[VTJP] Yossi Beilin does not go far enough

[James M Leas]

Folks, In his article in today's Maariv, below, "Say 'no' to Sharon," Yossi Beilin, leader of one of Israel's left political parties, calls on the peace camp to be a strong and assertive opposition. But he fails to go far enough. The key problem with Sharon's disengagement plan is the delay. Withdrawal in stages beginning at the end of 2005 likely means no withdrawal at all. That is why Sharon's plan won support in his right wing cabinet. The right wing understands that long delay means the withdrawal from Gaza will likely never be accomplished and that it is pure public relations.   The peace camp should not support any delay. It should congratulate Sharon for legitimizing the idea of withdrawal and call for immediate withdrawal of all Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank.   Yossi Beilin's article is flawed because, like Sharon, he calls for delay, delay during which hundreds more Israelis and Palestinians will be killed and wounded. The strong and assertive peace camp should say no to delay, bring the settlers and soldiers home now. Beilin wants delay to achieve gains for Israel through an agreement like the Geneva Initiative he helped negotiate. But none of it is worth the hundreds of lives that will be lost and none of it is worth legitimizing Sharon's delay tactics. Furthermore, an agreement achieved under the gun is not legally enforceable, and so an agreement reached while Israeli soldiers are an occupying army brutally attacking the civilian population will not have legitimacy. Beilin's delay will be for nothing. The peace camp should reject delay. It should appeal across the political spectrum by saying if we are going to withdraw, as Sharon says we are, let's do it now. Save lives, save soldiers' and settlers' lives, save Palestinian lives and homes, save Israelis' lives, save children's lives. We are going to end the occupation, so let's end the occupation now. Bring the soldiers and settlers home now. Life not land. Now, before another life is lost.   Otherwise we in the peace camp are supporting delay, the one thing Sharon and his right wing crew want. Building a campaign for immediate withdrawal can put pressure on Sharon to follow through. Even if we "say 'no' to Sharon," contributing more reasons for delay, as Yossi Beilin does in his article, helps take the pressure off. Jimmy   19 Sivan 5764 8 June, 2004 Tuesday 5:33 AM Israel Time   Print This Article   Say �no� to Sharon The Labor Party has already erred and it might support the worst governments Israel has ever had. Sharon is planning to torpedo any agreement with the Palestinians and Peres might help him. Yossi Beilin In February 2001, when Shimon Peres wanted to defend the Labor Party�s entrance into the government, he told his party�s Central Committee that when the far-right agreed to sign the founding platform, they accepted the international agreements that Israel had signed and that the late Rechavam Ze`evi and Avigdor Liberman had accepted the principles of the Olso Accords. When Sharon presented his plan for withdrawal, he referred to it as the worst blow to the Palestinians since 1984 but Peres said that Sharon had adopted the Labor Party�s platform. Again, he is ready to join Sharon�s government, which Labor barely escaped. No. Moledet did not accept Oslo and Sharon has not become De Gaulle. The Labor Party prefers to deceive itself and return to the warm lap of the government, while allowing it to ruin, plank after plank, everything related to diplomacy, security and society that governments led by the peace camp built in previous years. Sharon�s plan for unilateral withdrawal is an emergency plan that was pressed into service after its predecessors (like �Jordan is Palestine�) failed. Otherwise, he would have tried to implement it when he was first elected and Labor was in the coalition. His plan includes transferring the entire Gaza Strip and approximately half of the West Bank to the Palestinians and keeping the rest as part of Israel. The Palestinians would have a state without territorial contiguity and without control of international passages, the sea or the air. The problems of Jerusalem and the refugees would not be solved. He understands very well that no Palestinian would be willing to be a partner to this plan, unless he manages to create a partner like Bashir Jumayil or Mustafa Dudin. Therefore, he needs to do everything unilaterally while paying lip-service to his commitment to the Road Map. Approximately two months ago William Safire from the New York Times asked Sharon why he adopted the disengagement plan. He responded that he wanted to prevent the Geneva Initiative from filling the diplomatic vacuum that had been created. There is no doubt that, in Sharon�s mind, his plan is the opposite of the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accords and Clinton�s plan. That is legitimate. He is prime minister and he was elected with a clear majority. However, why join him in implementing a dangerous plan that is likely to become a ticking bomb within a few years? A vote of confidence in Sharon�s government is an _expression_ of support for its immoral acts that event the Justice Minister has spoken against. It is an _expression_ of support for its actions against the unemployed and weak, which the minister of welfare decries morning and night, and for a prime minster who is suspected of repugnant crimes, even if one or more of the cases are closed. Even more important, it is an _expression_ of support for a policy that is designed to prevent agreement with the Palestinians, nothing more and nothing less. Is a promise that no Jews will be left in the Gaza Strip by the end of 2005, reason to support the destruction of homes, building in the West Bank, continued targeted assassinations, ruining Israel�s image in the world and a socio-economic policy that is cruel to the weakest sections of society? The role of the Israeli peace camp should be to warn about Sharon�s real plan. It must be a strong, assertive opposition that demands he keep his promise to the Americans that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will be implemented within the framework of the Road Map, in preparation for a permanent agreement. It should also support, on an individual basis, any plan proposed by the government that will release us, even partially, from the occupation. A true opposition must work to shorten the term of the current government, unless the government is implementing the opposition�s platform. If the opposition does not do so, it is avoiding its principle task. It is not the opposition�s job to support Sharon in order to prevent Netanyahu from being elected or the opposite. That twosome has already proved that they are equally committed to peace. When one is prime minister, the other places obstacles in his path. It is a mutual arrangement. If the government falls, early elections might be held and that could increase the chances for a change of regime. Only someone who has lost hope could prefer a vote of confidence in the worst government that Israel has ever had or even join it and help it continue to push us into the abyss. (2004-06-07 12:16:14.0)       . Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VTJP/   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.