U.S. expected to back Israeli settlement

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
U.S. expected to back Israeli settlement
33
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 11:27am
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/169008_mideast14.html

U.S. expected to back Israeli settlement plan

Sharon to get Bush endorsement on keeping some West Bank land


Wednesday, April 14, 2004


By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES


WASHINGTON -- President Bush is planning to issue a declaration today that his aides say will recognize Israel's right to retain some Jewish settlements in the West Bank when its boundaries are negotiated with the Palestinians.


The declaration, to be made when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel visits the White House, would represent a subtle but substantial shift in U.S. policy, which has viewed the settlements as obstacles to peace and asserted that final borders must be arrived at through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.


Administration officials also said that Bush would assert that Palestinian refugees from families that formerly resided in what is now Israel should live in a future Palestinian state to be created on the West Bank and Gaza Strip rather than in the Israeli lands they continue to claim.


The officials said that the declarations -- planned for today as part of an elaborately planned visit by Sharon -- are a recognition of reality and similar to peace proposals put forward in private in 2000 by President Clinton.


They appear to fall short of what Sharon had been seeking -- an acceptance of five specific settlement blocs and an outright rejection of the Palestinian "right of return" to Israel.


The exact language and form of the assurances, and whether they are to be made public right away, were being discussed last night. An Israeli official said that aides to Sharon were also studying the language before Sharon's visit.


Bush's assurances could be part of a letter, or a preamble to a letter, or simply a statement from the president, an administration official said. The statement would be that Israel's future borders would have to recognize "demographic realities" since 1967.


That language, officials said, was code for at least some settlements in the West Bank, where Jewish settlers number some 230,000.


The language that would implicitly reject the complete Palestinian "right of return" would be similarly opaque, according to administration officials, in that it would simply reiterate Israel's identity as a Jewish state and suggest that Palestinians should move, in a final settlement, to their own state rather than Israel.


By offering such limited concessions to Sharon, the administration seemed to be hoping not to alienate the Palestinians, who have rejected Sharon's plan to keep some settlements.


The Israeli leader arrived in Washington yesterday morning and spent the day huddled with aides. He met late yesterday with Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser.


"The United States is prepared to adopt some kind of language recognizing the demographic realities that have occurred since 1967," said an administration official, referring to settlements outside the boundaries of Israel before it captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war with neighboring Arab countries.


Administration officials said that, by giving these two endorsements of longstanding Israeli objectives, Bush and his aides were hoping to give Sharon political support for his plan to pull Israeli forces and settlers from Gaza and small parts of the West Bank.


Sharon announced his intention to withdraw from these areas in December, raising a storm of protest among his most conservative supporters in his own Likud governing party. In response, the Israeli leader has scheduled a nationwide referendum among party members to get backing for his plan.


Israeli officials say Sharon wants to breaks dramatically from his own views since at least the 1970s, when he served as a Cabinet minister and personally fathered the idea of populating Gaza and the West Bank with Jewish settlements as a way to enhance Israel's security.


Palestinians have seen the settlements as a land grab and long demanded their complete dismantlement as part of any peace accord with Israel.


In Sharon's eyes, according to his aides, the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlements from even a small part of these areas has emerged as the only alternative because of the failure of Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to guarantee Israel's security needs.


Sharon is known to feel that the withdrawal is a substitute for the faltering negotiations over the past two years under the so-called "road map" pressed by the Bush administration in concert with the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.


Before endorsing Sharon's withdrawals, the United States has managed to get Israel to say that the pullout should not be seen as a substitute for the "road map" but only as a "parking place" while Israel waits for a suitable negotiating partner to emerge on the Palestinian side.


But as Sharon's visit approached, the administration has sounded increasingly supportive of his plan.


The Bush administration, while endorsing the Sharon withdrawal plan in principle, has spent recent weeks trying to assure itself that Egypt and Jordan would help prevent the emergence of Hamas or other Palestinian radicals in Gaza.


Finally, the administration wants Israel's commitment that it will not walk away from the idea of negotiating eventually with Palestinians to achieve a Palestinian state, as Arabs and Europeans especially fear.


© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

cl-nwtreehugger


 


Community Leader: In The News & Sports Talk


I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 11:59am

I read the following

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 3:17pm

Gaza expects little from pullout.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3626225.stm


It is not without some justification they call Gaza the "world's biggest prison" - 1.3 million people crammed into an area only 360 km square.


Since the beginning of the second Intifada, or popular uprising, in September 2000, it has been virtually impossible for many Gazans to travel outside the occupied territory because of strict Israeli frontier controls.

Even moving within Gaza, from north to south, is a nightmare because of military checkpoints around Israeli settlements like Netzarim and the Gush Katif bloc.

But will all this change under Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "disengagement plan" for Gaza? It appears not.

While virtually all Palestinians welcome Mr Sharon's plan to withdraw troops and some 7,000 settlers from Gaza, they remain deeply suspicious of his motives and doubt if there will be any greater freedoms arising from the initiative.

Hindering development

Once the settlers have gone it will of course be easier for students to travel from Khan Younis and Rafah in the south of the Gaza Strip to universities and colleges in Gaza City, and for families within the territory to visit each other.


But many fear that is as far is it will go.


Mohammad al-Qord does not anticipate that travelling outside Gaza for work or pleasure will be any easier.

"It will become even more of a prison where Sharon will be able to dump Palestinians," says the 20-year-old student.

Indeed, Israel is threatening to tighten its stranglehold around the Gaza Strip.

Mr Sharon says he will also keep control over Gaza's southern border with Egypt and will deny the Gazans the right to rebuild their airport and develop a commercial port.

Palestinian leaders have already warned that such moves will seriously inhibit the ability for social and economic development in Gaza, where male unemployment runs at about 60% and the United Nations says 70% of people live in poverty.

Frustrated dreams

As for the wider prospects for peace, few Palestinians in Gaza believe that Mr Sharon's plan will have any short- or long-term benefits.

The Israeli prime minister says it is based purely on security concerns, to lessen Israel's exposure to militant attacks and improve life in the Palestinian territories.

But Palestinian leaders have criticised him for not involving them in the discussions over Gaza and the West Bank.


They say that Israel should adhere to the internationally-sponsored "roadmap" - a staged process to peace and the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories - leading to a negotiated two-state settlement.


The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said Mr Sharon was closing the door on the peace process. The intention to keep thousands of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank was a recipe for disaster, he said.

Ahmed Hejazzi, another Gaza student, said the "disengagement plan" was, "...only good news for Israel".

"Although there may be more freedom for us inside the Gaza Strip, by keeping so many illegal settlements in the West Bank, Sharon is still denying us Palestinians basic rights."

Palestinians have urged President Bush to push the Israeli prime minister back to the roadmap.

But many here are worried that a tight Israeli grip around Gaza and the continued presence of large settlements in the heart of the West Bank will continue to frustrate their dreams of freedom and a viable Palestinian state.


cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 11:04am

I kind of wondered if Sharon, having given up on physically forcing out the Palestinians, had now decided that keeping them 'imprisoned' was the best way to subjegate them...

cl-nwtreehugger



iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 11:07am
I am waiting for "the other shoe to drop".
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 12:36pm

Israelis make lukewarm reactions to Sharon-Bush talks.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-04/15/content_1422265.htm


JERUSALEM, April 15 (Xinhuanet) -- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to Washington continues to be the focus of the Israeli press,yet both the leftist and the far-right were skeptical of Sharon's accomplishments in his talks with Bush.


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 1:15pm
Here's the other shoe! Looks like Bush made a decision and didn't tell his "friends".


WASHINGTON — Arab leaders charged Thursday that the United States, by recognizing Israel's claims to major settlements in the West Bank, could no longer be viewed as an honest broker for the Middle East peace process.

But the Bush administration insisted that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's initiative for the Gaza Strip and West Bank could restart the peace process by removing Israel's presence in Gaza. And it said the move would not hinder U.S. efforts to shore up Arab support for creating a stable interim government in Iraq.



Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in a spate of appearances and phone calls, sought to limit any damage from President Bush's announcement Wednesday. But many Arab leaders, as well as Palestinians, were enraged by the shift in U.S. policy.

"It undermines hope for a just and comprehensive peace, inflames feelings of enmity toward America and opens the door toward retaking these rights by force, through all legitimate means of resistance," Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said.

Bush, in a fundamental shift in Middle East strategy, said Wednesday that "in light of new realities on the ground … it is unrealistic to expect" Israel to fully return to the boundaries that existed before the 1967 Middle East War. And in endorsing Israel's plan to unilaterally leave Gaza, Bush also adopted the Israeli position that Palestinian refugees should not expect to return to former homes in Israel.

Bush's decision presented a diplomatic snare for friendly Arab governments, where popular disgust was already rampant over the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the bloodshed of the Palestinian uprising and the stalled Middle East peace negotiations. Emotions have been particularly sharpened in recent weeks by Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin and the mounting violence in Iraq.

Diplomats and politicians in the United States and abroad were divided over whether the reaction would make it more difficult for the U.S. to achieve its goals in Iraq.

Full article at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usmideast16apr16,1,78534.story?coll=la-home-headlines

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 04-17-2004 - 10:09am

This op-ed piece shows how angry some are about Bush's decisions.


George Bush has legitimised terrorism.
What better recruiting sergeant could Bin Laden have than the President of the United States?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 04-17-2004 - 11:05am
Arafat, Arabs in Disarray



By Jerusalem Newswire Editorial Staff

April 15, 2004

Jerusalem (jnewswire.com) - The Palestinian Authority was seemingly reeling with rage Thursday at US President George W. Bush's strong endorsement of Israel's plan to unilaterally pull out of the Gaza Strip.

After demanding an Israeli withdrawal for 36 years, the "Palestinians" appeared to have been out maneuvered.

Apparently they never expected Israeli prime Minister Ariel Sharon to follow through on his threat to unilaterally "disengage" from them.

Instead of rejoicing at the prospect of soon having Gaza to themselves, they were left protesting and voicing violent threats.

An apparently furious and defiant Yasser Arafat told the world Thursday terrorism (he called it "resistance") would increase until all Jews had been forced off what he has always falsely claimed to be "Palestinian" land.

What got the PLO leader's goat was Bush's public recognition of Israel's right to retain control over large Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and his rejection of the notion that millions of "Palestinian" refugees would be allowed to flood sovereign Israel under the "right of return."

The American leader's position - which the world press without exception spun as "a major policy shift" - in fact followed the guidelines of UN resolution 242 - a document often misrepresented as calling for a complete Israeli retreat to the country's 1949 borders.

Like a plotter whose scheme has been unexpectedly frustrated, Arafat appointee Ahmed Qureia made protesting noises about resigning as "Palestinian" prime minister, and echoed his boss's sentiment that the Middle East "peace" process was effectively doomed.

For once, it appeared as if the PLO leadership had been effectively sidelined, its decades of terror-driven planning and strategizing suddenly left with nowhere to go.

The wider Arab world too spluttered in indignation, with the Arab League openly accusing the Bush administration of adopting Israel's position in the conflict.

Arafat outfoxed

After seeing his warning to President Bush not to support Sharon go unheeded, Arafat summoned the press to his Ramallah compound Thursday to spell out his response to this American "betrayal."

He vowed that his people would never relinquish their fight for liberty and independence in their own state with Jerusalem as its capital.

The aging terrorist chieftain declared it was the right of the Palestinian Arabs to "return" to their homes inside sovereign Israel.

He threatened to increase the level of violence against Israel until "Israeli occupiers and herds of settlers … leave Palestinian land."

Global campaign

Arafat spokesman Saeb Erekat told journalists the PLO would conduct an intense campaign to rally the rest of the international community behind the Palestinian position and against the American and Israeli one.

"The world should know that we reject the statements of President Bush which deprive our people of their right of return, oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and support Sharon's plan to annex West Bank settlements built on our people's properties," Erekat exclaimed.

Qureia to quit?

"Palestinian" Prime Minister Qureia is reported to be considering leaving his post, according to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

In a telephone call possibly designed to convey a sincere sense of outrage to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Qureia accused the Bush administration of adopting "an absolute bias against the Palestinian position."

"We fully reject these unilateral measures and their consequences," he said.

Apoplectic Arabs

A spokesman for the Arab League, Hesham Youssef, leveled a broadside at Bush Thursday afternoon, saying the organization had always believed the US was "unbalanced," but "now we can't even say that. The United States has adopted Israel's position."

The League has for decades seen the PLO as an instrument through which to wage a united Arab effort to destroy the Jewish state.

Any setback in Arafat's attempts to achieve this aim is seen as a setback for the entire Muslim Arab world.

http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/04/04/040415_arabs.asp








iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 04-17-2004 - 11:10am
Key word here is "some".
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 04-18-2004 - 9:33am

Op-ed: Bush's dangerous arrogance.


Somewhere in the mesmerising performance by Robert S. McNamara, the former US Defence Secretary, in the film The Fog of War, he says: 'America has no friends, only allies.'


It's a phrase that should be chiselled into the Cabinet table because each new Prime Minister believes that the special relationship, a phrase that is unrecognised in the States, entails special favours, access and status.

Any such illusion must have disintegrated for Blair last week after Sharon and Bush, operating in the exclusive club of their victimhood, made an announcement about the future of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Naturally, the Palestinians were not consulted; it is merely their land.

More surprising in a way was that Blair remained outside the loop from last Sunday onwards when Sharon's people met two members of the National Security Council and a senior American diplomat in Washington's Hay Adams Hotel to thrash out an agreement before Sharon arrived 48 hours later.

Blair gave no hint of bitterness in the Rose Garden press conference on Friday, but considering the risks he has taken to support America since 9/11, it was astonishingly ungracious of Bush to keep him out of these negotiations. The 'Road Map' and the promise of multilateral action in Palestine and the West Bank were, after all, the only real concession that Blair won in exchange for British help in Iraq. Yet before he had even touched down in America, the deal was done. Bush's undertaking to his 'friend' had been chucked away like a motto in Christmas cracker.

I am one of those who believe that Blair should be relieved of his duties because of the failure to find WMD but, even so, I would not wish the humiliation he has suffered on him or any British Prime Minister. He has been one of America's staunchest allies, biting his lip at the serial crassness of US commanders and arguing the American case tirelessly, as he did last weekend in these pages. Yet, despite the enthusiastic tone at the White House, the reality is that he was cast aside as soon as Bush didn't need him.

American foreign policy consists entirely of self-interest, never more so than in an election year when a first-term President is pursuing an extra couple of per cent of Jewish votes in Florida and Ohio. For this, the President attempts to put the world's most serious problem into storage, leaving the destiny of people hanging in the air and the world open-mouthed at the nakedness of his motives.

The Prime Minister has argued that the Sharon plan is, in effect, stage one of the 'Road Map' and that it may contain an opportunity for progress, but the signs are not hopeful for the simple reason that it dismisses Security Council resolution 242 which demands an Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. Drafted by the British, 242 is the central pillar of the Palestinian case and to have it dismissed by the Americans and Israelis will add to their rage and sense of injustice."<

>"Tony Blair was wrong to suggest that some wish for failure. The world is too perilous for that; they just pray that the American and British governments understand the reasons for the failures so far. Opponents of the war may have given up worrying about the WMD, mostly because Blair and Bush no longer feel the need to answer for their mistake. But this doesn't allay their fears about the disastrous mishandling of the peace. The mistakes are ongoing and cumulative, chiefly because America is perceived as having a distinct bias against Arabs and Islam. Britain, though more balanced in its attitude, is dragged along in the slipstream and no one in Iraq is in the mood to make fine distinctions."<

>"A valuable lesson, which Robert McNamara has lived long enough to learn and which he expresses with a certain gritty sadness in The Fog of War, is the need to empathise with your foe.

America and Britain have failed to do that at practically every turn. Western troops are not regarded as bearers of the gift of democracy but an invading force that has ripped pride and sovereignty from the Iraqi people. This is not to say that Iraqis don't appreciate the beginnings of a free press and increased civil liberties, but other religious and cultural emotions have come into play. We must recognise them in order to isolate the real troublemakers.

The most worrying trend has been the way so many stories have merged into a single current: Palestine, Iraq, the warnings to US citizens in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's tape and the 9/11 hearings have all come together to create a sense of general intractability. The clash of civilisations predicted by American neoconservative thinkers seems to be happening before our eyes.

There are solutions to many of these problems, chiefly an increased role for the United Nations, now being wooed by the Prime Minister and Bush.

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages