welsh
Junkmaster
Looks like Bush is supporting Sharon's plans for Israel while the EU isn't buying it.
Is GB fucking up Iraq in the process?
Here's a web site from NPR=
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1837510.html
Here's a summary from the Economist-
(Oh and I heard that a Hamas leader just got whacked with a car bomb- any confirmations?)
Leaving Gaza, settling in the West Bank?
Apr 16th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda
Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has won support from George Bush for his Gaza pull-out plan. Palestinians have mixed feelings about the plan but are furious at Mr Sharon’s pledge—which Mr Bush tacitly backed—to keep chunks of the West Bank
ISRAEL’S prime minister, Ariel Sharon, hoped to hear from George Bush at their meeting at the White House, on Wednesday April 14th, that the American president not only backs Mr Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip but also supports his proposal, outlined this week, for Israel to keep forever some parts of the West Bank. Mr Bush stopped short of such unequivocal backing. But not far short. The president praised the Gaza pull-out as “historic and courageous” and said that any talks on the permanent borders between Israel and a Palestinian state would have to take into account the “realities on the ground” such as “existing major Israeli population centres”—an unmistakable reference to the larger West Bank settlements that Mr Sharon intends Israel to keep.
Mr Bush underlined his tacit support for Mr Sharon's plans by saying that it was now unrealistic to expect Israel to return to the borders it had maintained from 1948 (when the Jewish state was founded, and fought off an attempted invasion by its Arab neighbours) to 1967 (when it captured Gaza, the West Bank and other territories in another war). Though America published a legal opinion back in the 1970s stating that the settlements were “inconsistent with international law” and most countries agree with this, in practice the various peace proposals in recent years have acknowledged that the existence of the settlements made a simple return to the pre-1967 boundaries impractical and that some sort of land swap would be needed.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians are furious at Mr Sharon's plan to keep part of the West Bank—their prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, accused him of “destroying any hope for peace”. Mr Qurei also denounced Mr Bush's tacit support for Mr Sharon's plan. Palestinians will be angry too at Mr Bush's comment that the Arabs who fled Israel around the time of the 1948 war should be offered a home in a future Palestinian state, not in Israel (even though his predecessor, Bill Clinton, suggested as much three years ago). Both the United Nations and the European Union criticised Mr Sharon's stance after his meeting with Mr Bush. On Friday, Brian Cowen, foreign minister of Ireland, which currently holds the EU presidency, said: “Israel has to make peace with its enemies, not its friends. Israel and the United States are not in conflict.”
When Saddam Hussein was toppled, it was hoped that Mr Bush would turn his attention back to the internationally backed “road map” plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If he were to press both sides to agree to a settlement, it would greatly reduce Arab nations’ resentment at American intervention in the region and would help Mr Bush’s drive to bring democracy to the greater Middle East. But these high hopes have not, so far, been fulfilled. Post-Saddam Iraq has proved more messy than Mr Bush had expected. Meanwhile, the road map has been left in tatters by successive rounds of suicide bombings and assassinations.
With little prospect of progress along the road map, and with Mr Sharon under domestic pressure from various scandals (including an accusation of taking bribes, which he denies), the Israeli premier seized the initiative and launched a “unilateral disengagement”, of which the Gaza withdrawal was the first step. Israeli forces struggle to defend the 7,500 Jewish settlers in Gaza against continual attacks from among the 1.3m Palestinians in the strip. Now that he has Mr Bush's support for the Gaza pull-out, Mr Sharon plans to put it to a binding referendum among members of his Likud Party shortly and then to votes in the cabinet and the Israeli parliament.
Polls show that around 60% of Israelis back the idea of abandoning the Gaza outposts. But Israel’s politically powerful settler movement is unhappy. To appease them, the prime minister has been making it clear that the aim of the pull-out is to make it easier to defend—both militarily and diplomatically—the continued occupation of the largest settlements in the West Bank, where there are now around 230,000 Jewish settlers among ten times as many Palestinians.
Though the Gaza pullout is intended to be accompanied by a withdrawal from some Jewish settlements in the northern West Bank, Mr Sharon has made it clear that Israel intends to keep six big West Bank settlement blocks (see map). Visiting the biggest of the West Bank outposts, Maale Adumim, Mr Sharon told its 30,000 settlers that it would continue to grow, “as part of Israel, for all eternity”.
According to the road map, an independent Palestine, with provisional borders, should be formed by next year, based in the West Bank and Gaza. But Palestinians fear that Mr Sharon’s plan is to coop them up in a series of disjointed cantons, hemmed in by the supposedly temporary “security fence” that Israel is building. To their further annoyance, on Monday Mr Sharon repeated Israel’s determination to keep East Jerusalem, which it has also held since the 1967 war, and which Palestinians want as the capital of their new state.
Powerless in Gaza?
Although many Palestinians in Gaza, including members of Hamas, the militant group which has its stronghold there, are celebrating having “forced” Israel out, the pull-out proposal has caused alarm in the mainstream Fatah movement of Mr Qurei and Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA). They fear that an Israeli withdrawal might lead to chaos in Gaza, with the PA’s security forces losing to the militants what little control they still have over the strip. They also worry that Israel, after ridding itself of the military and financial burden of maintaining the Gaza outposts, intends to “park” itself (as Israeli officials put it this week) and refuse to make any progress along the road map.
Egypt, which has been an important player in the Middle East peace process, shares such worries. When its president, Hosni Mubarak, visited Mr Bush this week, the two agreed that the Gaza pull-out would only be welcome if it did not undermine the road map. Mr Sharon is happy to have the road map reaffirmed by Mr Bush—if only to squash a number of other peace plans that have recently been floated, and which would involve painful Israeli concessions.
Mr Bush, seeking re-election this year, would like to have some success to show for his Middle East diplomatic efforts, especially given his troubles in Iraq. A handover of Gaza to Palestinian control would look like progress, so it makes sense to help Mr Sharon achieve this. But by appearing to back Israel’s annexation of part of the West Bank, he risks inflaming the Arab world, perhaps undermining his efforts to stabilise Iraq.
Is GB fucking up Iraq in the process?
Here's a web site from NPR=
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1837510.html
Here's a summary from the Economist-
(Oh and I heard that a Hamas leader just got whacked with a car bomb- any confirmations?)
Leaving Gaza, settling in the West Bank?
Apr 16th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda
Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has won support from George Bush for his Gaza pull-out plan. Palestinians have mixed feelings about the plan but are furious at Mr Sharon’s pledge—which Mr Bush tacitly backed—to keep chunks of the West Bank
ISRAEL’S prime minister, Ariel Sharon, hoped to hear from George Bush at their meeting at the White House, on Wednesday April 14th, that the American president not only backs Mr Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip but also supports his proposal, outlined this week, for Israel to keep forever some parts of the West Bank. Mr Bush stopped short of such unequivocal backing. But not far short. The president praised the Gaza pull-out as “historic and courageous” and said that any talks on the permanent borders between Israel and a Palestinian state would have to take into account the “realities on the ground” such as “existing major Israeli population centres”—an unmistakable reference to the larger West Bank settlements that Mr Sharon intends Israel to keep.
Mr Bush underlined his tacit support for Mr Sharon's plans by saying that it was now unrealistic to expect Israel to return to the borders it had maintained from 1948 (when the Jewish state was founded, and fought off an attempted invasion by its Arab neighbours) to 1967 (when it captured Gaza, the West Bank and other territories in another war). Though America published a legal opinion back in the 1970s stating that the settlements were “inconsistent with international law” and most countries agree with this, in practice the various peace proposals in recent years have acknowledged that the existence of the settlements made a simple return to the pre-1967 boundaries impractical and that some sort of land swap would be needed.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians are furious at Mr Sharon's plan to keep part of the West Bank—their prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, accused him of “destroying any hope for peace”. Mr Qurei also denounced Mr Bush's tacit support for Mr Sharon's plan. Palestinians will be angry too at Mr Bush's comment that the Arabs who fled Israel around the time of the 1948 war should be offered a home in a future Palestinian state, not in Israel (even though his predecessor, Bill Clinton, suggested as much three years ago). Both the United Nations and the European Union criticised Mr Sharon's stance after his meeting with Mr Bush. On Friday, Brian Cowen, foreign minister of Ireland, which currently holds the EU presidency, said: “Israel has to make peace with its enemies, not its friends. Israel and the United States are not in conflict.”
When Saddam Hussein was toppled, it was hoped that Mr Bush would turn his attention back to the internationally backed “road map” plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If he were to press both sides to agree to a settlement, it would greatly reduce Arab nations’ resentment at American intervention in the region and would help Mr Bush’s drive to bring democracy to the greater Middle East. But these high hopes have not, so far, been fulfilled. Post-Saddam Iraq has proved more messy than Mr Bush had expected. Meanwhile, the road map has been left in tatters by successive rounds of suicide bombings and assassinations.
With little prospect of progress along the road map, and with Mr Sharon under domestic pressure from various scandals (including an accusation of taking bribes, which he denies), the Israeli premier seized the initiative and launched a “unilateral disengagement”, of which the Gaza withdrawal was the first step. Israeli forces struggle to defend the 7,500 Jewish settlers in Gaza against continual attacks from among the 1.3m Palestinians in the strip. Now that he has Mr Bush's support for the Gaza pull-out, Mr Sharon plans to put it to a binding referendum among members of his Likud Party shortly and then to votes in the cabinet and the Israeli parliament.
Polls show that around 60% of Israelis back the idea of abandoning the Gaza outposts. But Israel’s politically powerful settler movement is unhappy. To appease them, the prime minister has been making it clear that the aim of the pull-out is to make it easier to defend—both militarily and diplomatically—the continued occupation of the largest settlements in the West Bank, where there are now around 230,000 Jewish settlers among ten times as many Palestinians.
Though the Gaza pullout is intended to be accompanied by a withdrawal from some Jewish settlements in the northern West Bank, Mr Sharon has made it clear that Israel intends to keep six big West Bank settlement blocks (see map). Visiting the biggest of the West Bank outposts, Maale Adumim, Mr Sharon told its 30,000 settlers that it would continue to grow, “as part of Israel, for all eternity”.
According to the road map, an independent Palestine, with provisional borders, should be formed by next year, based in the West Bank and Gaza. But Palestinians fear that Mr Sharon’s plan is to coop them up in a series of disjointed cantons, hemmed in by the supposedly temporary “security fence” that Israel is building. To their further annoyance, on Monday Mr Sharon repeated Israel’s determination to keep East Jerusalem, which it has also held since the 1967 war, and which Palestinians want as the capital of their new state.
Powerless in Gaza?
Although many Palestinians in Gaza, including members of Hamas, the militant group which has its stronghold there, are celebrating having “forced” Israel out, the pull-out proposal has caused alarm in the mainstream Fatah movement of Mr Qurei and Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA). They fear that an Israeli withdrawal might lead to chaos in Gaza, with the PA’s security forces losing to the militants what little control they still have over the strip. They also worry that Israel, after ridding itself of the military and financial burden of maintaining the Gaza outposts, intends to “park” itself (as Israeli officials put it this week) and refuse to make any progress along the road map.
Egypt, which has been an important player in the Middle East peace process, shares such worries. When its president, Hosni Mubarak, visited Mr Bush this week, the two agreed that the Gaza pull-out would only be welcome if it did not undermine the road map. Mr Sharon is happy to have the road map reaffirmed by Mr Bush—if only to squash a number of other peace plans that have recently been floated, and which would involve painful Israeli concessions.
Mr Bush, seeking re-election this year, would like to have some success to show for his Middle East diplomatic efforts, especially given his troubles in Iraq. A handover of Gaza to Palestinian control would look like progress, so it makes sense to help Mr Sharon achieve this. But by appearing to back Israel’s annexation of part of the West Bank, he risks inflaming the Arab world, perhaps undermining his efforts to stabilise Iraq.
