Bill Sykes' Newsletter from America.
(April 2002)
An ex-Brit gives his views-(without fear
or favor)---of the American Scene
The Israeli Situation I.
America appears to be still providing full support to Israel
with minimum action to solve the Palestinian situation.
The situation demands more than sending a token envoy, (General
Anthony Zimmi) --- to negotiate, what --- a peace settlement
--- they must be joking --- an ex-Marine General to negotiate
peace in a land that has not had peace for thousands of
years.
I don't know much about the background of General Zimmi,
but it would appear that he is more of a military individual
than a professional political Diplomatic Corp peacemaker.
 Question;
Is it in any ones best interests to send a military man
to attempt to bring about a cease fire and negotiate a political
peace settlement, unless of course one wishes to retain
the status quo?
I would have thought that a professional political negotiator
of the caliber of Dr. Henry Kissinger or even ex-President
Jimmy Carter would have been a better choice.
The best efforts at providing a solution have come from
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who proposed in a
recent peace initiative that both sides stop the killing
and that the Palestinian Arabs resume full normalized diplomatic
relations with Israel in exchange for the return to the
Palestinian Authority of all lands taken from them by Israel
in the 1967 Middle East War.
One would assume that of course this would include the return
to Syria of the Golan Heights and the return to Jordan of
the West Bank.
Sixty countries around the world are said to back such a
proposal. This proposal if implemented would of course be
hotly contested by Israeli families currently living in
housing settlements built upon the seized Arab lands.
I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation that this will
ever come to pass.
 Prince
Abdullah's proposal looks better all the time.
Question: Has the time come for the United States, or better
still, for United Nations forces to step in and separate
the two factions?
In my opinion, we the British, did a good job of governing
Palestine for sixty odd years under the Balfour Agreement
and finally gave in to world pressure after World War Two
and allowed the creation in 1948 of an Israeli State on
Palestinian land.
Crown Prince Abdullah's basic peace proposal.
Israel.
· Must withdraw from land seized by Israel after
the 1967 war: (The west Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and
the Golan Heights).
· Must agree the right of return for Palestinian
refugees.
· Must accept an Independent Palestinian State with
Jerusalem as it's Capital.
Arab States.
· Must consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over.
· Must agree to a peace treaty for the region.
· Must establish normal relations with Israel. (And
I would assume accept and recognize the State of Israel).
What is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander!!!
I'm puzzled, what is the difference between the United
States providing funds and weapons of destruction to Israel
over a long period of time, and the charges made by Israel
that Iran is currently supplying the Palestinian Arabs with
weapons in order to conduct acts of terrorism against Israel.
Remember, one man's "freedom fighter" is another
man's "terrorist". I must admit that I have always
found it very difficult to differentiate between the two.
Perhaps the time has come to disarm both sides, (if that
is possible), and see if Crown Prince Abdullah's peace plan
can be implemented to the benefit of both Israeli and Palestinian
citizens.
Some background on the Israeli Prime Minister.
 It
has been reported that there are 23 lawsuits currently being
filed against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a Belgium court
for his alleged involvement in the September 1982 massacre
in two Palestinian refugee camps, (Sabra and Chatilla),
in Lebanon.
It was stated that more than 800 people were killed or
went missing in a three day killing spree by Lebanese Christian
militiamen who were allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers.
Israel invaded Lebanon in June of 1982 and as occupiers
were responsible for the security of civilians at the time
that the massacres occurred. The Brussels court, under a
1993 Belgium law allows crimes against humanity or genocide
to be tried in Belgium courts regardless of where the crimes
were committed.
 Mr.
Sharon's lawyers have argued that the Israeli Prime Minister,
who was Minister of Defense during the Israeli invasion
of Lebanon when the massacres were committed, enjoys diplomatic
immunity.
They have also questioned the competence of the court to
try an individual for a crime not committed on Belgian soil.
Question: Under the same set of rules and conditions does
that mean that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic is being improperly
tried for alleged similar conduct?
Amazing coincidence: On the 24th of January Elie Hoebeijka,
a former leader of the pro-Israeli Christian Militia, widely
blamed for the massacre at the refugee camps in Lebanon,
was assassinated in Beirut.
Months before his assassination Mr. Hoebeijka swore his
innocence and declared that he had proof of Sharon's involvement
in the incident and expressed a willingness to travel to
Belgium to testify.
An official Israeli investigation in 1983 was said to have
found Sharon "indirectly' but "personally"
responsible for the deaths in the refugee camps in Lebanon,
and Sharon subsequently resigned as Defense Minister.
Different strokes for different folks---or are some more
guilty than others!!!
|
