Questioning "The Plan"

JINSA Report
February 27, 2002
Number 239

We like a good peace plan as much as the next guy, but ignoring
obvious flaws in the Oslo Process led to the creation of a radical,
impoverished, heavily armed dictatorship in the tiny space between
the Jordan and the Med.  And that led to a Palestinian war against
Israel that the Palestinians continue to escalate.  So questions are
in order up front:

Who said Prince Abdullah meant Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines?
According to the piece that started it all, the Prince said,
"withdrawal from all the occupied territories."  For most Arabs that
means ALL of Israel.  We've been here before and in case you forgot,
just yesterday, Hamas announced once again, that it will not rest
until ALL of Palestine is free from Israeli control - raising the
question of who is going to make Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, the Tanzim
(or Yasser for that matter, who rejected a better offer at Camp
David) obey?"

And even if Abdullah meant the 1967 lines, who is going to tell
Palestinian refugees left in camps for more than 50 years by their
loving brothers that they are NOT going home to Haifa, Jaffa and
Ashkelon?  It was precisely on that point that the Barak/Clinton plan
foundered.  Ignoring the refugees is a fraud designed to get people's
hopes up in order to dash them on the reality that the refugees
cannot return to Israel and no Arab leader has the guts to tell them
so. No Western leader has either; the French "peace plan" naïvely
assumes that the issue will be addressed after Palestinian
independence.  (And Vedrine called the "Axis of Evil" simplistic!)

And even if he meant the 1967 lines, does that include the Golan
Heights?  Israel should withdraw from the strategically vital Heights
on faith WITHOUT a peace treaty with Syria?  Been there, done that.
Israel withdrew behind the Lebanese border as demarcated by the UN,
but Lebanon found a way to say it still wasn't satisfied, so no
treaty.  Now, instead of the Lebanese Army controlling the south,
Israel has Hizballah on the border and Iranian missiles in the middle
of Lebanon capable of reaching Haifa.  Withdrawal even after a treaty
would be difficult, before a treaty it is impossible.

And even if he meant the 1967 lines, what about territory illegally
occupied by Arab states?  Syria was illegally "dangling its toes" in
the Sea of Galilee.  It was on that point that the vaunted
Syrian-Israeli talks foundered in 2000.  Calling for Israeli
withdrawal without Syrian withdrawal is a fraud.  And the Jordanian
occupation of Jerusalem? That was in total violation of the UN
Partition Plan of 1947, in which Jerusalem was to be a united city
under international control.  Jordan laid siege to the Jewish areas
and threw the Jews out of their holiest places.  For Israel to simply
redraw the armistice line in Jerusalem would reward Jordan's 1948
aggression by codifying the division of the city.

We have a simpler "peace plan."  UN Resolution 242 requires
"termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for
and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area and their right to
live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from
threats or acts of force."  Sounds like the Abdullah "peace plan"
without the questions.