Bush Calls for 'Contiguous' Palestine

[Rose Siding]

BRUSSELS, Belgium Feb 21, 2005 — President Bush on Monday laid out a checklist for Israel and Palestine to achieve peace with two independent states, including an insistence that the Palestinians get contiguous land in the West Bank.

"A state on scattered territories will not work," Bush said during a speech in the first overseas trip of his second term.

Bush pressed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be forthcoming on giving up Israeli settlements in the West Bank when peace negotiations on a Palestinian state reach their final stage.
...
Bush outlined the steps during a wide-ranging speech designed to repair strained relationships with Europe. Bush put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of a list of common goals between the U.S. and its allies.

"Our greatest opportunity and immediate goal is peace in the Middle East," Bush said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=519100&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Maple]

1. Well I agree with him

on the contiguous part.

"A state on scattered territories" is why the last peace plan fell apart.

[mutus_frutex]

14. Of course, he probably doesn't really mean it..

Things can be made "contiguous" and still be a mess..

[complain jane]

2. Color me and idiot, but

wouldn't peace in the Middle East be the last thing Bush wants? No need for US troops then. No justification for pre-emptive wars, either.

I mean, sorry if I'm stating the obvious, this is all a learning process for me :shrug:

[Charles19]

7. He'll play the game while in Europe, Sharon and Bush need

only snap their fingers and violence erupts and the whole process falls through.

[TahitiNut]

19. He just delayed peace.

In giving lip service to a "contiguous" Palestine, he adds to the Palestinian resolve to hold out for that as well as a "right of return." The chances that Likud would allow either are slim and none.

[LiberalEsto]

3. contiguous?

Can he spell that?
Or even pronouce it?

[DemsUnite]

6. I'll believe it when I hear the audio

How about a pool on how many syllables he made it? I've got three...

[Mojambo]

11. Somebody has been looking at their word-a-day calendar! n/t

[expatriot]

4. Holy S--T! Has Bush looked at a map of the region?

How are you going connect the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with out taking a big chunk out of Israel and/or Egypt and Jordan.

The Rapture Right is not going to be happy with this! Bush is the anti-christ!!!!

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. exactly, it's impossible

Israel would be cut in half if that were to happen. Which is why there will never be peace in that area.

Someone really should have designed that country better.

[kysrsoze]

23. The only way it's possible is if they ONLY have Gaza

Israel has been trying to push them out of the West Bank for a long time. I think this is the "plan" behind the words.

[louis-t]

17. he doesn't worry about maps

he'll let rummy 'cipher it for him.

[SoCalDem]

22. Israel missed out on a golden opportunity when they gave back the Sinai

They should have just declared it Palestine, moved all the palestinians there and then retreated :evilgrin:. They ended up losing it anyway..

[regnaD kciN]

30. Actually, they missed a golden opportunity just after the Six-Day War...

Remember, before then, there was no "Palestine." Although the major Arab nations paid lip service to the Palestinians, they swallowed up the Arab partition of the U.N.'s division of the land, with the Gaza being annexed to Egypt (then joined with Syria in the United Arab Republic), and the West Bank to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Palestinians, despite all the rhetoric heaped upon them, were merely reduced to ethnic minorities in countries whose power and influence lay elsewhere.

I often wonder: what would have happened if Israel, fresh from their stunning '67 victory, immediately offered to give the land back...but to the Palestinians themselves, not the U.A.R. or Jordan? Say that the Israeli government offered the Palestinians the occupied West Bank and Gaza territories, plus a split of the Sinai, under the conditions that a) it were used to form an independent Palestine, not returned to the previous "absentee landlords" of the U.A.R. and Jordan, b) that said new Palestine renounce the position of the other Arab states for the destruction of Israel, and c) that Palestine and Israel immediately sign a non-aggression and mutual defense treaty?

In one blow, Israel would have broken the ME logjam. The Palestinians would have had their independent nation, and been spared the suffering of the last thirty-eight years. Israel would have demonstrated to the world its generosity and desire for peace, and have a new, friendly Arab state providing it a buffer zone from hardliners like Nassar. And those other Arab states, even if they fumed about it privately, could have done nothing without attacking another Arab nation, and thus finding themselves at war with the Palestinians and the Israelis (plus most of the European nations that would undoubtedly have come to the aid of such a partnership).

[rayofreason]

31. Nice thought....

...but it could not have happened. Who would have spoken for the Palestinians? The anti-semetic, pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had been a confident of Eichmann and had organized a Fascist military unit that had slaughtered Serbs in Bosnia?

No, before you can make peace you must tire of war. It has taken (too much) time and blood, but the Palestinians have had their fill of this disasterous intifada. Now that the old gangster-king Arafat is gone, there is a real opening and chance. To be sure, there are folks on both sides who are not yet too tired of war, and who will try to scuttle things. And there are difficulties, like Jerusalem and the right of return, which will take time to resolve in a realistic manner. But, perhaps for the first time, the will is really there on both sides.

[SoCalDem]

33. You fleshed out my plan brilliantly

:loveya:

[regnaD kciN]

29. A system of bridges and tunnels...

...giving several "conduits" between the West Bank and Gaza. This was the plan during the 1990s, before Sharon and the Second Intifada set things back to the Bad Old Days.

[oly]

5. Classic whipsaw -- playing "peace" against war at the same time

with nothing more than war on his "mind".

[Inland]

8. Which means, what, corridors through Israeli contolled territory?

"Contiguous" is the least he could have demanded.

[illflem]

9. In shit for brains defense

He did say a contiguous West Bank

[Sporadicus]

10. Don't Tell Alaska & Hawaii

They'll assume the arrangement with the contiguous 48 just isn't working.

[Minstrel Boy]

13. Does he mean they should give up Gaza?

Or did he even mean "contiguous"? Maybe he mispronounced "continuous"?

:shrug:

[louis-t]

16. Nawww, he meant 'contagious'

gonna put small pox on da blankets of dem little brown people.

[MADem]

27. JESUS--my very FIRST thought!!!!

Yeah, we'll give up those settlements that we put on YOUR land, and in exchange for that rocky, dusty shit with no water (because you know we will turn off the tap once the last settler has left), you will provide us with some gorgeous seaside property that we can turn into vacation central.

The only way for Palestine to be truly contiguous is to bifurcate Israel, or build a longass highway tunnel between the WB and Gaza...

He does seem to be forgetting about Gaza in that statement. If he said "contiguous West Bank" I would be more comfortable.

[unblock]

15. look out vancouver!! here we come!!

54'40" or fight!

[unblock]

18. once again, he goes where hitler went before

hitler invaded poland after demanding a corridor to east prussia.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Maybe he wants a 3 state solution?

Israel, Palestine (west bank), and Republic of Gaza.

There is no way Israel is going to let Gaza be physically connected with the West Bank, as that would hand over territory that has been Israeli since 1948, and would cut Israel in two.

The way things are laid out, either Israel or Palestine will be divided. No way around it without ceding Gaza to Egypt.

[The Stranger]

21. He'll install Paul Wolfowitz as the King of Gaza.

He'll have a nice silver comb to suck on while he practices his mathematics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. He means he doesn't want Israel dividing the West Bank in two

Some Israelis want to separate the West Bank with a corridor from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea that would be part of Israel. See http://stopthewall.org/maps/150.shtml for an example map.

[simcha_6]

25. Fortunately that's not going to happen...

what with Peace Now, Gush Shalom, maybe ACRI opposing it. (Hint to people who wish to learn- Israeli mentality isn't affected very much by international pressure. If you want change, fund Israeli institutions like those above. Gush Shalom, Peace Bloc, is a bit radical, but I like Peace Now and ACRI is altogether awesome. They were the ones to change the fence route, reducing one land-grab by over 50% by taking it to the Israeli Supreme Court; it's like the Israeli ACLU.)

I'm excited about this, though. I think that, once Sharon leaves Gaza, he'll lose radical support, who'll go to Shas or UTJ, and Labor will win the next election, or the one after that, and manage to force through a permanent settlment. For peace to take effect, the warmakers need to make peace first, such as was seen with the peace accords with Egypt.

For good Israeli news, go to

[MADem]

28. He needs, for once in his life, to actually SAY what he MEANS

His sloppy statements, even the prewritten ones, do far more harm than good. Language matters, but since he cannot string a sentence together, he requires that we somehow "interpret" his comments, like he is the "Idiot Oracle of Jesusland."

My first thought was "What about Gaza?" I'll bet a Filistine or two thought the same damn thing!

[ckramer]

26. But this certainly is a good start for Palestinians

[rayofreason]

32. agreed

No American president has gone so far as to call for a Palestinian state before now, and a geographically rational one at that.