Sharon vows to keep largest West Bank blocs

[Darranar]

Israel will keep its largest West Bank settlements, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said.

His promise on Monday comes before a trip to Washington to secure US approval for his plans for a unilateral Gaza pullout.

"Only Israeli political initiative will retain our strong grasp of the large settlement blocs and security areas," Sharon said at Israel's largest West Bank settlement, Maale Adumim.

"(These are) places that will remain under Israeli control that will continue to grow stronger and develop," he said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A5D4A6FC-6A97-4A24-B642-052CF059380D.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

1. The sooner Sharon goes, the better...

He's against peace, he's against self-determination for the Palestinians, and he thumbs his nose at international law. All of us here who want to see peace in the area should all be crossing our fingers and hoping that moderates gain power and a negotiated and FAIR settlement to the conflict can be reached...

Violet...

[dArKeR]

2. Sharon 'closing all doors'

Ramallah, West Bank - Palestinian negotiations minister Saeb Erakat on Tuesday denounced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's pledge to maintain control over six Jewish settlement blocks in the West Bank as a "recipe for destruction" of the peace process.

"We firmly condemn these very serious declarations by Sharon," said Erakat.

"The maintenance of six settlement blocks in the West Bank is a recipe for closing all the doors in the peace process and its destruction."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1511632,00.html

[tinnypriv]

3. Again, everyone reacts with shock and astonishment

While in Israel, such comments are met with boredom.¹

-----

1. cf. Ben Kaspit, Ma'ariv, 4 Feb 2004. The relevant statement:

"The compensation package (from the US) is to include the annexation of Ma'ale Adumim and the Gush Etzion bloc (and) US agreement to further constructions in central settlements, on which there is a consensus in Israel" (my emphasis)

See also 'Pay day', same author, Ma'ariv, 9 April 2004 (Hebrew only), which details several demands Bibi Netenyahu delivered to Sharon on this topic, the acceptance of which would be a requirement for his support of the disengagement plan (quite crucial within Likud). The retainment of "Ariel, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adummin" (direct quote) are specifically mentioned. Sharon's reaction was to tell Bibi to "be quiet" - presumably so as to not upset the Americans.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. I was wondering what would be said on DU about this

The sooner Sharon pulls out of Gaza and The West Bank, the better, but he seems reluctant to exercise the latter. Even The Bush* administration opposes him on this reluctance. He needs to return to "the road map" and get negotiations going, before anything else. This all needs to return to "the road map." Negotiations and discussions, before anything is implemented, are essential. There is little hope without understanding. There is also little hope unless he returns to 1967 borders, which he hasn't promised to do. Solving this conflict requires serious compromises. Others have shown their sincere resolve to do whatever it will take, but Sharon is not one of them.

[tinnypriv]

5. "Return"

Israel can't return to the roadmap, because it was never there in the first place - it never accepted it (in fact laughed at it in the highest circles).

[Rhiannon12866]

6. I know that. His party voted it down in their parliament

Plus, Sharon's Likud party is opposed to any peace negotiations or compromises specified in the "road map." So what kind of a travesty is this? A huge one, as far as I can see, but most Americans are totally unaware and unconcerned. Meanwhile, people continue to die here. This, to me, should be a conflict that we put on the front burner, but Iraq, a totally manufactured war, and 9/11, in which Bush* totally let down the American people, remain in the forefront.

[tinnypriv]

10. Not strictly accurate

If you want the history on this (I haven't seen a word about it in the U.S. media, but it's well reported in Israel), what actually happened is this:

1. The roadmap was published.
2. It was accepted by the Palestinian side (arguments over whether they intended to fulfil their obligations aside).
3. Israel refused to accept it, point-blank.
4. Several news conferences with Powell, Bush admin officials started to raise this question, saying 'Why won't Israel say it accepts the Roadmap?' He evaded the topic, but to continue such evasions would be extremely difficult.¹

(you can assume at this point that some kind of arrangement was worked out whereby Israel would pretend to accept it, in fact concede nothing, and the Bush admin would not push them) ²

5. There were internal discussions in Israel (excerpts of which were published in the Hebrew press), where Sharon and the Israeli cabinet (the parliament is irrelevant) decided to 'accept' the Roadmap, but only in the following context: Israel would only agree to the Roadmap and 14 Israeli 'amendments'. In case anybody didn't get the point, this was spelled out by Shaul Mofaz, Def. Minister:

"I have decided to vote in favor of the Roadmap, but only in context of the totality of the arrangements worked out between Israel and the Americans"

6. Sharon also had several comments to make:

"I don’t like the roadmap, but we are in a situation where we have to choose between what’s bad and what’s worse"

"If we support the plan now, we will fight less with the Americans"

"If we accept the plan we may have future conflict with the Americans, but its not at all certain because the Palestinians may not be able to do their part according to the roadmap. Therefore its better to postpone conflict, in the hope that there will be no conflict."

He was also asked a question by one of his ministers (Sharanksy), about the obligations laid down in the Roadmap, which Israel would presumably have to agree to (Sharansky was worried that a Palestinian state would be established). Sharon responded (and here comes the 'laughed at' part):

"Why are you talking about these dates? These dates are not serious" ³

7. The following day, the Israeli cabinet announced that it had 'accepted' the Roadmap, but only in the context of the Israeli amendments being included. Even with this extreme rejectionism taken into account, the vote was still only 12-7-4 (favor, against, abstain) - i.e. virtually 50-50 (no mention of that in the press either).

8. Thereafter, all Israeli mention of the Roadmap was in context of the Israeli rejectionist amendments. Again, in case anybody was asleep, Sharon spelled it out when he opened the Knesset's 2nd session:

"Israel has accepted President Bush's historic initiative - his vision and political stance. We adopted the political plan called the "Roadmap" in an official Government Resolution, in conjunction with Israel's 14 reservations, which are an integral part of the plan" ⁴

9. Long story short - Israel rejected the Roadmap.

10. Regardless of (9), when you have almost total control over the means of information, you can reject something, but still hold your opponent to the terms you've rejected. This is what actually happened - if bored, you can check any one of 100's of pious articles from Israeli and US-Israeli sources saying that the Palestinians had to "live up to their obligations in the Roadmap". Yeah, a Roadmap rejected and laughed at by Israel, but that is down the memory hole.


-----

1. cf. 'Powell, Egyptian Foreign Minister Maher Confer on Middle East Peace', US State Department, 12 May 2003. The relevant excerpt:

QUESTION: I'm Nihal Saad for Nile TV, the Egyptian television. Secretary Powell, we heard that loud and clear from the Palestinian side, from Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, that the Palestinians accept the roadmap as it is without reservations. Did you get the same response from the Israeli side? Thank you.

SECRETARY POWELL: The Israeli side did not use the word "accept." The Israeli side has made it clear over the months that they had some comments with respect to the roadmap; but the roadmap as it was finished in December, is the roadmap that was released a few weeks ago. So, we will listen to additional Israeli comments that might come forward and more importantly, it is important for the Israelis to talk directly to the Palestinians, which they have the opportunity to do and visa versa in the very near future, to see what differences exist and see how those differences can be bridged between the parties with the assistance of the United States and the other Quartet members. And so, rather than focus on that particular issue, I am focusing on it, appropriately so, on the steps that we can take. It makes no difference whether you have a word "accept" or not have the word "accept."

As I said, it is hard to keep this kind of dance up.

2. This is conjecture (though well documented conjucture). Everything else I've wrote here is fact.
3. All above quotes from Ma'ariv (Hebrew), 25 May 2003. Article by Ben Caspit.
4. 'Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Address', Knesset Documents, 20 Oct 2003. http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/sharonspeech03.htm

[Alex88]

14. The Palestinian side

"2. It was accepted by the Palestinian side (arguments over whether they intended to fulfil their obligations aside)."


Geneva was bit of a yawner for me from the beginning, and I believe justice for the Palestinians and piece for all, will only come within a one-state equal rights for all framework.

But you seem to be suggesting that those Palestinians who accepted the Geneva Accords represented the Palestinians. If so, how?

[tinnypriv]

16. Not Geneva

This conversation is about the Roadmap.

In any case, I'll answer: an overwhelming majority of the Palestinians have consistently expressed their view that the diplomatic component of their struggle is up to the PLO/PA, regardless of what they think about those institutions personally.

In that sense, there is some significant representation of the Palestinian national movement among the "signers" (check their history and see).

If you ask them, they'd tell you that Geneva is not intended to be a position for the Palestinians, or a treaty, but a framework for discussion. They've made many comments about the Palestinian government (or what is left of it) rewriting Geneva, discussing it with the Israelis Taba style, and then ratifying it.

[Rhiannon12866]

17. I think that the "targeted killings" effectively killed the "road map"

And we need to start from square one. The fact that Bush* has never been an effective player in this, unlike Clinton, and has just accepted Sharon's policies, is definitely another factor in the failure of any progress. I have seen much on the American news in the past couple of days, following Sharon's visit. I agree that Israel will never go back to 1967 borders and various concessions will have to be worked out between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but what has to happen is that the majority of the illegal settlements will have to be dismantled in return for the entirety of Gaza and as much of the West Bank as possible. But, I agree with an Arab speaker I heard on CNN. This all has to be in conjunction with the "Road Map." This cannot be abandoned. No agreements mean anything unless peace is ensured. This is a vital project in the world, certainly as important as Iraq, and the U.S. and the world community need to sit up, pay attention and become involved.

[Gimel]

7. So do most

In fact, the alternative plan, The Geneva Accord spang up, as well as others "like mushrooms."

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=414792&contrassID=1

[tinnypriv]

11. It was obvious without his statement

That this was the counterattack against Geneva (a heresy - it actually only gave 80% of what it wants, instead of 99%).

Hell, the Israeli press even went around saying the Israeli right was looking for an "answer to geneva" some months back. Hardly hidden - that was on the front page of Ma'ariv, Nov 25.

[Gimel]

12. Not only Geneva

There is also the plan by the Arab nations that it is pushing again. Discussing various plans isn't going to lead anywhere either.

The problem with a detailed plan (such as those generated by Oslo) if one side fails to perform, the other side has to either over-look that and implement obligations, or else look bad in the eyes of the judgmental world. That's where Oslo got derailed.

On edit:

Then there is a plan by the Israeli right-wing idealistic settlers, I think that there were a couple more being tossed about.
any plan is as good as the next if no one's going to follow it.

[tinnypriv]

13. The Nov 25 article

Was about the ultra-right settlers plan.

[dArKeR]

8. Bush under fire - IOL

By Wafa Amr

Ramallah - Palestinian leaders denounced President George Bush's pledge to Israel on Wednesday that it could keep parts of the West Bank as a rejection of Palestinian rights endangering the region's future.

"Bush is the first United States president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. We reject this, we will not accept it," Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Korei told reporters at his West Bank home.

"Nobody in the world has the right to give up Palestinian rights," the moderate premier said in reaction to what appeared to be a historic policy shift - Bush's implicit recognition of Israel's right to retain settlements in the occupied West Bank.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1081987380807B253&set_id=1

[Alex88]

9. What's really possible?

The words below are not mine
_____________________________


One of the primary reasons that I believe a two-state option is no
longer possible is because of the 380,000 settlers in the OPTs
(180,000 in greater Al Quds & 200,000 elsewhere - not counting the
Golan). The two staters frequently cite the precedent of the forced
removal of the four civilian settlements in the Sinai as a means of
showing that it is possible, although they neglect to mention that
these settlers never numbered more than 6,000, that Sinai bore no
major religious significance to Israel, and that even with this it
still caused Israel a major national trauma. Granting that many of
the economic settlers might be convinced to move voluntarily, they
will be replaced by Rightists from Israel proper (and the US).
Anyway, I just thought I'd share the following about the forced
withdrawal from the Sinai. Keep in mind that all these groups are
VASTLY more powerful today than they were in 1982 and that we're
talking about more than sixty times the number of settlers...


"That Israelis were fighting among themselves was disturbing, and in
recent weeks Israeli newspapers and television had also shown the
nation serious clashes between the army and members of the Stop the
Withdrawal from Sinai Movement. The movement had developed early in
1982, drawing active support from Tehiya, a small political party
that criticizes the government from the tight side of the political
spectrum; from Gush Emunim, a political movement whose ideology
blends extreme nationalism and religiosity and which was in the
forefront of efforts to establish Jewish settlements in the West
Bank; and, in one prominent case, from a leader of the National
Religious Party, which belonged to the parliamentary coalition of
Prime Minister Begin. Antiwithdrawal forces were active on many
fronts, attempting to raise money and support among Jews overseas and
to obtain endorsements from political and even military figures in
Israel. They also announced plans to put up several new settlements
in northern Sinai before the withdrawal and, most important, the
movement sent squatters to take over the apartments of Jewish
residents who were leaving the communities they had built in Sinai.

"The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) had many confrontations with Stop
the Withdrawal activists. As early as February, for example, the IDF
had used considerable force to subdue militants who tried to block
the dismantling of water pipes serving northern Sinai. As the date of
the pullback approached, most clashes centered on efforts to limit
the infiltration of squatters and to remove those who were already
present, especially in Yamit, the town where Stop the Withdrawal
diehards had made their headquarters and into which three to four
thousand of their number had barricaded themselves by mid-April.
Yamit squatters included many women and children and, following the
eviction of antiwithdrawal activists from other Sinai settlements,
the squatters vowed to resist, by all means at their disposal, the
government's efforts to remove them. Among their number were also
members of the supernationalist Kach faction, who threatened to
commit suicide rather than permit the army to remove them. Both
physical and rhetorical violence accompanied this prolonged
confrontation, although many demonstrators at the last minute agreed
to leave Yamit peacefully and the army showed great restraint in the
face of intense provocation as it physically carried out the
remaining militants on April 22 and April 23. The IDF ended the
unhappy saga of Yamit by razing the town with giant bulldozers.

"The sight of Jews fighting Jews, and of years of building being
pushed into the sand, brought an emotional response even from many
who staunchly advocated returning the Sinai to Egypt. What Israelis
called "the trauma of Yamit" demonstrated that the Jewish state was
not only still at war with the Arabs, but it also was not fully at
peace with itself. ..."

Excerpt from "Post-Sinai Pressures in Israel and Egypt" by Mark
Tessler, in "Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinians, From Camp David to
Intifada" Ann Mosely Lesch & Mark Tessler, Indiana University Press,
1989, pp. 26-27.


Online see also:
Removing Israeli settlements
http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl220903ed36.html
Abraham Bar-Ilan
http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/app
3.html
Two to Tangle: Israel's Constructivist Security Strategy
http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/charleslu.html
Israel Will Withdraw Only Under Pressure
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0791/9107020.htm

[Classical_Liberal]

15. The forced removal business if a faux issue

All they have to do is set up a border, and leave up to the settlers to decide whether they want to live in a Palestinians state, but since I think the two state solution is dead, baring an alternative presented by Mr.Kerry. What is the point? I surely am not going to count on Kerry to show guts on this issue, since the whole dem leadership has actually moved to the right of Carter and Clinton, and Kerry is taking foreign policy advice from PNAC Will Marshall.