Only a Regime Change in Israel Can Reactivate Peace Process

[Classical_Liberal]

Only a Regime Change in Israel Can Reactivate Peace Process
Richard H. Curtiss,

WASHINGTON, 9 November 2003 - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is in trouble. His two sons, Gilad and Omri, are accused of both joint and separate political corruption crimes. The Fraud Squad is investigating Gilad over a Greek island resort project. Gilad, Omri and their father are also subjects of a campaign finance investigation over funds improperly raised from overseas donors. The younger Sharons have served as their father's agents and either or both could end up in jail.

Israel is a highly litigious country, and such crimes, both real and imagined, are commonplace. Shady financial deals and intrigues can start off with just a whiff of scandal and bring down a government at any time. Many Israelis won't care if their government collapses as long as Sharon is finally and definitively gone. The few Americans who do care would be delighted but for different reasons. Sharon is murderous and has proven it many times. If only all Israelis would unite to get rid of him. The problem is that there are so many rivals and most of them would do anything to take over the prime ministership.

Shimon Peres won't be the next prime minister because Israelis don't trust him. On the other hand, most Americans can pronounce his name and know who he is. A year ago the Israelis tried to bring a Labor government back into office, under Amram Mitzna but it didn't take. There is no question that if Mitzna, the Israeli military hero, had won Israel would have had a new prime minister who would have moved rapidly to solve the Palestine problem. He could have used any combination of previous peace plans that offered a fair break to the Palestinians and that would be acceptable to a majority of the Israelis.

Just to select one of many peace plan options, former Mossad chief Ami Ayalon and Palestinian activist Sari Nusseibeh traveled to the United States to promote a one-page "statement of principles" they drew up. Meanwhile another group of prominent Israelis and Palestinians, including former ministers on both sides, are preparing a complete model peace plan, Geneva Accord, with maps of exact borders. Both plans look quite acceptable. One of these days one of these plans is going to work and Israel and the world will be much better off for it.

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20031108213819357

[edzontar]

1. The tone of this piece is a little smug...

But that said, I certainly agree that a new government in Israel--a LABOR government--is one of the best things that could happen for the cause of peace.

[Aidoneus]

3. when was that the case before?

Settlement activity before and after the so-called "Oslo peace process" was most zealously purseud by Labour governments. Mass bombings and destruction of Lebanon occured under Prime Minister Rabin ("Operation Accountability", led by General Ehud Barak) and Prime Minister Peres ("Operation Grapes of Wrath", most notable for the massacre of refugees at Qana).

What, besides delusion and naivety, would lead one to think Labour would suddenly change its stripes and provide a credible alternative to the (at least honest) Likudist program?

[Classical_Liberal]

4. It would depend on who lead labor

If it was headed by Ettam or Peres little can be expected. I think if it was headed by Mitzna you would see a big change. Getting out of the West Bank and immediately stopping the settlements is his central theme. Ettam and Peres only promise general peace.

[Aidoneus]

7. that's the problem

Mitzna is a geniunely decent fellow, but he'd have his hands bureaucratically tied by the right if given the chance, assuming he's not just put in a pine box like Rabin was. I think it'll take a really serious earthquake to change the environment dramatically enough to allow such to have real effect.

While it's completely out of his character, it's basically only a figure like Sharon that has the clout to be able to force some decent plan through without the same resistance that the leftists would, but of course he probably never will. There's a small sign that he's willing to butt heads with his natural inclinations, in how much effort and credibility he's putting on the line with the Hizbu'llah exchange. :shrug:

[edzontar]

6. I stand by my statement...

And note, I said it would be a "good step"---- not a panacea.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Only regime change and disarmament can save either US or Israel

Sadly, neither regime change nor disarmament in Israel will happen without both in the US, and in the US disarmament will not happen without regime change, and peaceful, political regime change is not likely, because neither the corporate oligarchy nor the voting classes desire it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. LOL

Oh yeah, disarmament would really help Israel -- for a couple hours.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. I myself would not recommend disarmament

but ending provocative acts such as settlements and occupations would be a good start.

[edzontar]

9. Agreed.

n/t