Road map approved

05.25.03

The Israeli Cabinet has approved the road map under intense international and American pressure. However, several members of government expressed strong reservations. And the fictional “right of return”, a euphemism for the destruction of Israel, was rejected once again out of hand:

In a separate vote of 16-1, the cabinet rejected any influx of Palestinian refugees into what is now the Jewish state, a proviso likely to be a bump on any road to peace.

The road map does not refer to a specific Palestinian “right of return” but calls instead for a “fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue” in the proposal’s final phase.

I guess Sharon isn’t too concerned about the road map because he knows that things will never get past stage one, which calls for, among other things, an end to Palestinian terror attacks. Hamas doesn’t seem inclined to obey that anytime soon. So the road map is, in the long run, meaningless.

Still, there are going to be many angry Israelis concerned that the government is sacrificing their security for international brownie points. I for one don’t blame them.

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Wadi 05.26.03 at 2:24 AM

Who in the Israeli cabinet voted in favour of the “right of return?” be included?

Reply

2 Wadi 05.26.03 at 2:24 AM

sorry, that should be “being”

Reply

3 segacs 05.26.03 at 4:50 AM

The dissenting vote was Benny Elon, Tourism Minister (National Union).

The vote breakdown is available at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1053862432030

Reply

4 David H 05.26.03 at 8:18 PM

Isn’t National Union the far-right settler party? Interesting, does he support right of return, hoping for a quid pro quo for the settlers?

Either way, RoR will never happen, its the one nonnegotiable point in the entire peace process. Once the palestenian elites realize this, I think peace will come rather quickly.

Reply

5 segacs 05.26.03 at 8:42 PM

I don’t know the motivation – I haven’t seen any explanations or quotes from Elon on the subject. If I had to speculate, I’d guess it had more to do with the fact that supporting the resolution is almost like supporting the road map, which Elon also voted against. Elon is a radical far-right member of cabinet, and has spoken out on his complete opposition to a Palestinian state. In fact, he’s even a proponent of the “transfer” idea, that the Palestinians should be transferred to Jordan, as illustrated by the following quote:

“The Palestinian Arabs already have a state,” says Elon. “It’s Jordan. Another state west of the Jordan River is a three-state solution, not a two-state solution. It would be a disaster for Israel, and it would be a disaster for the Palestinians.”

He has travelled to Washington to put forth his idea, which involves “voluntary” transfer to Jordan and granting of Jordanian citizenship of the Palestinian people currently living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. According to Elon’s idea, those who did not wish to go would be allowed to stay in their present location, but as “foreign nationals”, not citizens, and Israel would annex the territories.

Please note, I’m not agreeing with Elon, I’m just pointing out that it’s unlikely he voted against the resolution out of a desire to grant the so-called “right of return” to Israel to the Palestinians. If anything I’d say it’s the opposite.

Reply

6 Wadi 05.27.03 at 12:50 AM

ok I get it. I checked out a few Israeli news sources and I think I understand why he voted the way he did. The reason is because he doesn’t accept the “ROR” for Palestinians in Israel or in the West Bank and Gaza (potential Palestinian State). So he voted against the resoltion because it left the door open for Arabs to return to the West Bank and Gaza, which he’s against.

Reply

7 Ikram Saeed 05.27.03 at 3:18 PM

Elon is against Palestinian refugees moving to the future state of Palestine? This I’ve never been clear on. I understand why israelis don’t want Palestinians moving to Haifa, by why would the be against Palestinian refugees moving back to Gaza or Nablus? And why do they think they can dictate immigration policy of Palestine?

But I understand Elon’s vote. If you think settlements can stay, you can make a strong argument for 48 refugees returning to pre-67 Israel. Allow 250K settlers, accept 250K refugees.

(I don’t think Sharon is sincere at all on a Palestinian state. Note that his government approved the steps of the road map, not the road map itself (see today’s National Post). Unlike the PA, the government of Israel has not yet recognized Palestine’s right to exist.)

Reply

8 Wadi 05.28.03 at 12:54 AM

Actually, he’s against a Palestinian state in any part of the West Bank/Gaza. That’s why he voted the way he did.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: