May 7, 2004

IGNORE THE VOTE & MOVE FAST:

Bush dithers on West Bank policy (Ed O'Loughlin, May 8, 2004, The Age)

In a foreign policy flip-flop, US President George Bush has backed away from his recognition last month of Israeli territorial demands in the West Bank and his rejection of Palestinian refugees' right to return to homes in Israel.

After meeting Jordan's King Abdallah in Washington on Thursday, Mr Bush announced that such "final-status issues must be negotiated between the parties" and also referred to UN Security Council resolutions that call on Israel to withdraw from territories, which it seized in 1967.

The White House is also expected to make similar assurances in a letter to Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie - a potential negotiating partner whom Mr Bush left out of last month's unilateral agreement with Israel.

Mr Bush's latest announcement, made with King Abdallah at his side, came only three weeks after the President stood in the same spot in the Rose Garden with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and said any final peace agreement would have to recognise major Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

But since then, Mr Sharon has failed to get his hardline Likud party to agree to Israel's side of the deal - a complete withdrawal of the 7500 Israeli settlers living in the other Palestinian enclave, the Gaza Strip.


It's fun to blame the Palestinians for everything, but Likud may have just pulled an Arafat and walked away from the best deal they'll ever be offered.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 7, 2004 1:30 PM
Comments

-channelling some commenters around here-

You're a Jew-hater OJ! A Jew-hater!

Posted by: Paul Cella at May 7, 2004 2:02 PM

Unfortunately you might be right OJ - a good opportunity to break the stalement has been missed and this issue will continue to fester.

Posted by: AWW at May 7, 2004 2:04 PM

I guess Mr. Cella means me. If you will recall my original comment, I said that Mr. Cella's apartheid commment bordered on jew hating. Not that he was such a creature.

I guess I hit a nerve with Mr. Cella though. What is the line: "Me thinketh he protest too much"?

Unlike Mr. Cella, OJ made a comment without accusing Israel of a crime against humanity. Maybe that is the difference between Mr. Cella and true friends of Israel.

Posted by: Bob at May 7, 2004 2:31 PM

Bob

Puleeze!

Posted by: Peter B at May 7, 2004 2:37 PM

Bob: It's Methinks the lady doth protest too much. On Paul's behalf: Wrong in the specifics and the allegation.

Posted by: Chris at May 7, 2004 2:41 PM

I'm in favor of apartheid. Bob stay away from me.
Thank you, have a nice day

Posted by: h-man at May 7, 2004 2:41 PM

On this, I tend to agree with Orrin. Israel should pull back to the Taba lines. The Likud party made a mistake here, but I have my doubts as to whether Sharon genuinely wanted a "yes" vote on this issue.

Posted by: Derek Copold at May 7, 2004 3:19 PM

Chris. You are not right either. Correct quote: "The lady does protest too much, methinks" - William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

Posted by: Bob at May 7, 2004 3:25 PM

It's in no way "fun" to have to blame the Palestinians for much of the horrors in that part of the world, it just seems the reasonable conclusion to draw.

I'm rather unfamiliar with the rules of Israeli politics. Why does the Likud vote limit Sharon's implementation of the pullout plan? I suppose it will strengthen members of the Cabinet who oppose it, but aren't the large majority of Israeli voters in favor? Can't Sharon call new elections, which he'd presumably win again by a large margin, as a demonstration of support?

Posted by: brian at May 7, 2004 5:46 PM

Brian -- My understanding is like yours -- this was an extraconstitutional vote. However, having held it and lost it does weaken Sharon.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 7, 2004 6:38 PM

I said the other day that Sharon might profitably consider breaking off from Likud and forming his own party. I still think that.

Posted by: Joe at May 7, 2004 10:19 PM

That might lead to a Bull Moose vs Republican party type scenario.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at May 8, 2004 5:48 AM

And Labor is always ready to cut a deal on Palestinian terms.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2004 7:39 AM

oj --

Labor maybe ready to cut a deal but the only deal the Palestinians are prepared to offer is death to all Jews, and that's just for starters.

Posted by: Uncle Bill at May 8, 2004 9:02 AM

Unc:

Is there any evidence that Labor would not at least accept that as a starting point for negotiations?

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2004 9:06 AM
« BUSHONOMICS: | Main | WHEN IS THE NEWS GOING TO BE PLASTERED WITH THESE PHOTOS? (via Kevin Whited): »