials said White House aides could tone down the
statement, which is expected later this month, but they are pushing
for a strong stance. ''That comment from Sharon really steamed the
president,'' one US official said. Sharon has since apologized. The
administration's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen
as one of two extraordinarily sensitive diplomatic issues facing the
coalition against terrorism in the coming days and weeks. The other,
officials said, was the continued stability of the Pakistani
government led by General Pervez Musharraf. Current and former US
officials said in interviews yesterday that creating a viable
Palestinian homeland could be based on the terms of negotiations last
December in Taba, Egypt. That deal, which Sharon vehemently opposes as
endangering Israel's security, would give Palestinians roughly 95
percent of the West Bank and Gaza and gives Palestinians control over
parts of East Jerusalem, including key urban corridors that would
bolster their economy. The distinction between a Palestinian state and
a viable homeland is key to understanding the importance of the latest
initiative, and how it may be received. A homeland would necessarily
include roads that make commerce possible, as well as the resources
for an integrated economy. A Palestinian state alone does not meet
that definition, and calling for one would not satisfy Palestinian
aspirations in the long run - although it might provide a temporary
psychological boost. A senior administration official, who declined to
talk about specifics of the US position, said yesterday that Secretary
of State Colin L. Powell has been in nearly daily telephone contact
with Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat since the Sept. 11 attacks, telling them that
they needed to swiftly get back to negotiations for their own good -
and for the good of keeping intact the coalition in the terrorism
battle. ''We have said to them, `Hey, if we've got this larger problem
with terrorism, we've got to solve your problem, too, and you've got
to be a party to that,''' the senior US official said. ''We've told
them, `You need to pick up the pace here.''' US officials yesterday
praised Arafat for clamping down on security recently, even as a
spokesman regretted the loss of three lives Monday in battles between
Palestinian police and young supporters of Saudi exile Osama bin
Laden. ''I would say we're encouraged by the recent security steps
that have been taken by the Palestinian Authority to honor its
commitments to achieve a cease-fire,'' said State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher. Tellingly, Boucher also yesterday called on Israel to
''avoid provocative measures that make this kind of calm more
difficult to achieve, and the encroachment by the IDF [Israeli Defense
Forces] into Palestinian-controlled areas such as Hebron and northern
Gaza should cease.'' Several Arab leaders have told Powell and Bush
that producing advancement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would
greatly deflate anti-American sentiments in their populations. The US
administration is widely perceived in the Arab world to have strong
Israeli bias, allowing some militants, including bin Laden, to claim
that the US position on that conflict and the military campaign in
Afghanistan combined show America as anti-Islam - a claim denied daily
by Washington. A series of draft statements on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict says that the United States calls for a Palestinian state,
which was reported last month, but goes farther by also favoring a
viable homeland that included a ''shared Jerusalem,'' State Department
officials said. ''That is deliberately vague, and it could just mean
that the Palestinians have municipal authority over picking up the
garbage,'' said one US official yesterday. ''But in the end, a shared
Jerusalem is part of the only solution.'' The statement was scheduled
to be delivered during the United Nations General Assembly last month,
but has been delayed because of the Sept. 11 attacks. ''They are ready
to tell the Israelis it's time to give up the occupied terrorities,''
said Jay C. Farrar, a former senior defense and National Security
Council official. ''They will say obviously that Israel has a right to
exist, and we will work to ensure that right, but the Palestinians
have a right to their own homeland. The linchpin to all of this is the
Jerusalem question.'' Edward S. Walker, who until April was the
assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs, said he hoped the
''vision essentially created through Camp David negotiations and Taba
in relatively general terms would be followed now. The administration
is highlighting the fact you can't walk all the way away from it.''
Still, Walker said that Sharon's opposition to those plans meant there
was little chance for dramatic movement. He forecast a coming period
in which the Sharon-Bush relationship could mirror the standoff
between President Clinton and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Even without movement on negotiations, the American effort
could help shore up the coalition ''because, based on my experience,
we get credit for trying.'' Powell, who will travel to Pakistan and
India this weekend, has purposely stayed in the shadows during the
military campaign. But Powell's work - 30 meetings with heads of state
or foreign ministers and more than 180 phone calls to foreign leaders
in the past four weeks - has not slackened amid efforts in holding
together the coalition that in size and scope dwarfs the six-month
effort leading up to the Persian Gulf War. ''This is virtually the
whole civilized world as part of this coalition, minus a handful of
countries,'' the senior official said. ''This isn't just kicking an
army out of Kuwait. This is destroying terrorism around the world.
This has to be seen in global terms.'' On Pakistan, US officials
privately yesterday praised Musharraf's decision to purge senior
officers in his military and intelligence services, moves intended to
rid his agencies of key Taliban supporters. Still, worries persist,
and are amplified by Pakistan's status as a nuclear power. ''I'm
really concerned about the fate of Pakistan,'' General Richard I.
''Butch'' Neal, former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, said
yesterday. ''I think Musharraf has made a heroic decision to support
the US and international community. ... We have a bad record in
Pakistan - we work with them, help them accomplish goals, and then put
them on the back burner. We need to stay with them this time.'' John
Donnelly can be reached by e-mail at donnelly@globe.com This story ran
on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 10/10/2001. c Copyright 2001 Globe
Newspaper Company. 

******************************************************************

This was sent as a letter to the editor of the New York Times.

 Dear Sir:

 Let's see, I want to make certain
that I have this correct; it is very  confusing. 

If Israel pinpoints and executes terrorist leaders who have aided in planning
attacks on innocent civilians, that is bad. If the United States
declares war on terrorist leaders who aided in planning
attacks in New York and Washington, that is good.

If Israel has to compromise some civil rights of Arabs in order to
protect  its citizens from murderous assault, that is bad. If the
United States must take cautionary steps that limit immigration and
other freedoms in order to protect its citizens from murderous
assault, that is good.

If Israel will not negotiate with terrorists or their governmental
supporters until all acts of terrorism stop, that is bad. If the
United States will not consider any deals that do not include the
surrender of Bin Laden and his thugs, that is good. > If Israel, with
its international isolation, must work with less than pure regimes,
then that is bad. If the United States works with terrorist sponsors
as Iran, Pakistan and Syria to win its own security, then that is
good.

 If Israel tries to become part of the coalition against terrorism, it is bad. 
 (Could offend some Moslem States).

If the United States counts on Israel, in spite of the rejection, to
provide it with major information about terrorists, then that is good.

If Israel protests the wanton destruction of Jewish artifacts and
shrines in  Nablus and the Temple Mount, it is annoying, seemingly petty and,   
therefore  is quite bad. If the United States reacts with justifiable
anger at the wanton destruction of symbols of America's achievements and power,
it is right, moral and good.

When Israel's civilian population was attacked by murderous
scud missiles from Iraq, it was warned not to retaliate by the United
States, that would  be  bad. When the United States's civilian
population was attacked by murderous missiles, commanded by immoral
automatons and vowed massive retaliation, that  was very very good. 

You must admit; it is confusing. 

Yours truly, 

Gerald I. Wolpe
Rabbi Emeritus Har Zion Temple, Penn Valley, PA

***************************************************

The sellout of Israel

A9 01 WorldNetDaily.com

Immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United 
States, conventional wisdom suggested the dramatic turn of events
would bring America closer together with its long-time Mideast ally
Israel.

As usual, conventional wisdom was dead wrong.

In fact, very clearly now, you can detect Washington increasingly 
distancing itself from Jerusalem. There are even some within the U.S.
State  Department who are beginning to deny there is any Arab
terrorism directed at  Israel - at least not terrorism as defined by
our so-called "war on terrorism."

Here's how State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained that 
those attacking Israel aren't really terrorists at all - despite the
suicide attacks, the bombings and the shootings of civilians:
"Essentially,  there are, on some planes, two different things. One
is that there are  violent people trying to destroy societies, ours,
many others in the world. The world recognizes that and we are going
to stop those people. On the  other hand, there are issues and
violence and political issues that need to  be resolved in the Middle
East, Israelis and Palestinians. ... They are  clearly issues that
are different."

In other words, attacks on the United States are terrorism. Attacks on
Israel are attempts to "resolve political issues."

But it gets worse.

STRATFOR, the global intelligence company whose reports are run 
exclusively on WorldNetDaily.com every weekday, is suggesting that
U.S.
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID3D24742> 
Mideast policy is about to get much tougher on Israel as a direct
result of the  war on terror.

"Geopolitical realities after the attacks on the World Trade Center
and Pentagon will force the United States to back away from its 
relationship with Israel and favor Muslim allies such as Egypt and
Jordan, as well  as old foes like Iran and Syria," the report
said.

STRATFOR said the change in thinking in Washington could represent a 
"sea change in U.S.-Israeli relations."

Washington has become convinced it needs Muslim cooperation in its war
 on terrorism.

"But Washington's close ties with Israel make such cooperation 
difficult," reports STRATFOR.

Therefore, the sellout of Israel is under way.

STRATFOR claims there are only two reasons for 50 years of U.S.
support  for Israel: The Cold War and political pressure from Jewish
groups within  the United States. Well, the Cold War is over. And
Muslim power within the  U.S. is close to eclipsing the Jewish
lobby.

"The danger of domestic political consequences for a tough policy on 
Israel has been alleviated to a certain degree by the emergence of a
Muslim  voting bloc in the United States," STRATFOR reports
dispassionately.

While Muslim political organizations do not yet match their Jewish
counterparts in funding, they can match them in sheer potential voting
power, according to the report. It cites estimates that there are 6 
million Muslims in the United States - a number about equal to
Jews.

The report says it has not gone unnoticed within the Bush 
administration
that about 70 percent of the Muslim vote went for George W. Bush. That
support made the difference in the election with 28,000 Muslim votes 
for Bush in Florida and only 6,000 for Gore.

Israel is about to be sold down the river, it seems, because it is
politically expedient to do so.

It's somewhat ironic. Back in 1948, support from the United States was
crucial to Israel's rebirth as a nation. President Harry Truman 
reportedly asked his aides how many Jewish voters there were in the
United States  and how many Arab voters. At the time, it wasn't even
a close call.

In other words, as far as Mideast policy goes, right and wrong have 
seldom entered the equation for the United States. It's often been
about  counting votes, with a dash of self-interest thrown in for
good measure.

It's also ironic that it takes a Muslim attack of epic proportions on
 the United States to push the pendulum of U.S. foreign policy toward
the  Islamic world. Imagine if the attack on Pearl Harbor brought the
U.S. closer to Japan.

But it's more than ironic. It's tragic.

If the Bush administration is determined to make foreign policy based
 on voting blocs, it's time for 100 million Christians in this
country to  stand up in support of Israel. It's not a matter of
politics. It's not a  matter of expedience. It's not even just a
matter of right and wrong. It is,  quite simply, a matter of survival
for Western civilization.

Joseph Farah <mailto:jfarah@worldnetdaily.com>  is editor and chief
executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.

**********************************************************************

from Jerusalem Post    jpost.com

US public believes Israeli concessions will encourage terror
By Herb Keinon

JERUSALEM (October 21) - Most Americans believe that US pressure on
Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians would only encourage
more terrorism, according to a new survey conducted by the New
American Initiative and The Chicago Sun Times.

In the national poll, carried out between October 12-14 by Mclaughlin
& Associates, 62 percent said that after the World Trade Center
attack, forcing Israel to give up territory - including dividing
Jerusalem - to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat for a
Palestinian state, would encourage terrorism. Twenty-eight percent had
no opinion, and 9.7% thought that pressuring Israel would end
terrorism.

The poll, which has a 3.1% margin of error, also indicated continued
strong support for Israel.

Asked if the US "should continue support of Israel," some 80% said
yes, and 14.6% said no.

Some 56% of the respondents said they have a "favorable opinion of
Israel," while 19.5% said they have an unfavorable opinion. By
contrast, 12.6% of the respondents said they have a favorable opinion
of Arafat, and 60.4% said they have an unfavorable opinion of him.

Asked whether they think that US support was a "major factor in the
terrorist attacks against the United States, or whether the attacks
would have happened regardless of the US support of Israel," some 63%
said the attacks would have happened regardless, and 30% said it was a
major factor.

Regarding whether the Arab world seeks the eventual destruction of
Israel, 62% said they believe the Arab world does seek to destroy
Israel, while 14.6% said they believe the Arab world sincerely accepts
Israel's right to exist.

The New Atlantic Initiative defines itself as "an international
nonpartisan organization dedicated to revitalizing and expanding the
Atlantic community of democracies."

******************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.