The Day the Dye was set In the Fabric of Future Negotiations!
June 17, 2006
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
No one was more shocked than Yassar Arafat when the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, offered Yassar the unbelievably generous concessions during the Bill Clinton Administration. It shocked the international community as well. But much to the great amazement of the world, Arafat turned it down. There were other reasons for his final rejection, but the major one was that he knew he could not control the other terrorist factions in the Palestinian infrastructure, not even in Fatah, his own terrorist organization. Had he accepted it, there would have been an increase in terror activity, which would have continued, and clearly shown he really had no control over his own government. At that time the dye was set in the fabric of all future negotiations and peace plans for creation of a Palestinian state, and now Palestinians are setting impossible terms they know Israel cannot accept.
It has become a contest to see which side can get the most sympathy for their plight. Yassar Arafat created a monster he could not control and no one has been able to control its factions since his death.
The “Convergence Plan,” a continuation of the “Unilateral Withdrawal Plan” of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is the clearly stated policy of the new government that is currently forming in the Knesset. The dye is set for the following events to be completed or occurring in 2008.
(1) West Bank & Gaza Security Fence will have been completed.
(2) Pullout of Israeli settlements inside the Barrier will be underway.
(3) Pullout of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will follow settlement pullout.
(4) Barrier will be declared as final separation border after IDF pullout.
I believe all this is setting the stage for a well-coordinated Jihad attack against Israel from within its newly created internal barrier border and its existing external borders. The Palestinians will attack from within and nine other Arab nations will attack through the external northern border with Syria and Lebanon. I believe such an attack is likely to be perpetrated at some point in time between 2008 and 2012, but that is merely a guesstimate on my part.
The recent flurry of nation hopping by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is totally directed to gather future support when push comes to shove in his realignment plan. The following article says he is sensitive about that sentiment being expressed as the motivation for his trips.
I don’t know why he is sensitive, because that is exactly what he should be doing.
Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post Article
Diplomacy: PM Aware of Irony of his Realignment Sales Tour
By Gil Hoffman, The Jerusalem Post
June 16, 2006
On his five-day visit to London and Paris, Olmert talked publicly as if it were June 2006, paying lip service to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac about negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
But in his heart, Olmert is already deep into 2007, when he hopes the world will have realized that there is no partner on the Palestinian side and will have given Israel carte blanche to control its destiny and determine its permanent borders.
It will only be possible to judge whether the trip was a success, then, when it is apparent whether Europe indeed gave Israel a free hand.
Until then, no one will be able to challenge Olmert when he says that all his meetings in Europe were positive and that, behind closed doors, every leader understood what Israel might have to do next year.
Olmert’s first objective in selling the realignment plan internationally was to build a personal relationship with the world leaders he will need to have on his side later on.
He made an effort to pull at the heartstrings of every leader – in the way most suited to each.
For instance, Olmert made a point of calling Chirac “one of the world’s great fighters against anti-Semitism” while cameras were rolling, causing the normally stoic French leader to grin. In his meeting with US President George W. Bush, Olmert alternated between international diplospeak and baseball banter at the appropriate moments.
The irony of an Israeli prime minister crossing the globe to persuade world leaders
to allow him to withdraw unilaterally from most of the West Bank was not lost on Olmert. In his meeting with Blair, he said that had the British leader been told years ago that an Israeli prime minister wanted to withdraw from 90 percent of the territories he would have called it a miracle.
But Olmert is hypersensitive when he is questioned about whether he is going too far in his efforts to facilitate international backing for the pullout.
“I didn’t beg anyone,” Olmert told The Jerusalem Post in a briefing following his meeting with Blair. “I presented an opinion that we need to withdraw, to end the intolerable sojourn [in the West Bank] that threatens the Jewish majority in Israel.
We are not begging anyone.
We are not a nation of beggars.
We are a strong country that is respected by the world.”
It is this “world respect” Olmert is banking on to make his realignment plan a success. Only if world leaders allow Israel to annex the West Bank settlement blocs will he be able to give the settlers a carrot along with the proverbial stick.
“There is no Zionist plot here, as you might be inclined to argue,” Olmert told British parliamentarians. “There is an honest, real will on my part to give a lot and receive little in return.
This will also be done following an honest, real effort to exhaust the diplomatic process.”
Olmert’s aides said that even in closed circles when the foreign press isn’t looking, the prime minister does not talk about trying to keep as much of the West Bank as possible. They said that unlike Olmert, Sharon believed that if he were allowed to draw the border, he would succeed in keeping more of the settlements that he built than any other Israeli leader potentially could.
But aides who worked with both men said the irony of the transfer of power from Sharon to Olmert is that Olmert’s experience and skills in international diplomacy could result in Israel keeping more of the West Bank than would have been possible under Sharon.
End Jerusalem Post Article
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.