In a historic departure from US policy, President George W. Bush on Wednesday said Palestinian refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state, rather than return to Israel.
He also gave a nod to Israel’s intention to retain control of West Bank settlement blocs by saying it would be “unrealistic” to expect a complete return to the Green Line as part of a final peace deal given “new realities on the ground.”
Seems like Bush is actually willing to give Sharon’s plan a chance, which ought to prop Sharon up politically for a while – if not Bush.
Of course, that’s today’s US statement. Tomorrow’s could be totally different. If there’s one thing Israel has learned the hard way, it’s that its friends can sometimes hurt it even more than its enemies. At least with the states at war with Israel, there are no ambiguities about their stance on the issues.
The Israeli government is going to put the unilateral withdrawal plan up to a referendum vote… on my birthday no less. Personally, I think the plan is seriously flawed – if only because it grants concessions to the Palestinians that will have no effect on stemming the terrorism. It’s a little naive to think that if Israel pulls back and builds a big wall, that the people on the other side of the wall will suddenly drop their bombs and guns and hatred and decide to declare statehood and implement infrastructure and industry and trade and all those great things that it takes to have a state. No, corruption breeds corruption.
But at the same time, most Israelis are so sick and tired of the status quo that they realize it can’t go on indefinitely. Since every single attempt at a negotiated solution has failed, a lot of them have got to be thinking that maybe it’s time for Plan B.
Bush’s approval means nothing elsewhere in the world, mind you. Just another example of the Great Satan backing the Little Satan.
I think that this is a very good plan. Israel isn’t rewarding the palestinians at all. The message is: “If you don’t want to sit down and play nice, we’re going to do things our way and you won’t have a say”. Obviously the status quo cannot continue. Palestinians aren’t about to get up and move out of the west bank and gaza either. This is the only logical solution. It will most likley create huge power struggles and once a state is declared, Israel still has every right to defend itself by any means.
As for world opinion, once the “occupation” is essentially over (or at least 98% of it) then the palestinians will have much less leverage. From what I’ve read, this plan actually would be giving more land away than camp david. (although that can always change…)
It’s the best Sharon could do. The Arabs though will pay a price because the official policy of the US towards the settlements has changed.
Realist — I hadn’t thought about it that way but I think you’re right. This is giving up much more than Camp David, especially in terms of eliminating deep West Bank settlements. Even with the plan to hang on to Hebron-Kiriath Arba, which I doubt will remain unchanged.
This is excellent news, if it plays out as described, that will greatly improve the quality of life on both sides until a real agreement can be reached.
This is a land for peace agreement, Sharon style. And Sari, if Ariel Sharon is too left-wing a peacnik for you, I shudder to think what you think is the best way forward? And endless rain of suicide bombong in Jerusalem? Ethnic cleansing on a massive scale? I don’t much like the Sharon plan, but I’ve got no idea how one could reasonable support an even more right wing plan? What do you have in mind?
I think you misunderstood me. I never said it was “too left-wing”. You should know by now how I feel about the traditional left-right political spectrum… you’ve been reading long enough.
The plan isn’t “too left-wing”… it’s just not really a good long-term solution. But it might be a decent interim one.
Anyway, it’s not a land for peace agreement … not by far… it’s a unilateral move that doesn’t require any peace agreement on the part of the Palestinians, since they’re clearly not willing to negotiate one.
Actually, i think it works fine as a reasonably long term solution, and I think Sharon has really outfoxed Arafat and Rantisi (not to mention Netanyahu, Barak, etc).
The fence provides enough protection to stop guerillas. (note that Israel has not yet experienced a retaliation attack on Yassin assasination — credit the fence?) He grabs enough WB land to keep most of the settlers and middle Israel, and Kiryat Arba and Hebron satisfy the religious settlers. (Though those these two will be a flashpoint in the future). And Sharon reserves the right to attack anywhere in the territory he has withdrawn from.
This is a very similar blueprint as Barak’s unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon. And that’s worked out pretty well, as these things go. He campiagned on peace and security, and this looks like he’ll deliver it.
(note that Israel has not yet experienced a retaliation attack on Yassin assasination — credit the fence?)
I do, and I hope that they finish the rest of the fence ASAP.
The bottom line is — everyone knows what a final agreement will be: a Palestinian state in Gaza and 90% of the West Bank, renunciation of large-scale right of return and some legal fiction about the Old City and Temple Mount. The last three years have been nothing but fighting until that point comes. Steps are finally being taken to get there.
Otter: everyone knows where the endgame should be. But it’s useless without a Palestinian agreement.
Otherwise, next thing we know, Israel will be out of Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palestinins will be screaming about the “occupation” of Tel Aviv.
But it’s useless without a Palestinian agreement.
Otherwise, next thing we know, Israel will be out of Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palestinins will be screaming about the “occupation” of Tel Aviv.
So what. Why should a Sharonista care what Palestinians think. The only thing that matters is if a Palestinians can kill him.
If the wall provides security (an important if) , and some settlements are kept, only the maximalists Eretz Israelis can be dissatisfied.
If Palestine is claiming Ariel, or Jaffa, it matters to Sharon about as much as the King of England’s claim, thru the 1700s, of the French throne.
Over time, the interim borders set by the wall will become permanent borders. Annexation will be a fait accompli. There is nothing Palestine can do about it.
Otherwise, next thing we know, Israel will be out of Gaza and the West Bank, and the Palestinins will be screaming about the “occupation” of Tel Aviv.
I don’t see that as a problem, I see it as an inevitability. However, when Israel is no longer in Gaza/West Bank, it will be hard for the rest of the world to come down so hard on Israel, which might be a good thing… perhaps.
Knave, haven’t you learned by now, after 2 thousand years, the rest of the world doesn’t need an excuse to come down hard on the Jews.
Knave, Sari, What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant. Israel has the Apaches, the missiles, the tanks, the nuclear weapons, and the support of both major US political parties. If a Palestinian tries to rebel, Isreal can kill him. If Sharon wants more land, he can move the fence line. This is a huge victory for Israelm, and rather than wallowing in self-pity about the the wolrd is against Jews (though I sympathize with any discrimination you yourself have faced in montreal), you should be dancing in the streets, the way most Likudnik bloggers are.
From where do you assume I’m a “Likudnik”?
Sari; I think he meant that you should strive to attain the pinnacle of Blogness by emmulating Likudnics; not that you are one.
Yeah well, I dunno, you know “the Jews” blah, blah, blah…(sorry, just sick of this racist “the Arabs” rhetoric which never raises an eyebrow).