Bush backs down from the Road Map

[Scarletwine]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18393
Bush Backs Plan for Israel to Keep Part of West Bank
Sharons Proposal Would Also Deny Right of Return to Palestinian Refugees
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP

WASHINGTON (April 14) -- Breaking with long-standing U.S. policy, President Bush on Wednesday endorsed Israel's retention of part of the West Bank in any final peace settlement with the Palestinians. In a strong show of support for Israel's leader that brought immediate condemnation from the Palestinians, Bush also ruled out Palestinian refugees ever returning to Israel.

An elated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his plan would create ''a new and better reality for the state of Israel.''

But minutes after Bush spoke, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said in Ramallah that ''he is the first president who has legitimized the (Israeli) settlements in Palestinian territories.''

Qureia added: ''We as Palestinians reject that. We cannot accept that. We reject it and we refuse it.'' Separately, anticipating what Bush would say, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had earlier called it ''the complete end of the peace process.''

Bush, in a historic news conference with a broadly smiling Sharon, endorsed as ''courageous'' the Israeli leader's plan to pull out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

The president said there were ''new realities'' on the West Bank since Israel captured the territory in the 1967 Mideast war. Bush said major Israeli population centers in the West Bank now make it ''unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return'' to pre-war borders.
Past U.S. administrations had anticipated only minor changes in the old borders as part of a final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush's statement went much further, amounting to a clear endorsement of Sharon's proposal that some large Jewish settlements must remain on the West Bank temporarily, and a backing of the Sharon position that some Jewish settlements must always remain there.

Bush's endorsement of Sharon's plan came with no Palestinian leaders present - in what was sure to be seen by the Arab world as a strong favoring of Sharon and a slight to the Palestinians. Palestinian leaders had previously said they had been assured by the Bush administration that they would be consulted before any Bush endorsement of Sharon's plan.

Bush urged the Palestinians to match Israel's ''boldness and courage.''

Specifically, Bush said a final peace deal should call for Palestinian refugees to be settled in a Palestinian state, not in Israel.

Bush said the ''realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly'' and should be reflected in any final peace deal - a key concession, sought by Sharon, to the fact that Israel has large groups of settlers in the West Bank.

Sharon said he was encouraged by Bush's support, which the Israeli leader had sought as a way to boost his own party's support. The Israeli leader said his ''disengagement'' plan would improve Israel's security and economy, and set the right conditions for negotiations with the Palestinians.

Asked outright if the United States recognized Israel's right to keep some settlements in the West Bank, Bush said Sharon had started the process of removing settlements from the West Bank.

He said final decisions about Israeli settlements in the West Bank had to wait for ''final status'' negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians on a Palestinian state.

Bush emphasized that Israeli settlements ''should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues, including final borders.''

Both the Palestinians and Israelis have responsibilities to undertake in the search for peace, Bush said. Today, Israel ''stepped up to those responsibilities,'' Bush said, and Palestinians must do the same.

''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,'' Bush said.

Sharon is hoping Bush can help him persuade hardliners in his Likud Party to back a withdrawal. Some 200,000 Likud members are to vote on the pullout plan, and approval is not assured.

Sharon has said he would honor the outcome of the vote, but has not spoken about resigning if he loses. However, his vice premier, Ehud Olmert, on Tuesday referred to such a possibility. If the Likud members vote no, ''they are destroying the political basis of the government headed by Sharon,'' Olmert told Israel Army Radio. Olmert said some opponents of the disengagement are trying to topple Sharon.


04-14-04 13:51 EDT

Well, this is incredible. It allows most of the road to peace to be between only Israel and the US. Bush also stated that the walls were ok, a matter of terrorist restriction not land stealing. If he mentioned the word terror many more times that would be all he said. As last night he never directly answers any freakin questions either, just talks around them.

But am I surprised

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

Bush has the mental capacity of a piece of lint. The sooner that idiot and the rest of his crooked admin are gone will be none too
soon.

 

[deep]

Bush Move on Mideast May Sway Jewish Vote

Even small gains with the largely Democratic bloc could make a difference in November.
By Mark Z. Barabak
Times Staff Writer

April 17, 2004

When President Bush announced a major shift this week in Middle East policy, the news was heralded on the Republican Jewish Coalition website with smiling photos of Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and a headline declaring, "President Bush Backs Israel, Yet Again."

Bush's recognition of permanent Israeli settlements in the West Bank was "a watershed event" in the long, fraternal relationship between the United States and Israel, said William Daroff, the group's deputy chief.

Republicans are hoping the shift will mark a watershed in presidential politics as well.

Bush lost almost 80% of the Jewish vote to Democrat Al Gore in 2000, a performance consistent with patterns through much of the 20th century.

But GOP strategists and some independent analysts believe Bush could markedly improve that showing in November.

Few expect Bush to draw more Jewish votes than Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, who is a long-standing friend of Israel and was quick to second the policy shift.

However, even a marginal improvement in Bush's showing could make a difference, given the expected closeness of November's election in several states with significant Jewish populations, such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Noting the 537-vote margin by which Bush carried Florida, Daroff said that "changing one vote per condominium in one square mile" of the state's heavily Jewish "Gold Coast" could make the difference in November.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

And now Sharon's government have assassinated the leader of Hamas. What a great step forward for the peace process!

 

[verte76]

And now Sharon's government have assassinated the leader of Hamas. What a great step forward for the peace process!

I just saw the breaking news from CNN in my e-mail. Geez, I'm getting tired of assassinations and such. How totally Machiavellian. I'm getting this strange sense of being in the middle of some really decadent court with all of these political intrigues and scandals and such going on. It's like some dark, dirty story.........how's it supposed to end? Is it supposed to end at all? This is only going to stir up more terrorism I'm afraid, more Israelis will be killed.

 

[bammo2]

this assassination is so not good on so many levels

 

[bammo2]

From Ntlworld.com:

Top Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi has been assassinated when Israeli helicopters fired two missiles at his car.

Three Palestinians were also killed in the Gaza City air strikes.

Palestinian leaders have vowed to avenge the killing which came just hours after an Israeli border policeman by a Palestinian suicide bomber.

Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this Israeli crime and state terror. It is evident now to the world that the Palestinian people need international protection more than ever."

The identities of the men killed in the Gaza strike were not immediately known.

 

[nbcrusader]

And now Sharon's government have assassinated the leader of Hamas. What a great step forward for the peace process!

Considering what Hamas has contributed towards peace, I'd say he got what was coming.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Do you support the assassination, nbc? If so, in what way do you expect it to contribute to furthering the peace process?

 

[verte76]

Considering what Hamas has contributed towards peace, I'd say he got what was coming.

I'm not going to defend the guy; he was a terrorist. But I don't support the assassinations policy Israel has adopted. They're turning these guys into martyrs. I saw a clip from the BBC on the assassination and they said that it's really going to stir up a ton of anger in the lands right around Israel. I don't think this is making Israel or the United States any safer. This is dangerous policy and won't stop the madness.

 

[nbcrusader]

Do you support the assassination, nbc? If so, in what way do you expect it to contribute to furthering the peace process?

They killed a terrorist. One less person to coordinate suicide bombers. This doesn't add to the hatred - Palestinians are already taught that in their schools.

 

[verte76]

I would be interested in what Israelis think of this. The people at the BBC seem to be really nervous about the consequences of this. What do the people most affected by the act think?

 

[Dreadsox]

They killed a terrorist. One less person to coordinate suicide bombers. This doesn't add to the hatred - Palestinians are already taught that in their schools.

Shall we link this to the Palestinian text book thread.....

Do let me get this straight....we are supposed to be upset of the death of this murdering SOB......and if we are not.....we are supporters of assasination.

Once again, we are insulting assassinated people. Clumping this f-ing murderer in with the likes fo MLK and Ghandi.

He is a terrorist leader who has helped conduct operations against civilians. He should have been a target a long long time ago.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

They killed a terrorist. One less person to coordinate suicide bombers. This doesn't add to the hatred - Palestinians are already taught that in their schools.

So you do support it?

I don't know where people get the idea that Israel's actions aren't in any way responsible for Palestinian people's resentment of Israel. When Israel imposes curfews preventing Palestinians from going to school or work or even outside of their home, it causes resentment. When Israel bombs cities in Gaza, killing innocent people, it causes resentment. When Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian children it causes resentment. And yes, when Israel assassinates the leader of Hamas it causes resentment.

You can debate whether those actions are justified or not, but don't try to pretend they don't influence the Palestinian people's opinions about Israel.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Do let me get this straight....we are supposed to be upset of the death of this murdering SOB......and if we are not.....we are supporters of assasination.

Once again, we are insulting assassinated people. Clumping this f-ing murderer in with the likes fo MLK and Ghandi.

If you support Israel's actions then yes you do support assassination. I don't really understand why people are so horrified by this. Israel assassinated the leader of Hamas, if you support it that's fine, but why try to pretend it's something it isn't?

Even Jack Straw is describing this as assassination, as is the foreign minister of Italy.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I would be interested in what Israelis think of this. The people at the BBC seem to be really nervous about the consequences of this.

I think that's interesting too. Often people have a tendency to forget that not everyone in Israel supports Sharon's policies. There are many people in Israel who believe that peace isn't going to be achieved through more violence on the part of Israel.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well I can say that Israel's policy of assassination does a favour to Arafat and the PA in general. By decapitating Hamas leadership before the a withrdrawl Sharon is ensuring that the authority that takes control is not going to be extremist/islamist. This should be seen for what it is, the execution of a man who is directly linked to the murder of innocent civilians in order to give the unilateral withdrawl a greater chance of success.

Try to rationalize it this way: Remove Hamas ----> Reduce suicide bombings and save Israeli lives ----> Reduce need for retalliation because of suicide bombings ----> reduce IDF incursions and hence reduce palestinian deaths ----> higher chance for a long term peace to be reached.

I will also say that the Palestinians would NOT be in this position if the sheer corruption within the PA was adressed and they actually got leaders who were more interested in peace than lining their pockets with stolen palestinian money. How long will we have to wait until Arafat is removed from the equation and there is somebody who can intitiate positive actions that result in real peace.

 

[Dreadsox]

Now let me understand this, because they are leaders of a terrorist organization this is considered Assassination.

If a commanding officer in an army unit were killed would this also be called assasination?

This guy was the leader of a terrorist/military organization, so therefore in my mind it is not an assasination.

And I do sincerely believe that those opposed to this are interested in painting it as an assassination for shock value and for public opinion purposes. It most definitely is wrong to call this an assassination and lump him in the same group as Ghandi and MLK.

 

[Popmartijn]

Now let me understand this, because they are leaders of a terrorist organization this is considered Assassination.

Nope, that's not the reason.

If a commanding officer in an army unit were killed would this also be called assasination?

If that person would be killed in an operation specifically aimed at killing him, yes that's also an assassination. As said before in this thread, it does not place any specific value on the action, it's just how you call something like that.
Here's the explanation by the Merriam-Webster dictionairy:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=assassination&x=0&y=0

1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

It does not matter who the person killed was, it is the act itself that's called that way.

And I do sincerely believe that those opposed to this are interested in painting it as an assassination for shock value and for public opinion purposes. It most definitely is wrong to call this an assassination and lump him in the same group as Ghandi and MLK.

I agree that the person killed in the attack is not related in any way with Ghandi or MLK regarding stature or character or whatever. The only thing those three have in common is that all three were assassinated. And that's all that binds them.

 

[Dreadsox]

So you would define the "undeclared war" between Hammas and Israel as "impersonal".

Any attack surprise attack during a war would fit the definition.

Key is impersonal.....and this was personal on both sides.

 

[verte76]

I thought an assassination was a politically motivated killing. I agree that this guy was a and he shouldn't be put in a group with Gandhi or MLK. I'm not sure knocking off a political figure is the best Middle East policy. That part of the world is volatile and violent anyway. Not all Israelis are liking these developments.

 

[AchtungBono]

So you do support it?

I don't know where people get the idea that Israel's actions aren't in any way responsible for Palestinian people's resentment of Israel. When Israel imposes curfews preventing Palestinians from going to school or work or even outside of their home, it causes resentment. When Israel bombs cities in Gaza, killing innocent people, it causes resentment. When Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian children it causes resentment. And yes, when Israel assassinates the leader of Hamas it causes resentment.

You can debate whether those actions are justified or not, but don't try to pretend they don't influence the Palestinian people's opinions about Israel.

I'm Israeli and EXTREMELY proud of my country......and of our armed forces for the metting out of justice against the leader of one of the bloodiest terrorist organizations in the world.

Rantisi had the blood of hundreds of Israelis on his hands - including women and children....don't waste a single moment mourning for him OR for his predecesor(sp?) who was supposedly a man of god.

You mention that OUR actions cause resentment - as if WE'RE the ones who started this cycle of violence. EVERY single action that Israel has taken has been in answer to a murderous attack against our people.

Yes, unfortunately, innocent Palestinian citizens get hurt and killed in these actions BUT they are NEVER targeted by our military (unlike the terrorists who deliberately go after our civillian population).

The terrorists have their hiding places hidden among the civiliian population, without any regard whatsoever for the lives that they are putting in danger, and then when Israel responds to their aggression, they (the Palestinians) then use the fact that civillians were killed to condem the Israeli "Massacres".

Since the impotent Palestinian "authority" is not willing to deal with the terrorists of the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad themselve, it is up to US to avenge the murder of our people. The ONLY way to deal with these monsters is to dispose of them by any means possible.

Please don't let this post give you the impression that I'm a war-monger - I'm NOT. I am a peace-loving Israeli citizen who is sick and tired of seeing the cheering throngs who celebrate each attack against us with mass rallies led by the terrorists brandishing their guns.....

Did you see any Israelis dancing in the streets when Sheikh Yassin was taken care of? Did you see mass rallies celebrating the deaths of Rantisi and the others whom we put out of action??? NO you didn't - because that is NOT our nature. We mourn every innocent life that is lost on both sides of this never-ending conflict BUT these murdering butchers do NOT deserve a second thought.

Tonight Israel marks the eve of Holocaust Remembrance day, where we remember the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe and elsewhere. The slogan for this evening is "Never Again...." and I think that speaks for itself.

We will defend ourselves and our right to exist and, despite efforts to the contrary, Israel will CONTINUE to exist long after our enemies have all been dealt with.

To repeat what I said at the beginning.....I am very proud of my country and I applaud the actions of our military.

Shalom.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I agree with those definitions of an assassination. It's not like calling this an assassination as well is an insult to what people like MLK and Ghandi did, as there is nothing positive in their murders either.

 

[verte76]

Thanks, AchtungBono, I wanted a post from Israel! I have a friend in Tel Aviv. I understand that Israel has to defend itself against suicide bombers and carriers of madness and hatred in general. I'm not in any position to understand what to do about all of this damn stuff.

 

[Dreadsox]

I agree with those definitions of an assassination. It's not like calling this an assassination as well is an insult to what people like MLK and Ghandi did, as there is nothing positive in their murders either.

So you would say this is impersonal?

How can the actions of both parties be described as impersonal?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You mention that OUR actions cause resentment - as if WE'RE the ones who started this cycle of violence.

I made no judgement about who started the violence between Israel and Palestine. I simply think it's wrong to suggest that Israel's actions don't cause resentment among Palestinians. Of course the Palestinian people feel resentment towards Israel when they live under an Israeli-imposed curfew or when the IDF drops bombs in Gaza city or yes, when the two Hamas leaders are assassinated in as many months. As I said before, you can debate whether these actions are justified or not, but I don't think you can suggest that they don't cause resentment among Palestinians.

I also don't know where people get the idea that anyone who condemns the assassination must do so because they support Hamas or believe that Rantissi was a "good" person. Many people condemn the assassination because they think it is a further step away from peace and will only serve to escalate the conflict. Since you say you support the assassination, can you perhaps explain how you think it's likely to further the peace process? (That's a genuine question -- I'd just like to hear what you think.)

 

[Dreadsox]

I'd like to know where anyone said that if condemn it that you support Hammas.

I just have a problem calling it assassination. I think it is a shock value statement.

 

[sarit]

You mention that OUR actions cause resentment - as if WE'RE the ones who started this cycle of violence.

It doesn't matter anymore who started this. This isn't a case of two little kids arguing and than trying to blame each other (tough sometimes this exact comparison is made). This is a horrific and violent conflict that causes death of innocents on both sides. The fact is that everything that we do affects them and everything that they do affects us. If you are not free to move as you wish on the streets I'm sure you will resent those who are 'responsible' for it. The same goes for accidental deaths of kids ? it's not on purpose, that's true, but it doesn't really matter to the Palestinians. We're not talking now about right or wrong, but on the impact itself.

I can't say I'm saddened by his death, I'm sure some of the people I knew who were murdered in terror attacks died directly because of him, but I'm afraid of the consequences. After Yassin's death, individuals who were not connected to the terror groups started taking actions (attacking people on the street with an axe, stabbing people with knives and etc.). We have enough of the organized terror (I'm a bit uncomfortable with the term...).

And another thing, it's not the first time an important figure of a terror group is assassinated (including leaders) ? has it really made things better?

 

[Salome]

what's the shock value of naming something accordingly to that words description?

 

[Dreadsox]

I guess we can disagree then that that is what it was. I do not believe the definition holds.