Do these settlements with tens of thousand of Israelis include those illegally built after 1967?
If so, will Israel let them go?
If not, what action will America take?
(And just to preempt anyone unhappy with the choice of the BBC as a cite, run a search on http://news.google.com and you will find Bush’s exact same quotes on hundreds of different news sources).
First, notice that shrub said “contiguous territory” (well, attempted to, I’m sure). In the original 67 lines, the palestinian state was not a contiguous territory. (kind of like school districts in the south)
Also, much has been made of Sharons statements regarding pulling back some settlements. Here’s the problem Anytime the media mentions pulling back settlements, they always qualify the information with “built in the last two years” or something similar.
Prediction: New lines get drawn (probably a nice oval, easy to build a wall around). Most existing settlements stay put but a few hard to protect outposts come down. Palestinians end up with about 13% of the country, get pissed, start another intifada, but this time the “contiguous” palestinian state is much easier to shut down. No pesky border crossings to deal with.
Well, you can spin it any way you want. Those suspicious of the US will doubtless read all manner of ominous intent into anything that President Bush ( I think “shrub” is a little childish) says.
However, calling on Israel to act responsibly can only be a good thing, in my opinion (which is predominantly pro-Israel). And I am not aware of any physical law which would prevent the evacuation of a settlement.
Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens next.
Dude, everybody knows he is a little childish, but it didn’t stop him from getting into the white house.
Sorry.
Anyway, would it be out of line to ask for a slightly less safe prediction that “lets wait and see”? Plus, I’m not spinning it, just trying to read the spin thats already there.
Well interestingly, these comments were made somewhat “off the record” - as in, they weren’t specifically for public broadcast.
Which suggests to me that they may even be more sincere than otherwise.
I just cannot see how Sharon is going to be able to deal with Israel’s hard line right-wingers any more than Abbas with Palestine’s hard-line elements.
But: this strikes me as quite a landmark statement for Bush to make. Ultimately, if Israel wants to remain “the good guy” in the eyes of mainstream America, it has to at some point comply with Washington.
Yes, you are.
As to the OP, I doubt Bush will force the disbanding of all settlements. Since he did call for a ‘contiguous territory’, he most likely means those settlements which lie within the envisioned Palestine (I haven’t seen any proposed maps of this latest round of talks). And the Palestinians should take that offer. Wouldn’t it make more sense to get some of what you want now, and work for the rest later, than to get nothing now?
Then again, there is a great chance this will all come to shit. It’s not like there was never a deal was in the works, only to have one party or the other walk away.
Plus, once the newer settlements are gone and if no new ones are being built, its percfectly obvious that Israel’s diplomatic situation will improse, while weakening that of the Palestinians. The Israelis can say: "See here, we’'ve doe the good thing you wanted, now make them pay up as agreed. And if the Palestinians don’t then the Israelis have another stick in their arsenal they can pull out.
I think its meant to bolster Israel in the eyes of European moderates, and show some good faith. And after all, if the terrorism continues (as it undoubtedly will) they can always say: OK, you’ve been naughty, so we’re going to re-open settlements.
You mean you’ve been pontificating on the Middle East in thread after thread without even bothering to inform yourself of one of the most basic of facts of the case until this moment and now it is a surprise how much of the Occupied Terriitories have been purloined?
Now, we can make a fairly educated guess as to how many of those settlements were built during this last intifada. (hint, not many, considering the map is already more than a year old)
So, to create a contiguous territory among the islands, do you make one region of the lake “deep” and drain the water until there are no more islands, or do you get out the bulldozers and start making peninsulas? (another hint, lots of peninsulas mean an impossibly long border)
Brutus - that page you linked to is very interesting.
It suggests to me that really, those settlers have been used as pawns by hard line elements in the Israeli goverment. It will be horrible for them to have to give up their homes, but they should never have been encouraged or allowed to settle there in the first place, under those terms. I hope that they will be properly compensated by the Israeli government for the loss of their properties. Or, that they might accept to become Palestinian citizens instead (though I doubt this).
Assuming that site you linked to is reliable, it pretty much establishes that Israel brought in the settlements for the reasons of taking over the Palestinian land. This has brought suffering to the Palestinians, and now must bring suffering to the Israelis.
Well that has been the game for decades now.
Israel offers up a little, to the Palestinians it is not nearly enough and they continue the attacks. Israel strikes back and encroaches even more on Palestinian territory and rights.
One step back, two steps forward for Israel, never enough for the PA.
It’d improve my opinion of Bush et al. if they were to bust Israel’s balls over the settletments.
What will actuallly happen and how far we are willing to go to see it done remains to be seen.
I’m in favorof the Pax Americana as long as the power is weilded in a responsible, diplomatic and just way.
Indeed it is, which is why I remain pessimistic that a solution will ever be reached. (In our lifetime, at least.) I can’t realistically see the Israeli gov’t evicting all of those settlements, right or wrong. And I can’t see the Palestinians settling for anything less, right or wrong.
The cynical side of me sees this whole venture as Bush’s version of Clinton’s version of Bush’s version of Reagan’s version of making a show of ‘trying for peace’; Pro forma, do something before the election.
And Tagos, ;j right back atcha!
Well, how about the creation of Israel? The territory that became Israel was home to a mix of Jewish and non-Jewish people. When Israel was created, some of the non-Jewish residents were forced out. Others were given the option of staying, and becoming citizens of Israel. Those who decided that they didn’t want to be minorities in a theocracy became refugees (they left “voluntarily,” according to many).
