"Keep the Settlements" per Bush
 

In a complete change of Policy, Decades in the making. Bush today backed a plan set forth by Sharon to keep settlements in the West Bank, regardless of the wishes of the palestinians. He really pissed everyone off, and I mean everyone(except of course Sharon).
It would seem that a huge step backward has just been taken in the Middle East and I cannot understand why. The credibility of the United States in this region was already at an all time low, at a time when we need massive support in an attempt to create stability. We have just gone from little, to no persuasive power in diplomacy.
I can only hope this is not an indication of "speak loudly, and blow them all to hell" mentality. We simply cannot afford to do that anymore, it does not work.

I can't seem to find much verification on this story, so I may be ranting for no reason......actually I hope I am.

"Bush hails 'historic' Sharon plan
President George W Bush has backed Ariel Sharon's controversial template for the future of the Middle East.

He called the Israeli leader's plan to withdraw from some Palestinian territory "historic and courageous".

Mr Sharon proposes unilaterally pulling Israelis out of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank - and keeping some Palestinian land in the West Bank.

Palestinians reacted angrily, with leader Ahmed Qurei saying it "kills the rights of the Palestinian people".

The Palestinian prime minister said Mr Bush had apparently given "himself the right to make concessions on behalf of the Palestinians... we cannot accept this under any circumstances".

"He is the first president who has legitimised the settlements in the Palestinian territories when he said that there will be no return to the borders of 1967."

If all parties choose to embrace this moment they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts
US President George W Bush
Meanwhile UN Secretary General Kofi Annan advised against unlateral statements.

"The secretary general reiterates his position that final status issues should be determined in negotiations between the parties based on relevant Security Council resolutions," a spokesman for Mr Annan said in a statement.

"He strongly believes that they should refrain from taking any steps that would pre-empt the outcome of such talks."

But the BBC's Jon Leyne in Washington says Wednesday's announcement will be popular among both Democrat-voting US Jews and the Christian right who make up a crucial part of his own power base.

The concessions will be difficult if not impossible for a future US president to repudiate, our correspondent says.

'End to conflict'

The "disengagement" plan envisages Israel uprooting all settlements on the Gaza Strip but keeping six settlement blocs in the West Bank.

After a meeting between the two men at the White House, Mr Bush said: "If all parties choose to embrace this moment they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."

West Bank settlers (not including East Jerusalem): 240,000
Settlement block populations:
Maale Adumim - 30,000
Ariel - 18,000
Kiryat Arba - 4,000
Hebron enclave - 500
Givat Zeev - 10,000
Gush Etzion - 30,000

It could lead to a "peaceful, democratic, viable Palestinian state," he added.

But he seemed to disregard Palestinian insistence that the borders of a new state should be negotiated between the two sides, and should be based on the 1967 borders, before Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza.

He said the "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly" and should be reflected in any final peace deal.

In another concession to Mr Sharon, the president said any Palestinian refugees who wanted to return should be accommodated on Palestinian land.

The solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, he said, "will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there - rather than Israel".

'New life'

Mr Sharon said his plan would create "a new and better reality for the state of Israel", and would form the basis of renewed negotiations with the Palestinians.

In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Mr Sharon's ideas, and called on the international community to "inject new life into the peace process".

Observers say he hopes that Mr Bush's endorsement - which coincided with Israeli prime-time television - will sway critics in his own Likud party and among settlers.

But Palestinians fear the Sharon plan could scupper the "roadmap" peace plan and with it, their chances of establishing a state that includes all of the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian negotiations minister Saeb Erekat slammed the US, saying the plan "violated UN resolutions".

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said US support would mean "clearly the complete end of the peace process", and warned it would lead to a "cycle of violence".

About 92,500 Jews live in the six West Bank settlements Mr Sharon wants to keep - out of a total of 240,000 in the West Bank, or 400,000 if east Jerusalem is included.

Another 7,500 live in enclaves in the Gaza Strip, alongside 1.3 million Palestinians.
Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2004/04/15 00:54:49 GMT

© BBC MMIV"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/3627001.stm

Articles or links help discussion.

I'm going to pass on even commenting on this at length.

Suffice to say, I'm not suprised. Fuel to the fire, thats all it is.

Someone point to me the big issue here? Is everything still keeping with the arrangments laid out in the road map for peace? I mean I thought I read that all the illegal settlements where being abandoned, except for six that were established before 2001 or whenever the deadline is.

The issue is that the palestinians' land was taken from them to create Israel. Now Israel wants MORE of their land. When's it gonna end? Why do the Palestinians have to give up their land just because the Israelis decided they want it?

I think the issue has to do with the way this was done. If I understand it correctly, only one side of the conflict was party to the descision. The disregard for palestinian voice in the plan has created a serious problem for Isreal, and indeed the United States. The Arab world at one point considered the U.S as a third party arbitrator when it came to Isreal, and it seems we have lost any status as unbiased due to this move.
I would think the very last thing we want at this point, is further distrust of America in this region.

Your statement seems kind of historically wrong Shakran. Seeing as to there wasn't really a Palestine, not to mention the Zionist movement had been going on for nearly a century, I don't know how much "was" stolen, also due to the partition its all a matter of perception.

To be fair to the Israeli's and the Palestinians, the Arabs fucked everything. If they would've stopped meddling in the affairs of Israel/Palestine then the boundaries never would be at what they are now, and none of this would be an issue.

Or would just get super historical/general and blame the Britons good and proper for everything going on in the MidEast.

Very solid point. Has the US or Israel resumed dealing with the PA again, cause that could be a reason why there was no Palestinian voice?

I was about to pounce and say "I think the Britans royally fucked palestine by promising the same land to two different groups after WW2" but you beat me to it.

Part of Sharon's plan was to pull completely out of Gaza (the more peacefull of the occupide terrortoires), and dismantle all of the settlements there. Allthough he will anger his right-wing base and (hopefully) lose the next election to the labor party.

He is pulling out some, which is a step in the right direction. He is not yet willing to make the same disscion with the West bank, so he said he would keep them. That will change in time.

There is some hope to come from this.

What would our leaders do in Sharon's position? I think he shows tremendous restraint in dealing with the radicals and terrorists over there. Who has all the answers?

That we can both agree on.

BTW, Historically Jordan was supposed to become the Palestinian homeland but *surprise* the Jordanians don't want them either.

The caring and gracious Jordanian's don't grant the same rights that everyone harps Israel on for denying the Palestinians, where is the collective Arab outrage on that issue? BTW these are Palestinian refugee's in the West Bank, which I believe Jordan still at least partially claims responsibility for.

This thread is an example of why I come here. Honest discussion of world events, without resorting to nastiness.

Jordon may have more bearing on the current move than most people think. The Isreali government left Jordan after losing soldiers on a regular basis, and bowing to public outcry. It may be the move to keep settlements is a posture to show strength, and retain face but slowly pull back from enough land to appease the Palestinian people. Eventually allowing for the creation of a state.

I despise Bush, but what he said was nicely scripted and suitably vague - not "Israel gets to keep its settlements", but "the final agreement will need to take into account the realities of the last 40 years ."

True, that is the first time that a US president has even implied that the settlements might be acceptable (though an elected US president has still to make that distinction), but on the other hand, it does not rule out territory swapping, for instance, which, if done properly could bring some Palestinians back to the land they rushed to to keep the zionists from claiming it.

As to the right of return, it's not happening. Israel is already sitting on a demographic bomb with it's own Arabs and will be collectively damned if they will let back in people who panicked and fled (that's how they see it - driven out is how the Paelstinians see it. Doesn't matter who's right, but Israel is there now.) The Palestinians have a homeland: Jordan. They need a right of return to there.

I agree with your interpretation but I think you meant Lebanon as opposed to Jordan.

You are Correct....wine is my freind.

I like how liberals refer to themselves as everyone.

Go Israel, teach those bastards a lesson.

maybe he is trying to send them a picture like you dan't attack us and we will be more willing to talk about an agreement seems like a good policy to me even though it has its flaws with the whole settlement thing

This move essentially throws the "Roadmap" into the trashcan and frankly I am not sure that is a bad thing. I am uncomfortable with the Bush Administration only working with Israel and Sharon on this issue, because it only deepens the suspicion about U.S. intentions. However, until the Palestinians can put forth a more credible and trustworthy leader than Arafat, I do not think the Bush Administration is going to deal.

Personally, I think it would behoove Israel to hasten to settle this issue, allow the "Two-State" solution to come to fruition and then demand more aide from the U.S. and Europe to ensure their stabilty and security. They will benefit greatly in the long run. Just my opinion.

I am saddened by all of this. Why did Bush just let Sharon get pretty much what he wanted?

and which bastards are those, the dead ones who blew themselves up, or the innocent who are still alive?

*AHEM*

We were having a perfectly civil discussion till you threw this bit of trollbait on the fire. If you want this thread to devolve and be locked down, by all means continue making gross generalizations and inflammatory comments.

Thin ice, folks...

My knowledge of the history of the region is lacking, and given the time I'd love to do more research.. but this is what I see from what I know

- Lebanon was given as the Palestinian homeland, and Israel was given to the Zionist movement, a homecoming for the Jewish people of the world.
- The 1967 borders were moved because after the war Israel kept the territory it captured for security reasons (hey, that is what war used to be about. You win, you carve a bit out for yourself.) The fact that they were fighting an illegal blockade by Egypt of the port of Eilat, Syria firing from the Golan heights, and an alliance of all the Arab states calling for the total destruction of Israel only strengthens the argument to enlargen the buffer..

I dont think that Bush should have endorsed the plan, but only because I don't beleive that the States should have as much say in Mid-East politics. But this isnt new..