From CNN, :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush endorsed an Israeli plan Wednesday to pull back from Gaza and part of the West Bank, but denied the United States was taking sides in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.At a White House news briefing following a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Bush said "realities on the ground" dictated that Israel should be able to keep some settlements in any future peace agreement.
Bush praised Sharon for his withdrawal proposal.
"These are historic and courageous actions," Bush said. "If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."
Bush also embraced Sharon's position that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to a new Palestinian state but not to Israel.
Sharon's government proposes a "disengagement" plan that includes a provision for Israel to pull out all Jewish settlements and troops from Gaza and all but six blocs of Jewish settlements from the West Bank.
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said that allowing some Israeli settlements to remain in the West Bank would be "a severe blow to the peace process."
"I don't think that Israelis should be rewarded [for] illegal practices of stealing Palestinian land," Erakat said in Ramallah, West Bank.
Bush did not directly address Israel's assertions that it would keep the six settlement blocs.
But he did say: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."
Erakat said Bush could not judge issues of permanent status.
"This will be a major deviation to the road map and international law, and just add to the complexities and constitute a severe blow to the peace process," he said.
The "road map" -- backed by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia -- lays out steps Israel and the Palestinians must take toward ending conflict and establishing an independent Palestine by 2005.
Erakat said that in October 1991 Bush's father sent his secretary of state, James Baker, to the Middle East with a letter of assurance saying settlements were illegal.
The Palestinian negotiator said the current President Bush has no right to change U.N. Resolutions 242 or 338 or the road map.
"But I want to make clear, if Israel wants peace, they know the address. It is Palestinian elected leadership -- we who will make peace. We who, with Israelis, work to break this vicious cycle of violence," Erakat said.
"If Israel wants peace, they know the address"? So I suppose all those murders of Israeli civilians has had nothing to do with disruptions of the peace process?
Hello All,
Enclosed is a recent article that was forwarded to me. I’m sure that many of you are aware of the ongoing troubles in the middle-east i.e Israel, and Iraq. Like him are not President Bush is a strong supporter of Israel, he has gone out on a limb for Israel. I think it’s important that as Jew’s we support this president in November. When push comes to shove there is no way that the consensus building John Kerry would do the same. He would pander to the French, German, and Russians, .etc. I can insure you the countries mentioned are not in Israel’s corner. They will sell Israel out just as the Prime Minister of England Neville Chamberlain sold out Europe, to appease Hitler. In the end we all know what happened in Europe…6 million times!!!
I’m requesting that each one of you send this on to all your family members, friends, business associates, and any other friends of Israel. The election this fall will most likely be decided by a few key states. I believe the JEWISH vote in several key battle ground states could decide the outcome i.e. Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, to name a few. We have a strong presence in these states let’s use our vote to influence the outcome of this crucial election.
Warmest regards,
Brad
P.S. Enclosed Are A few links that I thought you Might Like
www.jihadwatch.org
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp
Analysis: Bush meets Sharon's expectations
By HERB KEINON
WASHINGTON
Months of intensive preparation came to fruition in the White House's Cross Hall Wednesday, when US President George W. Bush came out with a resounding endorsement of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan.
Bush went farther than most expected in supporting the plan, saying in clearer terms than any US president has publicly used that the US does not expect Israel to withdraw to the Green Line nor to take in any Palestinian refugees.
Advertisement
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion," he said.
"It is realistic to expect that any final-status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
This is language that Sharon will undoubtedly be able to use in convincing the Likud rank and file that if Israel withdraws from Gaza and some of the West bank, the world's sole superpower will recognize its right to retain the major settlement blocs. From now on the wrangling will be over which blocs are included or what constitutes a "major Israeli population center."
Bush was equally forceful regarding the Palestinian refugees. For the first time, he explicitly called for them to be absorbed in a future Palestinian state "rather than in Israel."
The language here was clearer than it was in a similar statement Bush issued at Aqaba, or in the Clinton parameters of January 2001, which did not rule out some of the refugees being absorbed in Israel.
While Clinton's parameters, never formal US policy, also spoke of the need to take into consideration "demographic realities" and of incorporating settlement blocs into Israel, in return Israel was to have made concessions, including in Jerusalem and a land swap, that simply do not appear in the new Bush plan. That is a major difference.
Going into the meeting, Sharon was also looking for US recognition of the primacy of the road map, which he received in a presidential statement issued afterward, and recognition of Israel's right to continue to fight terrorists.
Sharon received both, and tacit US acceptance of the construction of the security fence, as long as it is – as Israel has maintained – a temporary defensive measure, not a political frontier.
Regarding the primacy of the road map, Bush wrote: "The United States remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, and its implementation as described in the road map. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan." In other words, from an American point of view, the Geneva Accord or any retooled Saudi initiative are non-starters.
Regarding Israel's right to continue to wage a war on terrorism, Bush was equally explicit: "Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations."
In addition to giving Sharon the assurances that he sought, Bush signaled clearly that he understands his domestic situation, and is willing to give him a hand.
"He's a bold leader," he said. "That's what people want. They want leadership. There was a process that got stuck, and the prime minister steps up and leads. And I'm confident the Israeli people appreciate that kind of leadership."
How now can Uzi Landau, the disengagement plan s main Likud detractor, argue with that?
Sharon reciprocated, praising Bush, his vision, and courage in a manner that can only help him in his reelection campaign, both in picking up additional Jewish votes and funds and in energizing his evangelical Christian base.
"I myself have been fighting terror for many years and understand the threats and costs from terrorism. In all these years, I have never met a leader as committed as you are, Mr. President, to the struggle for freedom and the need to confront terrorism wherever it exists. I want to express my appreciation to you, for your courageous leadership in the war against global terror and your commitment and vision to bring peace to the Middle East," Sharon said.
The night before Bush met Sharon, he held a rare prime time press conference in which he reiterated that the US is in a protracted war against terrorism. It was clear, from the warmth with which he greeted Sharon in the residential wing of the White House and from the commitments he gave him, that he sees Sharon as as a commander in one of the key fronts in that war.
This is one way to explain his willingness to go as far as he did in supporting Sharon, knowing full well that his commitments to him, his characterization of him as a "bold leader" and the disengagement plan as a "bold and courageous" step will not exactly win any friends in the Arab world.
Bush has chosen to try to create new paradigms in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. On Wednesday, he laid down those new paradigms as they apply to Israel, and, in his characteristic manner, signaled that the Palestinians, the rest of the Arab world, and the Europeans would do well to fall into line.
Long Live Israel!!
To Sheol with "the road map"!
Israel should EXPAND and reclaim all the land,[repeat], ALL the land, that the God of Abraham promised to the Israelites. America should help in this effort also...(after the election of course)
Is it too much to hope that when they pull out of the West Bank, they will do another Yassin to Arafat?? One can live in hope I suppose.
Of course there can be two states: One in Israel and the other in what was set up as the Palestinian Arab State in 1921: Jordan! Don't forget, the original Palestinian Mandate given to the British included both sides of the Jordan River. Jordan was created in 1921 by the British, originally calling it Transjordan (across the Jordan River). The Arabs living there never used the term 'Palestinian,' leaving it to the Jews living there to use. The Arabs were actually against the term. It was only after 1967 that the term came into fashion as a weapon against Israel. And the majority of Arabs here are descendend from Arabs who came in during the British Mandate and prior to that because 'Palestine' was being developed by Jewish Olim (immigrants).
Population exchanges took place after World War II and nobody demended their original homes back. In Lebanon, 'palestinian' refugees (most of those deemed 'refugees' today were born outside of Israel) are treated as second-class citizens. Israel offered once to build new homes for people in the 'refugee camps' but the offer was turned down in order to keep up the image of the 'poor palestinians!' These people have become pawns in a game whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel. They don't care how long it takes and if their people have to suffer for it, as long as Suha has her suite in her Paris hotel and the children of the leaders can be sent to private schools outside.