He dares to speak what too many fear to say.

By Michael Scheuer

Article

Israel to expand largest West Bank settlement

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationwor...ews-nationworld

Laura King
Los Angeles Times
Posted March 22 2005

JERUSALEM · Israel on Monday announced that it would build 3,500 more housing units in and near the West Bank's largest Jewish settlement, Maale Adumim. Palestinians reacted in dismay and said that such an action would be a contravention of a U.S.-backed peace blueprint.

Meanwhile, after several days of delay and argument, Israel late Monday handed over the West Bank town of Tulkarm to Palestinian security control. Tulkarm is the second of five Palestinian towns and cities from which Israeli troops are pulling back under an agreement reached last month at a summit in Egypt.

The Tulkarm area is a stronghold of Palestinian armed groups, a factor that could pose a serious challenge for Palestinian forces policing it. The young bomber who blew himself up Feb. 25 outside a Tel Aviv nightclub, killing five Israelis, came from a village outside the town.

It was after dark when the hand-over agreement was finalized, and Palestinian police began fanning out in the streets. The main Israeli checkpoint on the town's edge was to be dismantled this morning.

Palestinian rejoicing over the Tulkarm hand-over, however, was damped by word of the Israeli plan to expand the West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim. The construction, which would solidify Israel's grip on the town of 30,000 people, was first reported by the Yediot Aharonot newspaper Monday and later confirmed by Israeli officials.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said he intends to retain Maale Adumim and other large West Bank settlement blocs close to Jerusalem in exchange for a scheduled withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this summer.

But Palestinians view the latest expansion with distress because it will bring Maale Adumim's boundaries even closer to Arab east Jerusalem, which they claim as their capital.

The building project, they say, will not only cut east Jerusalem off from Palestinian communities in the West Bank, but will place a wide wedge of Jewish homes between the northern and southern West Bank. That would be a blow to the Palestinian's hopes for controlling contiguous territory to form a nation.

Palestinians said the construction, which could be completed before a new round of peace negotiations even begins, would prejudice the outcome of statehood talks.

"This project shuts the door to negotiations," said chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. "If this project is carried out, it determines the future of Jerusalem by settlements, not talks."

Before the two sides finalized the hand-over of Tulkarm, associates of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas worried that further delays would hurt the new leader's standing among his people.

Three other West Bank towns or cities, Kalkilya, Ramallah and Bethlehem, are to be handed over in coming weeks.

Bush now has to choose whether to be fair in this peace truce or slide in favor of Sharon as hinted to in this article. What's your money on?



http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=39193


US President George W. Bush, whose administration has jumped back into efforts to end the 54-month-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, called on Israel this month to freeze settlement activity.

But Bush -- who will host Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at his Texas ranch next month -- has also said the final borders of any lasting settlement must take into account the demographic realities on the ground.

Israel has interpreted his comments as carte blanche to hold onto the main West Bank settlements where most of the 240,000 settlers live.

03/22/2005 20:34 GMT

I would like to know how and when it became accepted truth that Israel's and the US's interests were one and the same. It can not be yet that is how our foreign policy is run. Is AIPAC really that powerful? Is the tail wagging the dog?

As Ralph Nader says, Bush is the puppet, Sharon the puppeteer.

And in the spirit of Scheuer's advice (above) it's time for frank talk.

Almost daily, reports come in to attest to the duplicity of Israel disengagement policy.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...ank_settlement/

Land for peace is a joke. Israel's plan is to wage the multi-generational WW IV (see Norman Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine) using US troops, to destroy the Arab cultures that surround them. They will grab more and more and more land in their quest to populate Greater Israel. In doing so they will break their own law, international law and Bush's limp dck Road Map.

According to the odiferous neocon coward Richard Perle, Colin Powell was a wuss for caring too much about the safety of US troops.

Read A Clean Break

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

in which Perle and Feith state directly to PM (1996) Netanyahu that he should give up any concept of land for peace. That Saddam Hussein should be taken out. Where do you think Perle and Feith's loyalties lie? Feith's father was a militant Zionist going back to his youth.

Wake up America! Militant Zionists consider America's working and lower class as an ongoing baby farm to raise up little soldiers and Marines to die for Israel.

Why do we support Israel? We've been told for sixty years it's because Israel is a stable democracy, founded on law. Nonsense! Laws and agreements are made to be broken in Sharon's Knesset. Even their armed forces can't be counted on. Right wing rabbis tell the IDF to disobey disengagement orders. Will an Israeli soldier obey his lawful orders? Depends who the kids rabbi is, I guess. Some rabbis and gooney bird settlers openly state that it's ok to kill civilians. Despite it's modern trappings, I look at Israel as a primitive, warlike land existing in a 2000 year old vacuum. America, for all her sins, had progressed beyond the waging of the Theocratic war. Our kneejerk support of Israel will erase that progress.

It is time for frank talk. I agree with those Europeans who consider Israel and the US to be the greatest threats to world peace.

Israel Spits in America's Eye

Sharon disgraces the integrity of the USA. And where is President Alfred E. Newman or Secretary Rice? Nowhere to be seen or heard on this issue. Israel is in charge.

Where does the average American come in? Just send the younguns down to the recruiter when the time comes.

Oh, pullleeez.


The US has been a supported of Israel since Statehood in 1948. During the cold war, she was an important ally and potential frontline airbase against the Soviet Union. We supported Turkey for the same reason.

Now the Soviet Union is gone.

So is our oil.

We have OTHER REASONS for having friends in and around the middle east.

Not one American GI has been sent to die for Israel. Many have been sent to die for OIL.

Cat - get your facts straight.

Oh, I got 'em about as straight as anybody around here.

Read Eric Margolis. He puts it as well as anybody.

Eric Margolis

By the way, I am not unmindful of Mr. Margolis's last paragraph.


I do not wish to be part of anything that furthers anti-semitism. I've said it time and again on these threads, I believe the majority of Jews (US and Israeli) want peace, not the duplicitous anti-disengagement dealiings of Sharon and fanatical settlers.

But I have no problem bringing up the obvious dual loyalties (Margolis says it better than me) of Feith and fellow travelers. His Militant, Zionist goal at the OSP lie factory was to get the US to eliminate Saddam Hussein, as he and Perle had originally formulated in a Clean Break (for the good, of course, of Israel) If anyone doesn't like my saying these things, tough.

If the warmongers maintain control, then the MidEast war is eternal and the US will feed arms, money and soldiers to the war machine forever. For the militants, the true nature of this conflict is theological, based on the belief that Israel has a right to its "Covenant" land. With due respect, I don't believe it. And it's simply not our fight.

As a tactician, Sharon is obviously a master. I am not a fan of his ( I am on the record by leaps and bounds on that), dating back to his time as a general and defense minister, when he was sanctioned by the US and his own government. He is also in his late seventies, has a loosely formed coalition with Labour, and does not have time on his side, with a majority of Israeli's ready to trade land for peace because this time peace might have a chance.
Israeli's seem to understand as a nation that they cannot keep such as lands as most or all of the west bank, gaza, golan, and make a "final" deal with surrounding arab nations. The Pugh polls (I believe) in the mid-east from last year, especially factoring in Arafat's death, indicated that more willingness existed in the western part of the mid-east to close the deal, on both sides.
The Gaza deal is done. Hamas has accepted a de facto ceasefire till year's end as long as progress continues. Syria is beginning to pull out of Lebanon. Egypt and Jordan have signed on to the peace process.
The palestinians look like they are ready to try to rebuild the infrastructure of their nation, region, or whatever you want to call them, instead of continuing to fight Israel as long as a deal can be struck.
I don't want to argue Iraq, no wmd's were found, et cetera; but Hussein is no longer present to pay families of palestinian suicide bombers a bounty for attacks, to tacitly or actively support terrorism in the region. Saddam supported terrorism that would not threaten his regime.
Dr. Rice's recent theorizing does not help the process as far as supporting current Arab governments that are positively involved in the peace process, but it sounds more like typical Bush administration good cop-bad cop rhetoric.
As I have said on this site before, If I were a west bank settler, I would not feel secure that future Israeli governments will be willing to fight a long-term simmering war with the arab world to keep the west bank settlements intact, challenging the will of virtually the rest of the world, at the same time. The Pugh polls bore this out.
The closest U.S. troops would most probably get to the Israeli-arab conflict would be U.N. peace-keeping forces in Lebanon, if Lebanon isn't stable after the syrians complete their pull out. It's not like that would be new.
Yes, there are warhawks that will nearly always want to pursue military options. Whether you agree with the Iraqi war or not, our going there makes the U.S. military option possible in the minds of those who would not be our friends. Unfortunately, sometimes rhetoric and high moral platitudes will not move peoples to progress.
And people like Ghandi and MLK showed that non-violent activism can move nations. But right now, progress has been made. And we are dealing with the Powell bromide of fixing the clay pot that we broke.

Agreed - Most Isrealis (and US supporters) are looking for a just peace.

You mentioned MLK - Rabbi Ascherman (Rabbi With a Cause thread) shows extraordinary physical and moral courage, in a manner reminiscent of Dr. King.

A snipet from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette..
Stanley Fischer, a Zambia-born U>S> Citizen and former vice chairman of Citigroup INC. was sworn in as Isael'scentral bank governor just hours after he was granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.

This is indicative of the threat from the multi-nationals.

Are you kidding? The decison to support the land thieves in 1948 was our undoing.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/hendrson.htm
From the Truman Library, the words of Loy Henderson, Director, Near Eastern and African Affairs,



One can only hope the AIPAC spy probe will loosen the grip of Israel has on us.

Well put, RD. I honestly believe that if our Republic comes to an inglorious end, as a result of the global scorched-earth war policy of neocons and Zionists, historians will record that the beginning of the end was 1948 - when we threw our lot in with Israel.

If we have an "undoing" it will rest on our own shoulders. The process for the recreation of Israel began with the British empire... remember Belfour (at least in history)? Anyway, the evacuation of Gaza is a first major step, not that that is going well. But a return of the west bank will go a long way to restore the vision of a two state Palestine envisioned by the U.N.
The original U.N. plan, I believe, called for Jeruselem to be an international city.
Now, the momentum seems more toward a division into an Israeli Jeruselem and a Palestinian East Jeruselem, if the stagnation on this question can be euphemistically be called momentum.
I am not being an apologist for Israel, not that they need me for that, but the historic tit-for-tat battles in the region of Palestine, thankfully not as active today, show both sides culpable.
The tightrope that nations not directly involved is: Whether or not a nearly even-handed approach can be developed, truly recognizing Israel's right to exist and establishing nationhood for a peaceful Palestine.
The last few months have demonstrated the possibility that Palestine can co-exist beside Israel, in my opinion.
Born in the 1950's, my 1960's mentality that peace is possible may be naive', but it is better than unending conflict.

The main reason that my support for Hillary Clinton for President has cooled somewhat, is that it seems
to me, that since moving to New York she has become progressively more pro-
Israel and more hawkish whereas previously she had been very balanced in her
response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Is peace between Israel and the Palestinians starting to look like a mirage again?

A third intifada may come if Abbas fails

By Raafat Dajani
Commentary by
Friday, May 13, 2005


As the 100-day mark of Mahmoud Abbas' presidency passed, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon intensified his verbal assault on the Palestinian president, accusing him of acting to "strengthen terrorist organizations" instead of disbanding them.

Meanwhile, Abbas fulfilled another key requirement of both the "road map" and the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings, notably the consolidation of his security services. This followed the approval by Palestinian lawmakers of a mandatory retirement age of 60 for security officials, effectively retiring 1,150 members of the security services.

Sharon's harsh assessment was contradicted by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who during a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories commended Abbas for being a bold leader who had shown "tremendous leadership." Frist was correct in his appreciation of Abbas' reform efforts to date, which, while important, have paled in comparison to Abbas' other major achievements. The first was ending the intifada, something Israel was unable to do despite deploying overwhelming military force. The second was shaping the unequivocal platform on which his government was elected, which renounced violence and embraced the political process as the only way Palestinians would achieve statehood and end the 38-year-old Israeli occupation. Finally, Abbas helped make the Palestinian presidential election the first completely free and fair elections held in the Arab world in modern history.

Progress on internal reform and combating corruption has proceeded too, albeit at a slower pace, as Abbas has run up against an entrenched system of officials with loyal followers who seek to maintain their powerful positions and influence by any means necessary, including violence.

Reciprocal steps by Israel have not proceeded apace. After an initial withdrawal from two of five cities that were supposed to be evacuated, a partial release of Palestinian prisoners and almost no removal of checkpoints hindering Palestinian freedom of movement, Israel has stalled. As the party with the most control over improving the daily lives of ordinary Palestinians, Israel can do much more without compromising its security in any way. These steps include freezing settlement activity, releasing Palestinian prisoners held without charge or trial and removing the numerous West Bank checkpoints that serve only to cripple Palestinian social, educational and economic life.

The only party with the ability to deliver these Israeli measures is the United States. Focusing strictly on Israel's Gaza withdrawal is a leisure none of the parties can afford. This is not to minimize the importance of the withdrawal in both its short- and long-term implications, but rather to stress the urgent need for Israel to both improve Palestinian daily life as well as cease creating new realities on the ground in the West Bank, mainly through settlement expansion.


Addressing these two issues is critical for a number of reasons. It would demonstrate to the Palestinians that their president is a man who can deliver for them. It would legitimate his election platform of political negotiations and Palestinian majority support for this platform. It would minimize the resonance of militant claims that Israel is withdrawing from Gaza because of the success of its armed resistance. Most importantly, it would give Palestinians hope that the process of ending the Israeli occupation of their lands is beginning.

The consequences of the failure of Abbas' presidency are manifold. The most obvious is the real possibility of a return to violence and a third intifada. Even more ominously are two others: the first is the implication for both Palestinian and Middle Eastern moderates that their method of negotiating, engaging in a political process and shunning violence is fruitless. The second is that it may damage prospects for a two-state solution. There is no doubt that Palestinians will reject a state that is not viable, broken up and a fruit of unilateral Israeli actions rather than negotiations. There is also no doubt that a realization that such a Palestinian state is unachievable due to Israeli actions will result in a strategic shift away from a two-state solution to calls for voting rights within the state ruling over them, Israel. In other words, the one-state option.

Given these consequences, supporting Abbas is not only in the interest of Palestinians who desire freedom and statehood, it is also very much in Israeli and American interests. For Israel to retain both its Jewish and democratic character and achieve security and full integration into the Middle East, a viable and contiguous Palestinian state based on ending the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that meets the national aspirations of the Palestinian people is crucial.

For the U.S., a Palestinian state will remove the major irritant in relations with the Arab and Muslim world, eliminate the major recruiting tool for extremists and greatly increase the prospects for democratization in the Middle East. In 2003, then-Prime Minister Abbas failed as a result of Arafat's stubbornness, Israel's stinginess and America's neglect. The consequences of that first failure were manageable. This time they are not.


Raafat Dajani is executive director of the Washington-based American Task Force on Palestine. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Agreed, with one proviso; and follow me here. I have no doubt Sharon has his own agenda to hold on to much more (meaning virtually any)of the west bank than Israel is entitled to, at the same time; removing the settlers first from Gaza is going to be nasty.
Unilateralism was probably necessary to end the stalemate. But, soon enough, the rest of israel seems moving to understand that there is no such thing as half an occupation. It is either an occupying force or not.
Though much his own doing, Sharon is dealing with an incrementalism in removing the settlers in Gaza.
International input needs to continue to move the process toward getting the settlers out of the west bank, and not let Sharon off the hook about leaving the west bank.
Has Syria officially ceded the Sheeba Farms region to Lebanon? Or is this yet another ploy to muddy the issue of whether Israel has left Lebanon as it had committed to, and the U.N. has certified.

You make a very good point. However, I'm not hopeful that any International pressure, short of the US pulling back its aid money, would have any effect of Sharon and the warlike culture prevalent in Israel.

It was acknowledged by Sharon's right hand man Dov Weisglass months ago that the Gaza pullout amounts to giving up territory they can do without in order to put the process of West Bank disengagement in "formaldehyde". In other words, to fool the world into thinking they are making good faith efforts toward peace while continuing to gobble up more of the West Bank. (The original Haaretz article is gone from their archives. They don't keep old stuff around for long.)

Pat Buchanan comments on the matter in Antiwar.com



*I think Buchanan means to say Weisglass. I could be wrong. There are as many spelling for this guy's name as articles on the net. I do know, however, that he's a great favorite of Condi Rice, who enjoys calling him Dovi. But back to business:

Sharon's plan is to effect the same old Zionist dream of Eretz Israel. They have no intention of meeting agreed upon goals of West bank disenagement. How can I be so sure? I suppose I can't. But I base my extreme cynicism on the woeful track record of Israeli/American lies. Sharon kept building in the West Bank all the time Bush was sputtering something about a road map. Their clear plan is to give nothing of value back to the Palestinians. As an American, it makes me ashamed.

For added perspective, Google Dr. Irving Moskowitz, the American zillionaire doctor who continues to finance Israeli land acquistition in the West Bank to prevent a significant handover to the Palestinians.

Zionism - in today's incarnation - lies. Beware America!

Question? Who says Sharon will stay in power through the end of Bush"s term? He is in his late seventies, and he is operating with a shaky coalition with Labour. The rest of the world and the next generation of Israelis want peace. The turmoil in the IDF is not coincidence, it is IMO an undercurrent of a peace movement. The next two generations of Israeli's do not want to inherit their parents and grandparents war, when this conflict is avoidable. That is my opinion anyway.
Sharon is not the great partner for peace, and he no longer has ol' Yasir to blame anymore. The columnist was right in saying, which is in more detail of what I have consistantly said on this site, Abbas has done everything one could ask of a Palestinian leader in meeting Israel halfway, or more.
IMO the rest of the world is tired of being held hostage by the Israelis and Arabs over this.

I believe and have said many times in this forum -- the two big problems in the Israel- Palestinian conflict were Arafat and Sharon.

Each one of them had an agenda which eventually worked to the detriment of their people.

Arafat is gone now. It's time for Sharon to negotiate sincerely with Abbas.

Or - Someone else in the Government should.

Both Palestinians and Israelis are being held hostage. This movement for peace could easily blow up.

A.B.

What will Abbas be able to accomplish in his meeting with President Bush.

In my opinion it will all depend on what Bush REALLY wants to happen.

All three players, Abbas, Sharon, Bush have very different agendas.

It is the popular belief they all want peace in the region.
Perhaps, to some degree that is true. But do each of them want it enough to give up some of their demands, or is this venture doomed to fail as all the others have?

I believe it is very possible the whole thing can disintigrate.

The key is: what does George Bush really want?

Events are starting to move rapidly. Bush will have to expose his cards fairly soon.

Following is one commentary ( slightly but not totally slanted toward the Palestinian point of view. )

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Abbas has accepted the finality of 1948


By Ziad Asali

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has undergone a metamorphosis since 1948, when it was accurately defined as being between Arabs and Jews. However, it has now become a struggle between those who accept the finality of the war in 1948 and its consequences, and those who have not.

1948 made Israel an irreversible reality in the Middle East, thereby undermining Palestinian aspirations to reclaim what was lost during that tumultuous year. However, 1948 also defined the limitations of Israeli ambitions, and defined the boundaries of the Israeli state if Israel were ever to win peace and acceptance from the Palestinian people and its Arab neighbors.

Since his election in January, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has made it abundantly clear where he stands. Despite being a president without a state, he has campaigned and won a mandate for compromise and peaceful negotiations. He has spent the first 100 days of his term taking control of a chaotic security apparatus and corrupt bureaucracy. He has started coordinating on the security situation with the Bush administration's envoy, General William Ward, and on the disengagement plan for Gaza and a small portion of the northern West Bank with the Israelis. He has made key appointments to assure financial transparency and referred high officials to the attorney general for corruption investigations. Above all, he has been able to secure an extended period of nonviolence against the Israelis by negotiating a "quiet" period with militant extremists whom he cannot control by force.

Abbas comes to Washington later this week having rapidly compiled an impressive record of reform and security achievements, which should establish his credibility and earn him political support. He has risked everything to pursue a negotiated end to the conflict.

The public posture of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon conveys neither much support for Abbas, nor does it give him much credit for his achievements. Sharon, despite real political problems, has to demonstrate how far he is willing to go to pursue peace beyond unilateral disengagement. From Israel's perspective there are two items on the agenda for 2005: the disengagement plan and Palestinian reform. Discussion of final-status issues, like borders, settlements, Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees, has been placed in the deep freeze.

For the Palestinians to believe that peace is possible, they need an immediate and palpable improvement in the quality of their lives through an easing of the harsh realities of occupation and economic improvement. The Bush administration is engaged in bringing about such relief, but time is of the essence.

While Abbas feels that he has done all he could on security and reforms, he knows that Washington expects more of him. He will have a chance to explain his policies and constraints to U.S President Georges W. Bush, hoping to convince him to act before the proverbial window of opportunity shuts.

Obviously, any viable Palestinian state has to be contiguous and free, must have Arab Jerusalem as its capital and must be based on an end to the 1967 occupation. However, final-status issues are being determined by unilateral Israeli steps such as expansion of the settlements, the building of a separation wall, and, especially, the gradual isolation of Jerusalem from the West Bank. All these steps threaten to render a Palestinian state nonviable and they require a negotiated resolution of final-status issues before it is too late.

Creative thinking is in order. With the 1967 border serving as the geographic boundary between Israel and Palestine, some settlements can either be swapped for land inside Israel, or leased to the Israelis for 25 years, opening the possibility of Israelis living under Palestinian law.

Arab Jerusalem has to serve as a capital of Palestine in order to forestall violence from those across the Muslim world who will invariably rally to the idea of freeing Jerusalem from "Jewish occupation" for decades to come. The city's holy places can be governed by the status quo without defining sovereignty.

Refugee camps cannot continue being reservoirs of human misery, where dreams of return to nonexistent homes and villages clash with practical and political realities. The elected leaderships must accept the responsibility of negotiating the fate of the refugees while defending their legitimate national, communal and individual rights, including the right to an apology for dispossession and exile. In the meantime, practical solutions must be found to ease the disproportionate burden borne by a third generation of poor and vulnerable refugees.

Finally, an international aid package must be prepared to secure peace. No president has ever been in a better position to move forward in the Middle East. Assured of Abbas' commitment to peace, Bush can reinvigorate the "road map" by being clear and proposing tangible policies. A reassured Israel is capable of doing more on issues like checkpoints, the release of prisoners, settlements and restrictions on permits of all sorts before ending the occupation.

Empowered by Bush's political support and cooperation from Sharon, Abbas will be able to act decisively on security and reform. He will oversee a peaceful disengagement coordinated with Israel and monitored by the "Quartet." He will have his unified security apparatus face down lawbreakers and will continue building the institutions of a modern democratic state.

Rising to the call of history, Bush can help the Palestinians create a peaceful state alongside Israel and gain a new ally in the circle of freedom and democracy.


Ziad Asali is president of the American Task Force on Palestine. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.



Copyright © 2005 The Daily Star

A good article, Mr. A.B.

However, the "green line" boundaries do not provide adequate security for Israel and therefore will not be honored by Israel. I do agree that "Creative thinking is in order." Swap some land out of the Negev for that taken where the security barrier cuts through the West Bank. No argument from me.

Build the "Barak Expressway" connecting Gaza to the West Bank. A good idea. Barak proposed it in 2000. Arafat nixed it.

A question - - What will sustain the new Palestinian State? Will they farm? Will they do research? will they build cars?

In the past, the Palestinians have done the grunt work of the Israelis, mostly in construction. It was once a workable situation. But after Arafat's Intefada, that will never happen again. In fact, Israel has already imported "guest workers" to take up the slack. That door is forever closed to the Palestinians.

So, looking ahead... they will need SOMETHING to do for a living.

What will it be?

Any ideas?

They are a well educated people.

Any ideas?

A very good question, Jeffmoskin.

That expression " Good question " usually means the questioned one does not have an answer. Not a good one, anyway.

Since I really do not know, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Palestine Chronicle asking for information on this subject.

IF I get a response, I will post it, others may be a bit curious also.

In the meantime, I imagine the Palestinians will continue to have a hard time economically.

There should be some tourism, in fact if there is a feeling of security, there should be a lot of tourism, mainly those that wish to visit the Holy Places. I visited the area in 1984 and it remains to this day one of the very top trips of my life.

Although you disagree, I believe there will be a fair amount of work, mostly as you say, grunt work, in Israel for Palestinian laborers both men and women.
It is beneficial economically to both sides and money is a high trump card.

Fishing should be a decent industry, mainly off the Gaza coast.

Perhaps - a big maybe - there will be some low skilled outsourcing sent to Palestine.

For some time, I think the new State will ask for and get a fair amount of foreign aid from the U.S. , the E.U., and some of the Arab States.

So, hopefully, the State will survive until they have some industry of their own established.

All of the above is predicated on the assumption there WILL BE a State of Palestine.

I am a long way from being convinced the players in this drama really want this to happen.

A.B.

Haaretz is some very interesting reading these days, they are running a commentary that speak of being fed up with holding on to sites that eventually might returned to Palestinian control in a final settlement. It discusses returning East Jeruselem to the PA, instead of bringing in 200,000 Arabs into the national permanent borders of Israel. The headline is "Is Ariel worth dying for?" I assume they mean a settlement by that name?
Just google Haartez.

I think this is one of the biggest problems. There are "refugee camps", paid for by the U.N. (hence the U.S) where third generation Palestinians live in desperate poverty. How long can someone be a "refugee" and kept in a camp? Fifty years? I don't think so. Yet, the surrounding Arab states (Jordan and Syria) have taken all they can into their populations. What about out GOOD FRIENDS, the SAUDIS? Or the Kuwaitis? They could absorb their "Arab Brothers".

If they really gave a damn.

What I do know for certain is that the BEST way to foment terrorism is to keep people trapped in endless dispair.

Works every time.

IMO The Palestinian refugee question should be an Arab question, with the west following the lead of Arab nations as much as possible. But more progress needs to be made on establishing permanent borders in the region. I know that Oslo and wye river were never implemented, but elements of them have been been used in a de facto manner if I understand the process used (I could be wrong on that).
I am not saying that any finalised settlement should mirror the work done there, but could certainly be used as a working starting point from each government in establishing agreement parameters. And they left Jeruselem and right of return as open-ended items which would be handled as continuing works in progress until a final deal is struck.
The Israeli paper on-line edition of Haaretz is an excellent source of information, IMO.
Here is an op-ed piece from today, May 26...

-Last update - 11:32 26/05/2005
Time for implementation
By Haaretz Editorial


The prime minister landed in Israel yesterday after a successful visit to American Jewry. He is returning at a time when it is becoming more and more evident that there have been intolerable delays in the planning of the disengagement. It is precisely because the withdrawal from Gaza is being welcomed by the Jewish world, including organizations that took hard-line rightist positions in the past, that the flawed planning of the operation is highlighted as it meanders from the sand dunes of Nitzanim to Ashkelon, prefab housing to rented apartments, evacuation by agreement to forcible ejection.

It seems that the walking on eggs, the efforts to avoid angering the evacuees, the endless waiting for their agreement to evacuation and the shameless courting of evacuees to sign evacuation compensation contracts and accept one of the housing options proposed by the government have all combined to produce unnecessary complications and delays in execution.

Ariel Sharon's TV appearance at Nitzanim, leaning over maps and haranguing officials and ministers for not doing enough, shows that so far, the results are not good - and that's an understatement.

The state must offer reasonable solutions and make sure they are implemented, regardless of the the willingness or lack of willingness of Gush Katif residents to evacuate. Three months before the designated evacuation date, it's time to stop dealing with the petty details of the evacuation, the demonstrations, the psychology of the divide and the Shin Bet's conspiratorial prevention efforts, and to get down to practical matters.

From the start, the government should have chosen an individual evacuation procedure, not a collective one, telling every evacuee that they can choose where they want to live, anywhere in Israel, and that the state will provide them assistance.

The intolerable demand by the evacuees to keep their regional council led to the search for an area suitable for all of them in one place. It was impossible to conduct such a grandiose operation at such short notice, especially since the evacuees tried to advance it and torpedo it at the same time.

The justifiable ultimatum presented by the justice minister to the evacuees, demanding that they decide which way they are going, was met with a series of completely unnecessary altercations on radio and TV. The whining conduct of the evacuees, the government's sycophantic manner, is leading to failure. While Sharon urges everyone to do more, the staff at the evacuation administration complains that they aren't getting backing.

The disengagement plan has a majority in the Knesset, the government, the Israeli public, the international community and now, it turns out, in the Jewish community in the U.S.

It is the applause that accompanied Sharon at his appearances before the AIPAC conference in Washington and Jewish organizations in New York, and the not self-evident support for the plan by the heads of the presidents' conference and the leading rabbinical seminaries of all three Jewish movements, that challenge the government to meet its commitments.

Gush Katif's residents must understand that the die has been cast. The government must make sure that those who continue to oppose the disengagement up to the last minute get appropriate housing and lawful compensation. Endlessly stretching out the negotiations is unreasonable.

The prime minister does not need to direct the bulldozers in the dunes, but he should be imbuing his ministers and the officials in charge of the operation with the energy to fulfill the government's commitment to the evacuation.-

Jeffmoskin, the problem with your suggestion that the Saudis and the Kuwaitis " take in " the Palestinians seems, on the surface, to be a viable solution, but it really is not.

The world has a tendency to lump Arabs into one huge nation - The Arab Nation.
There is no such thing. Palestinians are not Saudis, not Kuwaitis, not Lebanese, etc.
They are Palestinians.

What they all share the most is their common Muslim religion.

What the Palestinians in refugee camps should have, IMO, is a place to live in their own country if and when this comes about.

I believe the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the E.U., the U.S., et al, should give money and lots of it to a responsible third party to dispense to the refugee Palestinians for housing in the new state of Palestine. There has to be enough land given to the new state to make this a workable situation.

There has to be strict accounting for these funds or graft and corruption will siphon off huge amounts.

Palestinians should live in Palestine.

They are really NOT welcome in other countries, Arab or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 26 2005, 09:38 AM Post #26

Advanced Member Poetpi - Quote

IMO The Palestinian refugee question should be an Arab question, with the west following the lead of Arab nations as much as possible. But more progress needs to be made on establishing permanent borders in the region.

That is exactly right.

I know that Oslo and wye river were never implemented, but elements of them have been been used in a de facto manner if I understand the process used (I could be wrong on that).
I am not saying that any finalised settlement should mirror the work done there, but could certainly be used as a working starting point from each government in establishing agreement parameters. And they left Jeruselem and right of return as open-ended items which would be handled as continuing works in progress until a final deal is struck.
The Israeli paper on-line edition of Haaretz is an excellent source of information, IMO.
Here is an op-ed piece from today, May 26...

-Last update - 11:32 26/05/2005
Time for implementation
By Haaretz Editorial


The prime minister landed in Israel yesterday after a successful visit to American Jewry. He is returning at a time when it is becoming more and more evident that there have been intolerable delays in the planning of the disengagement. It is precisely because the withdrawal from Gaza is being welcomed by the Jewish world, including organizations that took hard-line rightist positions in the past, that the flawed planning of the operation is highlighted as it meanders from the sand dunes of Nitzanim to Ashkelon, prefab housing to rented apartments, evacuation by agreement to forcible ejection.

The prime minister does not need to direct the bulldozers in the dunes, but he should be imbuing his ministers and the officials in charge of the operation with the energy to fulfill the government's commitment to the evacuation.-


A.B.

Yes, and the new borders have to provide real security and impenetrability. The old "green line" did not.

I still think that the days where the Palestinians did construction work for the Israelis is over, because of Arafat's Intefada. I hope to be proven wrong.

In the end, once terrorism is controlled, I hope that the impenetrable border becomes unnecessary.

But the trust that Arafat killed could take a generation or two to be rebuilt.

Some differing points of view.

I emphatically believe that George Bush should talk less and do more

A.B.

A PALESTINIAN VIEW
Only the US can push the parties forward

by Ghassan Khatib
=================================

The first US visit by Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian president has raised hopes among Palestinians and others of a possible renewal of American efforts to push Palestinian-Israeli peace and of a greater level of American political involvement in the conflict.

The results of the visit, furthermore, exceeded Palestinian expectations, not only because of stated American positions and the warm reception, but because of the positive image afforded Palestinians and their president in the American media and among the American political elite during and after the visit.

Palestinians and analysts in general heard a new language from American President George W. Bush. It was the first mention by this administration of the green line, and it was the first time it framed its position consistent with international legality saying that any changes to the borders of 1967 must be agreed upon by the two parties.

In addition, Bush for the first time suggested that the wall should run along the 1967 borders, and specifically mentioned the need to remove checkpoints, one of the most harmful aspects of the Israeli collective punishment measures.

Washingtonâ?Ts stance is the most decisive external factor in this conflict bar none. In Bushâ?Ts first term, this stance could be characterized as falling between hostile and negligent of Palestinian needs and interests. This is why this recent American position marks a dramatic and positive change.

That, of course, will be worthless if it is not complimented by a change in American practices. In particular the American government must do what it takes in order to pressure Israel to end settlement expansion, a fundamental precondition for any possible future peaceful settlement.

An even more immediate requirement, however, is to convince Israel to stop any activities and positions that have the effect of weakening the Palestinian Authority led by Abu Mazen. Three developments are required in this regard: first an end to Israeli economic punishments, especially restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, to enable an improvement of the economy; second, a resumption of peace negotiations on the basis of international legality to bring back hope for the Palestinian people of a possible peaceful end to occupation; and, finally, the above-mentioned cessation of settlement expansion.

The other immediate need for serious American intervention is related to Sharonâ?Ts unilateral Gaza withdrawal plan. The US must ensure that this step is done in a way that contributes to a resumption of the peace process, improves the economic situation and is followed by other withdrawals in accordance with the roadmap. If it is left to the Israeli government this withdrawal will simply become what it was designed as: a punishment to inflict further economic and social hardships.

Only the US can ensure that all these needs and requirements, short- and long-term, are carried out. Only American encouragement and support enabled Israel to maintain practices that were responsible for this deterioration, and, by the same token, only a clear American position to encourage Israel in a positive direction, based on adherence to the roadmap, can improve chances of peace. The roadmap is the only accepted plan by the parties as well as the international community that includes the elements that will allow both parties to achieve their respective needs and requirements--whether immediate ones like ending violence and stopping settlement expansions, or long-term ones, such as ending the occupation and laying the ground for lasting peace, security and stability.- Published 30/5/2005 © bitterlemons.org

Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is the Palestinian Authority minister of planning and has been a political analyst and media contact for many years.

AN ISRAELI VIEW
Disengagement is the wrong move

an interview with Moshe Arens
=================================

bitterlemons: Looking at President Bush's commitments to PM Sharon and President Abbas (Abu Mazen), would you judge that American support for Sharon's disengagement plan is adequate?

Arens: That depends how you gauge "adequate". Is [the support] adequate for the domestic Israeli political scene? I'd say yes. The Israeli public feels President Bush is giving wholehearted support to Sharon's disengagement plan. Many people even feel erroneously that Sharon is carrying out disengagement due to pressure from Bush. That is the gauge of "adequate" that counts for both supporters and opponents of disengagement.

bitterlemons: Assuming Abbas is judged successful in his reforms by the administration, how do you anticipate Bush will act following disengagement?

Arens: "Successful" for Bush means first and foremost an end to acts of terrorism. I don't think he'll support Abbas if terror continues or there's an upsurge. But if there is no terror, Abbas will get the credit, and Bush will begin urging both parties to sit down.

bitterlemons: And beyond urging? Do you see pressure?

Arens: What can he do beyond urging? Bush doesn't have a stranglehold on Israel. There is nothing the US can do that Israel feels is contrary to its best interest. The atmosphere might get sour, and most Israeli governments, including the present one, do not want to give the Israeli public the impression that they are responsible for souring [the relationship]. That is the indirect leverage the US has over Israel, obliging the government to do something it doesn't support.

bitterlemons: Some observers point to the AIPAC/Franklin affair and Pentagon complaints about Israel's abuse of American weapons technology as signs of growing tensions, possibly related to US expectations regarding the post-disengagement era.

Arens: As far as I can tell as an observer there is no growing tension. The AIPAC affair is separate, not connected, and not the result of tensions in the relationship. I can understand that the US authorities don't look kindly on monkey business in AIPAC, if there was any. In my experience I don't recall any case of an Israeli government doing something it did not want to due to US pressure. You can look at the Reagan plan which Begin rejected, the loan guarantees that Bush refused to give Shamir and Shamir did not back down.

bitterlemons: The Israeli public went on to punish Shamir at the polls in 1992.

Arens: I agree that the public punished Shamir for being persona non-grata in Washington, but Shamir did not give in. By the same token, some people think Bush senior lost his election in 1992 due to this same tension [with Israel].

bitterlemons: From the standpoint of Israeli-American relations, how in your view should Sharon be acting?

Arens: It's simplistic, but essentially correct, to say that he, like any other Israeli prime minister, should be working in the best interests of the state of Israel. US-Israel relations are good for the state of Israel, but if we get some degree of fouling in the relationship then he should back off. But I don't see that happening.

bitterlemons: But you feel disengagement is a mistake.

Arens: I think disengagement is the wrong move. Disengagement was Sharon's idea, not Bush's, and he talked Bush into it. Once that was done Bush would be disappointed if disengagement didn't happen. But I did not discern on the horizon any pressures by Bush for Israeli concessions when Sharon opted for disengagement. The US government respected the way we were handling terrorism. I think we could have just continued successfully.

bitterlemons: Even in the post-Arafat era, with Abbas winning Bush's approval and backing?

Arens: We'd still be in this situation, with Bush insisting that the first thing to be done is to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. But now Bush has been convinced that this is difficult for Abu Mazen to do, that he needs more time, and is continuing to insist that [pressure on Abu Mazen] could not only bring him down but would upset the disengagement schedule.

bitterlemons: Finally, on a related topic, should the administration engage Arab Islamist movements like Hamas that participate in democratic elections, and if so under what conditions?

Arens: Bush's position is to demand and expect democratization of the Arab countries. This means elections, and if one of these parties wins, Bush might have something of a problem refusing to talk to them. But he knows they are terrorist organizations. I doubt his experts are forecasting they will cease to be terrorist organizations in the near future.- Published 30/5/2005 © bitterlemons.org

Moshe Arens is a former minister of defense, minister of foreign affairs, and Israeli ambassador to the United States.

A PALESTINIAN VIEW
Action, Mr. President, please

by Ali Jarbawi
=================================

The visit of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to the White House should be considered a huge public relations success. There were smiles, pats on the back and positive statements as regards the future, as well as a $50 million aid package long ago promised to the Palestinians but prevented until now from reaching the Palestinian Authority by the US Congress because of its absolute bias toward Israel.

Still, everything went smoothly. It seems as though the two sides have learned their lesson from when Abu Mazen was prime minister--one that he would not want to repeat. It seems the Palestinian president remembered well the failed Aqaba experience when he gave a speech that he hoped would portray him as bringing down the level of expectations and demands, but which, instead, many Palestinians considered a catastrophe.

This time, the Palestinian rhetoric was clear, specific and included all the demands that form the basis of any settlement from the official Palestinian viewpoint. Abu Mazen clearly realizes his position before his people in the face of sharp criticism from Fateh circles under the leadership of Farouq Qaddumi.

US president George W. Bush has also learned a lesson, making supportive statements for Abbas. The American administration seems to have realized that its negative attitude toward Abu Mazen during his stint as prime minister contributed to the weakening of his position and status, something they did not want to repeat. On the contrary, they wanted to present Abu Mazen as a leader with their full support, especially in view of the difficult internal situation Fateh is facing vis-a-vis Hamas.

Bushâ?Ts statements during the joint press conference with Abbas were reassuring in that they reaffirmed the constants in Bushâ?Ts position, outlined in his vision for a political settlement.

So, everyone came out pleased with the meeting, perhaps even the Israelis, who were able to prevent any losses to their own position.

However, is this euphoria well placed? Given that we need more than public relations, it most certainly isnâ?Tt. If things remain the same as now, the entire situation will inevitably explode and the region will be pushed back to a boiling point.

This is exactly what the US administration does not want. It is in their interest for the calm to continue and for the situation to be contained so they can be free to deal with Iraq and its many complications. The question then remains whether this administration has the vision and necessary tools to diffuse the explosive spark between the Palestinians and Israelis?

The American administration knows what it takes to diffuse the crisis and how to reach a political settlement to the conflict. In short, pressure needs to be applied on Israel if we are to reach a settlement that is in any way acceptable to the Palestinians and Arabs. However, this administration does not want or cannot pressure Israel because it is under pressure by the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, AIPAC, and the message being sent to the American administration by the Jewish lobby is loud and clear.

As a result, this administration is circumventing what is really necessary by creating an impression that Abbasâ?T basic problems are internal, that is, the danger he faces from Hamas. It is because of this â?ointernal dangerâ?� that the US should help Abbas, both financially and morally. It is with this in mind that we should read the positive statements and gestures Bush extended to Abu Mazen during their press conference.

As long as the United States refuses to comprehend that the crux of the problem lies with the Israeli government not wanting to reach a political settlement with the Palestinian people, preferring rather to impose a settlement on its own terms, the situation in the region will continue to explode time and again. The occupation is the reason for the struggle and tension and not vice versa. American pressure should be directed at Israel and not the Palestinians. Even if Abbas reins in Hamas, as long as Israel continues to impose facts on Palestinian ground this creates a constant potential for explosion.

Although the Palestinian people appreciate the United States and its people, it has little confidence in its policies in the region or in consecutive administrations that grow increasingly biased toward Israel. For Bushâ?Ts statements to be treated with anything but scorn, they must be followed up by action.

It would be good if the American president remembered all the obligations his own government outlined for Israel to abide by. It would be better still if the administration guaranteed that Israel commit to these obligations. The Bush administration and Sharonâ?Ts government cannot continue to have their cake and eat it too.

Palestinians must feel a tangible change on the ground. The checkpoints and the humiliation they bring are still realities. The occupying Israeli army is still in Palestinian cities. Settlement construction is intensifying throughout the West Bank, and the building of the separation wall in the West Bank is continuing apace, with Jerusalem completely isolated from its Palestinian surroundings.

In the meantime, the Israeli government is trying to rid itself of the Gaza Strip in order to confront the Palestinian â?odemographic dangerâ?�. And for this Bush wants the Palestinians to turn a blind eye to all of the above and praise Sharon.

Mr. Bush: Years ago, we heard your vision for a solution to the conflict. You then came up with a roadmap that gained international acceptance. We appreciate your statements confirming your support of that roadmap, which have been repeated several times since. And we appreciate even more that you reaffirmed these statements before the Palestinian president in the White House. We understand your message, but it is Sharon who must understand it. What is required is to translate your words into actions. We are tired of repetition. Every day we live these things that are happening to us and to this country. So please, hurry up before it is too lateâ?¦that is, if it isnâ?Tt already.- Published 30/5/2005 © bitterlemons.org

Ali Jarbawi is a professor of political science at Birzeit University.

It seems that the biggest obstacles to peace and a settlement are from outside groups like Islamic Jihad and Hezbullah, sponsored somewhat by Syria and Iran, and the conservative faction in Israel that wants to maintain the occupation to then create a finalized Greater Israel. Hardliners in Israel argue that they need these occupied lands to serve as a buffer zone, when in reality all it does is further inflame the conflict and keep hostilities alive ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Of course, on the Arab side, right of return continues to emerge.
The reality is that "Greater Israel" will never happen peacefully, nor will anything more than a small and symbolic right of return, due to the what is viewed in Israel as the Palestinian demographic time bomb.
This is at the heart, body and soul of the two state solution. Israel for Israeli's- Palestine statehood for Palestinians.
This is the reality of the situation. It seems that hardliners on both sides act as if this reality will change because of some magical thing, or military victory will change this reality.
If the reality and common sense of a fair two state solution comes about, I doubt that tensions would last long between Israel and Palestine after a settlement, if hardliners on either side to do not sabatoge the agreement.
Arabs outside Palestine would not have the issue of Israeli oppresion, and the Palestinians could wave a final good-bye to the IDF, and go on about rebuilding their infrasturcture with the help of any nation willing to do so, as an investment for peace.
Israel would have safe borders minus the tracts of land adjoining Syria and Lebanon.
There will always be hardliners on both sides, but peace and a final settlement would take away their main issues, and each culture could decide for themselves would to do within their finalized borders.
Israel has every right to be concerned about its security, but then so do the Palestinians. Nothing would be better to each other's security than to secure their next door neighbor as a friend rather than as an enemy.
But the hardliners on both sides, as an old American advertising slogan says, 'would rather fight than switch'.
In the meantime, the world seems split taking sides, as well as innocents within the area of the conflict facing random attack.
Iran and syria, as far as nations in the region, seem to be the great external obstacles to the peace process. If the palestinians are willing to accept a settlement to bring about their independence, the Syrians and Iranians should have no say in that process.
I have contended for some time that Syria and Iran have been fighting a war by proxy through the Palesinian people. It is fair for these nations to want justice for fellow Arabs, but as the possibility for peace grows, this seems to present an argument that these nations more oppose peace with Israel than freedom for Palestine.
Israel cannot merely drop its security concerns as long as Syria and iran pose a threat to it. I cannot imagine that Israel would take pre-emptive action against these two nations without provocation. The problem is what one would call 'provocation'?
While one cannot expect each of these nations to run out and embrace each other, it also time for these nations to accept the right of the other to live in peace. Whether by official agreement or by de facto agreement, this is just the type of matter for the U.N. security council to address.
Syria and Iran seem now to be working on missiles as a way to reach Israel without having the land benefit of going through Palestine and lebanon. Is this push for missile capabilities for defence or to attack Israel? I could go further with this point to its logical conclusion, but you can see where it is leading...
It is time to call out syria and iran on the question, Do you place conflict with Israel above a fair settlement between Israel and Palestine? If the word from Damascus and Tehran says a settlement for palestine comes first, and their actions meet this committemnt, that would further lessen the need for Israel to be immediately concerned about these nations and visa versa.
Of course, one cannot expect each of these nations to completely drop their defences, but it could signal an to end what would be clearly seen by all as offensive efforts by any of these parties.
What is the result of this, an outbreak of peace across the region. This all goes back to why a fair peace between Israel and Palestine is so vital to world peace, let alone the peoples on the ground there.
The world is watching. Those who sabatoge these peace efforts will be recognized for maintaining the conflict when it does not have to be so...