Will Bush's Plan Bring Peace to Israel and Palestine?

[devil-fire]

bush wants peace between Israel and Palestine by the time he leaves office. he doesn't seem to say how he wants to get that done, but he lays out some bold expectations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181658.stm

Mr Bush did not give details of precisely what a final agreement might contain - he said that would be a matter for the talks.

But his statement set out some parameters within which he expected negotiators to work.

These included:


-Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
-adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank

He issued a stern warning to both sides not to do anything which breaks promises they have already made, or which might make negotiations more difficult.

"On the Israeli side, that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorised outposts.

"On the Palestinian side, that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure," he said.

i think the USA has the influence to make these things a reality but will the costs of peace outweigh the benefits? or are people in Israel and Palestine as intent on a plan for peace as bush claims to be?

 

[henxan]

Wow.. this seems like the best news concerning the Israel Palestine conflict I've ever heard, and especially coming from an american president. AND especially coming from Bush.. This is probably the most intelligent thing he have ever done!

And YES, I do actually think US is the most important country concerning these issues! That is because US is the biggest supporter, both by the US government, AND private institutions and people (Jewish), in favor of the israeli state. I also would believe that the Palestinians, that is the wast majority, are interested in peace. Sooner or later you would want to live in a peace.

There is only one problem now, and that is that the US or Bush are not going to negotiate with Hamas. This is a error. Hamas should be involved! Though a strongly fundamentalist religious organization, they represent the mayority of the palestinians. And, I have to say, in the case there is really good offerings: Returning to 67borders, removing many settlements, unifying palestine, even hamas will accept.

But, there will be extremists on both sides, Jewish and Muslim, that will not accept peace. So who would enforce the peace if it is accomplished? UN

 

[Werg22]

I read this and smile; there won't be peace over there in our life time fellows.

 

[seycyrus]

Negotiate with Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!

 

[mgb_phys]

The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!

If you have ever been involved in any local council / school politics you can see the apeal of this!

Bush has what about 12 months left in office - to sort out a region that has been a global pain in the butt since civilisation was invented, no problem.

 

[kyleb]

Negotiate with Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!

Hyperbole? Hamas only controls Gaza, and there are still Fatah in Gaza, Hamas only eliminated the militant faction of Fatah which tried to coup the elected Hamas government. Regardless, I don't think Hamas is interested in negotiations at this point. It really doesn't matter who represents the Palestinians in the negotiations though, the important factor is that the terms reached are acceptable the majorities on both sides of the conflict.

Anyway, Bush's "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3168462.ece"" comment in regard for the need for territorial continuity, along with other statements on the subject, thankfully demonstrate a better understanding of the issue than Clinton ever showed. The only question that remains is if Bush is willing to do what is necessary to convince the Israeli government to respect the Palestinians right to sovereignty. Granted, that is a big if, but it would do much to improve the man's legacy, so the motivation is certainly there. At this point I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[seycyrus]

Hyperbole? Hamas only controls Gaza, and there are still Fatah in Gaza, Hamas only eliminated the militant faction of Fatah which tried to coup the elected Hamas government.

Excuse me?

They rounded up as many as possible and shot them in the head, execution style. Their definition of "member of the militant faction" was VERY liberally applied, according to CNN, BBC and NPR reports.

 

[kyleb]

Can you provide an examples of such reports? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7092365.stm which refers to a crowd of Fatah supports in Gaza being rounded up, but no executions.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow.. this seems like the best news concerning the Israel Palestine conflict I've ever heard...

I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet. Pretty much every recent US President has tried. Remember the famous Arafat/Rabin handshake? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/13/newsid_3053000/3053733.stm

Nevertheless, you are right that the US has to be instrumental - and let's face it, we're the only ones who are actually trying. But the Palesitinans don't really trust us, so what would be best would be for another 3rd party to act as mediators with us. Russia, perhaps.

 

[kyleb]

We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty. I believe it is now over 30 Security Counsel resolutions we have been the sole veto on over the decades. Hence the reason the Palestinians don't trust us, but that is something our President is well within his power to change.

 

[Yonoz]

As much as it saddens me to say this, it will be very hard for the current Israeli government and Palestinian leadership to reach a true agreement. There is too much distrust among the people, and the current leaderships will lose power if they agree to necessary concessions - Jerusalem is a very problematic issue. Personally, I feel we can't afford to just sit back and let this chance pass, but I'm doubtful it will be achieved under current terms.
As for Hamas, the most they're willing to offer is a ten-year cease-fire, after which they promise nothing.
The general forecast is a breakdown of the process, which will bring about the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, with a high likelihood of Hamas taking control of the West Bank. If they manage to smuggle in to, or manufacture rockets in, the West Bank, the situation will get worse for everyone. That's the only reason we've gotten this far.

 

[seycyrus]

Can you provide an examples of such reports? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7092365.stm which refers to a crowd of Fatah supports in Gaza being rounded up, but no executions.

I remember most vividly the descriptions from NPR, which is a radio newscast, but here are some links.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/hamas-is-executing-fatah-fighters-in.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412813,00.html

Here's one from HRW which discusses atrocities on both sides, but does go into a few specifics about Hamas, (tried to teach a Fatah chef to fly for instance)

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm

 

[pleaserecycle]

Yes, the US most probably do have the power to rectify the situation. But, Bush only has 12 months left as President. This leaves him with no time to actually get anything done. He will claim to be having peace talks, and for the situation to be improving. But, at the end of the day, all he wants is to go out on a good note, as all politicians do. They make short term impacts in a hope that they will be remembered for it in the long run, which often isn't true. Sadly, there is hardly, if any, such a thing as selfless politics.

 

[turbo]

If the US withdrew all aid to Israel until the Israelis negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians, some progress could be made. No US politician is willing to take this step, and our government will continue to perpetuate the Zionists' genocide against the Palestinians. Read any news feed in the US. Palestinians can be killed for being "suspected terrorists" by Israeli troops, and Israelis are "slaughtered" by Palestinian "terrorists" or "gunmen". I don't pretend to know the truth in these incidents, but the slant of the popular press is quite evident.

 

[Astronuc]

bush wants peace between Israel and Palestine by the time he leaves office.

Too bad he didn't start 7 years ago when he took office, but it seems he was fixated on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Pretty much every recent US President has tried. Remember the famous Arafat/Rabin handshake?

Clinton did a very poor job, and Reagan and Bush didn't do much. However, they did allow shipments of the some of the most advanced military technology to Israel.

 

[kyleb]

I remember most vividly the descriptions from NPR, which is a radio newscast, but here are some links.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/hamas-is-executing-fatah-fighters-in.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412813,00.html

Here's one from HRW which discusses atrocities on both sides, but does go into a few specifics about Hamas, (tried to teach a Fatah chef to fly for instance)

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm

Yeah, the militant facton of Fatah which tried to coup the Hamas led government. The articles explain those Fatah members were holding arms caches, and the first article even lables the ones executed as Fatah fighters, twice within the text of the article and also in the URL itself. And the third article also mentions Fatah miltiants throwing a Hamas supporter off a building as well. So, would you also argue that Fatah is not to be negotated with since they tried to consolidate control by killing off their rivals?

If the US withdrew all aid to Israel until the Israelis negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians, some progress could be made.

Between that and the power to impose sanctions though the UN, I figure a year is plenty of time to bring resolution to the conflict. Granted, I have yet to see any indication that Bush actually intends to do anything of the sort.

 

[Yonoz]

No US politician is willing to take this step, and our government will continue to perpetuate the Zionists' genocide against the Palestinians.

Let's try, for once, to keep the discussion both on topic and free of libel, kay?

 

[Art]

I can't see meaningful negotiations happening any time soon. The key message Israel will take from Bush's speech is that the solution 'will have to reflect realities on the ground' i.e. the Palestinians shouldn't expect back land in the west bank where Israel has built it's illegal settlements. Now that Israel has confirmation they will be allowed to keep the occupied land they stole in direct contravention of international law and ergo bad behaviour will be rewarded it is inevitable Israel will want to make sure 'the realities on the ground' favour them as much as possible before contemplating peace and so we can expect another decade or two of settlement expansion before Israel genuinely engages.

Israel is not even attempting to be subtle about their intentions. Within days of the Annapolis summit they began new 'authorised' settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land and despite criticism from Condi Rice they have stated publicly they will continue to expand their East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements whilst continuing to support and protect their 'unauthorised' settlements.

Bush's response to this rejection of his demands will be a measure of just how serious he is in promoting a lasting peace settlement.

 

[Yonoz]

Now that Israel has confirmation they will be allowed to keep the occupied land they stole in direct contravention of international law and ergo bad behaviour will be rewarded it is inevitable Israel will want to make sure 'the realities on the ground' favour them as much as possible before contemplating peace and so we can expect another decade or two of settlement expansion before Israel genuinely engages.

Well, if it is anything like the previous decade, or two, or three, which included the Gaza disengagement, pullout from Lebanon and the Camp David Accords, I guess we can expect a decade of contraction. One thing is certain - it will not satisfy everyone

Israel is not even attempting to be subtle about their intentions. Within days of the Annapolis summit they began new 'authorised' settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land and despite criticism from Condi Rice they have stated publicly they will continue to expand their East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements whilst continuing to support and protect their 'unauthorised' settlements.

Actually, these expansions began a while back - Israel has a formidable beaurocracy as only a parliamentary socialist democracy can, and Olmert has a very narrow path he can take considering the composition of his coalition.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944220.html"

Just weeks after taking office in January 2006, Olmert sent police to tear down nine unauthorized homes in the Amona outpost. But violent clashes ensued there between police and settlers, and in the two years since, he has taken no serious action against the outposts.

Right-wing members of Olmert's coalition and settlers oppose any action against the outposts, making the issue extremely sensitive at a time when the prime minister is trying to hold together his coalition and make peace with the Palestinians. Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman will meet with Olmert Monday and is expected to tell him he may resign over negotiations with the Palestinians.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it is a difficult situation, because both parties want the same land - all of it, and both could claim historical precedence over that last 5000 years. The status quo seems unsustainable, and it is certainly unsatisfactory.

Perhaps some in Israel hope to wait it out and that the Palestinians will simply go away. That would seem untenable.

Some Palesitinians hope that Israel will settle and agree to remove settlers from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to claim E. Jerusalem. Is that even possible?

And then there are Hamas and Hizbullah, and other interested parties who seem committed to violence, which is unacceptable.

Hmmmm. Difficult.

 

[turbo]

It is a difficult situation, and it is not going to resolve itself, especially if Bush won't take the necessary steps to pressure Israel's government. The US is Israel's sponsor and proxy, and Israel wields exceptional power in US politics. Our government arms Israel with the most advanced weaponry available, provides billions in "aid" that no modern country should need, and thwarts every single attempt by the UN to redress the expulsion and murder of Palestinians and the theft of their property. Until this patronage is removed, Israel will not negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians, and perhaps not even then, since they have military superiority over all their neighbors.

The necessary first step is to insist that Israel negotiate a peace with the Palestinians (in good faith, not just empty promises!), and to withhold all aid/weapons sales, etc until such negotiations are completed and the terms of such are adhered to. If it takes a year or two, and Israel's economy suffers from the lack of a constant infusion of dollars, too bad.

 

[nabki]

what most people who haven't actualy been to the middle east have not noticed is that islamists such as hamas and hizbullah are more popular with arabs and muslims in general than 'moderates' such as fatah or certain people in power. the reason being mainly the bush administration which has been seen as the embodiment of evil, and because people here feel that their identity has been attacked by the 'war on terror'. then comes afghanistan, iraq, support of musharaf... that dosent help either. people have become fed up with all the failed negotiations that have been sponsored by the US, and then the repeated vetos. most arabs feel fustrated at the fact that their land is being stolen and their countries invaded while certain 'men of status' can't wait to shake hands with condi and let bush wave a sword about (which was pretty amature by the way), then get the highest medal of honour.

 

[Yonoz]

Some Palesitinians hope that Israel will settle and agree to remove settlers from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to claim E. Jerusalem. Is that even possible?

With a broad coalition, it's possible.
Tomorrow Olmert will meet with Avigdor Lieberman, and the latter will probably anounce he will step down if Jerusalem is even discussed.
The recurring problem of the coalition leaders in Israel are the non-nationalist religious parties, which usually tip the balance. They are right-wing in nature, but they are not strict about it. Their status as the breakers or makers grants them many political gains. In the past week the Sephardic Shas party achieved the resurrection of the Ministry of Religious Affairs (under a slightly different name) - which was closed down four years ago. This is a heavy price to pay for the integrity of the coalition at this stage, and no concessions have been made so far. There is some conflict between the partitioning of Jerusalem and Shas' religious nature, one wonders if Olmert is capable of keeping their support.
We will most likely see either Olmert or Abbas step down or voted out over the next year, but this is the Holy Land - maybe we'll see a political virgin birth.

 

[Yonoz]

If it takes a year or two, and Israel's economy suffers from the lack of a constant infusion of dollars, too bad.

What constant infusion of dollars? The only place those dollars are going is the US arms industry.

 

[turbo]

What constant infusion of dollars? The only place those dollars are going is the US arms industry.

If you will check, you will find that billions upon billions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees have been quietly converted into grants by our elected officials. We, the US taxpayers have been bled for decades to support Israel. If we want to see peace in the ME, we need to stop this mindless support for Israel and insist on real compromise and reconciliation. The status-quo is not working, and it is costing us not only taxpayer dollars, but trust and respect among the Arab states who could otherwise be allies and partners.

 

[Yonoz]

If you will check, you will find that billions upon billions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees have been quietly converted into grants by our elected officials.

How about addressing the point I made, i.e. these grants are spent on US-made arms. Moreover, many of these grants are given in return for certain concessions to the Palestinians, or to remove opposition to arms sales to other countries in the ME.
These grants are an internal US matter, I will not argue for or against them, but they are certainly not infusions into Israel's economy, rather the US arms industry, which also benefits from the removal of Israeli competition. Did you know Israeli security businesses are stopped from competing in other countries' military contracts due to US concerns, while US companies are not? I'm not talking only about enemy countries such as China, but about India, Turkey and others.

 

[turbo]

Here is a table for you to consider.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Almost $100 billion dollars of US taxpayer money since 1949. The fact that much of that money is in the form of military grants means nothing in and of itself. The more than $2 billion/year IS an infusion of cash into the Israeli economy because Israel would otherwise have to come up with this money on its own, and depress its own economy to sustain that level of military spending. If Bush truly wanted peace in the middle east, he would have vetoed this spending until Israel stopped building and expanding settlements, withdrew to within the borders recognized by the UN, and negotiated for peace with its neighbors, including compensation for properties lost by the Palestinians who have been refused the right of return. US politicians are gutless, and will not withhold these billions of dollars from Israel - least of all "W".

 

[Yonoz]

The fact that much of that money is in the form of military grants means nothing in and of itself. The more than $2 billion/year IS an infusion of cash into the Israeli economy because Israel would otherwise have to come up with this money on its own, and depress its own economy to sustain that level of military spending.

AFAIK Israel would not have spent these amounts of money on US-made weapons had they not been in the form of grants. It would either buy Israeli made weapons, improve existing platforms or purchase them from a third country, all for much, much cheaper. The amount of jobs created by the first two options would probably do some good for the Israeli economy, and Israel would be free to export weapons to countries such as China, India and all those other ones in Latin America and Africa without limits - just like the US and the Europeans are doing.

 

[kyleb]

Well, if it is anything like the previous decade, or two, or three, which included the Gaza disengagement, pullout from Lebanon and the Camp David Accords, I guess we can expect a decade of contraction.

Only if you turn a blind eye to the West Bank which Israel has been continually expanding settlement of for the past few decades.

One thing is certain - it will not satisfy everyone

What you are attempting to hint at with the wink? Again, the important factor is that whatever compromise might be reached is satisfactory to the majorities on both sides. From there it becomes a simple matter of empowering those majorities to keep their respective dissenters in line.

Actually, these expansions began a while back...

Which settements are you reffering to? I've seen news of funding for expansions allocated shortly after Annapolis, http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=66&docid=2623&pos=1".

- Israel has a formidable beaurocracy as only a parliamentary socialist democracy can, and Olmert has a very narrow path he can take considering the composition of his coalition.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944220.html"

And again, withdrawing aid and imposing sanctions would put that bureaucracy in the position of reassessing it's priorities.

 

[russ_watters]

We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty.

That's not the purpose of those UN resolutions. Both the US and Israel support the Palestinian right to sovereignty. What the US opposes is the hatemongering resolutions that Israel's enemies put up. They don't have anything to do with sovereignty.

 

[kyleb]

Draft resolutions http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19970307.sc6335.html" directly affirm the Palestinian right to sovereignty. It was drafted by France, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom, hardly enemies of Israel; and that resolution would have passed unanimously were it not shot down by our veto. So, what has that decade of Palestine loosing land to Israel created but a catalyst for hatred, hate mongering the world was ready to stop while we alone held them back?

 

[Yonoz]

Only if you turn a blind eye to the West Bank which Israel has been continually expanding settlement of for the past few decades.

Surprise surprise, there are Israeli expansionists, and they're getting more and more support. I wonder why?

What you are attempting to hint at with the wink? Again, the important factor is that whatever compromise might be reached is satisfactory to the majorities on both sides. From there it becomes a simple matter of empowering those majorities to keep their respective dissenters in line.

I'm hinting there will always be someone who justifies violence against Israel. You're assuming there is some compromise that is satisfactory to the majority on both sides, and that those majorities are motivated enough to keep their respective dissenters in line.

Which settements are you reffering to? I've seen news of funding for expansions allocated shortly after Annapolis, http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=66&docid=2623&pos=1" .

The expansions were initiated in Jerusalem's City Council a few years ago. The Housing Ministry approved them after Annapolis. In any case, they are in contradiction to Israeli policy and obligations. They should be stopped at the courts, and I believe that will be the exact case. That's one of the roles Peace Now plays.

And again, withdrawing aid and imposing sanctions would put that bureaucracy in the position of reassessing it's priorities.

That's right. It may also have other effects.

 

[Dale]

A president trying to get mid-east peace is kind of like a batchelor party. One last hurrah before settling down. Maybe you get lucky, but chances are you just get a hangover.

 

[hubertg]

I agree with Werg22.

 

[nabki]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyleb
We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty.

That's not the purpose of those UN resolutions. Both the US and Israel support the Palestinian right to sovereignty. What the US opposes is the hatemongering resolutions that Israel's enemies put up. They don't have anything to do with sovereignty.

such as the security councils attempt last year to launch an inquiery into the qana massacre, that was vetoed by the US. of course the rest of the nations in the security council that are supposed to represent most of the world are all hatemongers. not for instance, people who killed mohammed al-durrah in his fathers arms in cold blood, or a few months ago the murder of an al-aqsa cameraman in front of other cameramen.