Bush Drops Opposition To Building Of Barrier

[tinnypriv]

Bush Drops Opposition To Building Of Barrier
Fence Gains Nod As Road Map Dies

Forward, 24 October 2003

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has abandoned its opposition to Israel's construction of a security fence in the West Bank, easing a major point of tension between Washington and Jerusalem in recent months, according to pro-Israel activists in Washington, Palestinian diplomats and sources close to the Bush administration.

Until this summer, the administration had vocally expressed its opposition to the fence, warning that its construction could hinder America's "road map" peace plan. But with last month's resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, the administration now appears to accept not only the idea of the fence, but also its deep penetration into the West Bank.

The White House thinks Israel is justified in erecting the fence and that the Palestinian Authority has brought the fence on itself by not cracking down on terrorism, administration officials recently told pro-Israel activists. Furthermore, administration officials indicated that the Bush White House accepts the principle that security considerations in some instances necessitate allowing the fence to veer into the West Bank, the activists said.

...

http://forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.24/news1.fence.html

...


Comment: This was essentially reported on Oct 2 (in Ma'ariv), when it was known that the U.S. had made a decision not to publically criticise the wall-barrier in addition to putting the Roadmap into a "Deep Freeze".

In addition, a mainstream publication such as this now quotes "adminstration officials" as admitting that the "security" of illegal settlers is a greater consideration for the U.S. government than the indigenous human rights of the Palestinians. Pretty breathtaking. :eyes:

Still, they are to be congratulated for being the first serious news outlet to state that the Roadmap is "dying". They've missed the reason that it is (the Bush Admin wants to concentrate on Iraq and the 2004 elections), but still, better than nothing.

[Resistance]

1. Well we don't wanna have any tension with Israel do we

That would be "anti-semitic" y'know.

Did Israel need any more $$$$ to build their Apartheid Wall on land that isn't theirs? Americans, get out your checkbooks!

[bif]

2. It's not a fence it's a wall!

Why do they keep calling it a fence? It's a 20-foot concrete wall. Not unlike the Berlin Wall.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. It's both

Depends on where the fence is. In some places, it is indeed a wall, in others, it's a fence.

[bluesoul]

3. So it's official

Apparently they are ready to back up just about anything Israel does. Wonderful. I am sure the Palestinians will greet it with delight the next time some US diplomats or CIA agents visit the OT...

[Resistance]

4. Is there anything Israel does

that isn't backed up with bipartisan praise and American taxdollars?

Murder civilians? Way to go, Israel, have some more bombs.
Build a racist wall on land that isn't theirs? Way to go, Israel, have some more money.
Demolish people's homes? Way to go, Israel, we support you.
Murder Americans? Way to go, Israel, we'll look the other way.

Makes me so proud to be an American.

[rini]

55. the Palestinians

I am so damned sick of hearing about how immoral Israel and the USA is from monsters that murder innocent men, women and children in cold blood on a regular basis and then have parades to celebrate it.

All they have to do is stop the terrorism. STOP THE TERRORISM and peace will follow.

[Darranar]

56. I didn't know...

that bluesoul is a monster who murders men, women, and children in cold blood on a regular basis and then has parades to celebrate it.

[rini]

60. Please don't be coy

I doesn't suite you.

[bluesoul]

57. Well

Stop the occupation and illegal settlements, IDF out of the OT and peace will follow...

[rini]

62. Presuming this does not

turn into a circular argument, can you explain why when:

From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.
In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.
One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.
In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.
Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.
Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. "The Palestinians now realize," said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, "that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations."3

Many Israelis nevertheless have concerns about the expansion of settlements. Some consider them provocative, others worry that the settlers are particularly vulnerable, and have been targets of repeated Palestinian terrorist attacks. To defend them, large numbers of soldiers are deployed who would otherwise be training and preparing for a possible future conflict with an Arab army. Some Israelis also object to the amount of money that goes to communities beyond the Green Line, and special subsidies that have been provided to make housing there more affordable. Still others feel the settlers are providing a first line of defense and developing land that rightfully belongs to Israel.

The disposition of settlements is a matter for the final status negotiations. The question of where the final border will be between Israel and a Palestinian entity will likely be influenced by the distribution of these Jewish towns. Israel wants to incorporate as many settlers as possible within its borders while the Palestinians want to expel all Jews from the territory they control.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html#b

[bluesoul]

65. Oh please

Propaganda at it's finest. Nice source btw... Myths, yeah

[rini]

66. I an sorry you can not refute

nor answer these points. So I guess everything said now is mere hyberbole/gossip. That effectively ends meaningful discussion and goes to unsubstantiated rhetoric/opinion. Pity.

[bluesoul]

67. Well

It's a clearly biased site, it doesn't need any refuting. You do the same every time anyone posts anything for EI or any pro-palestinian site. Don't whine now if I dismiss it as pro-Israeli propaganda which this site clearly is..

[rini]

68. Bless your heart

it's history.

[drdon326]

58. Like I said.....

Terrorism's greatest achievement is convincing people
it really doesnt exist.

[bluesoul]

59. Again VV

And Sharon's greatest achievement is convincing certain people that everything Israel does is self-defense and that it would never intentionally target or kill civilians...

[The Magistrate]

6. A Small Point, Mr. Priv

"Forward", you may recall, was formerly a left-oriented Jewish paper, dating to the days of a vigorous Yiddish press here in the United States. It fell on rather hard times, and the name has recently been acquired by a rightist ideologue, who has turned the thing into a mere reactionary rag.

This article may be accurate in its import, but it certainly does not demonstrate that it is within its body. It cites no official pronouncement, only the speculations of various rightist intellectuals who certainly hope for success of the barrier, in all its ends, both security and de facto annexation.

This barrier must be opposed, unremittingly, by all friends of Israel.

[bluesoul]

8. Agreed

I think most of us that are progressive/liberal can agree with that Magistrate;-)

[bluesoul]

9. No wall

Stop the wall! :kick:

[tinnypriv]

10. I believe that is what makes it more accurate

I use "mainstream" in kind of a special sense. I don't mean to say that Forward is, say, centerist between left and right.

I use the term to mean acceptable in the current political climate.

Also, that aside, Ori Nir is a very good writer with legitimate political contacts in Washington (he also writes/appears in Ha'aretz).

If you look at the history of his articles, you'd find they are very reasonable and non-reactionary.

And I agree that the wall-barrier must be opposed, especially for the Palestinians, but also for Israelis (and the region as a whole in fact).

[papau]

11. I believe the article is not wishful thinking- and I see no other solution

Besides the option to have a withdrawal behind the wall and letting whoever is in the non-Israeli territory have at it to see who runs the place - with the PA Gaza and West Bank Cantons becoming a wild west where the folks there decide their gov however they want to - what other option do the Israeli's have that maintains a Jewish state?

By Definition a single state ends the Jewish state.

By Definiition a massive right of return ends a Jewish state.

If there is an option to get to a more peaceful Israel - since we have given up on peace - where the Jewish state continues as a Jewish state - without a wall, I have not seen it.

If the new Geneva plan is approved by the PA - formally - agreeing to the very very limited right of return, or the referendum on "what do you want" changes the PA hearts - in the fellows in PA power - then the wall is gone in a New York minute.

But we have DU folks that feel anything less than a right of return ending the "jewish majority" in the Israeli demographics is forbidden - international law and all that stuff which has been ignored in every other conflict resolution can not be ignored here - so I doubt we will see the PA moving off of terrorist center for the next few generations.

[bluesoul]

12. Well

You may doubt Papau, many don't. Palestinians also want peace in the end, whatever you might think...

[Sesquipedalian]

13. that wall isn't going anywhere

People have a bad habit of imagining the Israeli government is driven by ideas and concepts that care one bit about Palestinians and it doesn't.

The wall gets the most land with the least Arabs and if you look at any bit of Israeli history that deals with their military policies that idea trumps peace or security or anything else you can think of every time.

[tinnypriv]

14. What does kicking people off their land in Qalqiliya/Abu Dis have to do

With a Jewish State?

Answer: zero.

[The Magistrate]

15. Were The Wall Running Along The Green Line, Mr. Papau

We would be in complete agreement.

If the areas of the Palestine Authority become a "Wild West", that is the concern of the people of Arab Palestine. They may well do something to put their own affairs in order; few people actively desire, or long will willingly tolerate, chaos on that order.

Both "single state" and wholesale repatriation are indeed things aiming at the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and will never, accordingly, be accepted by Israel, nor will it ever be possible to impose either by any means short of the complete military defeat of Israel, which is not a possiblity in any foreseeable future.

[papau]

16. At Taba it was Green line +3.5% on offer, 6.5% requested - I am still

amazed that they did not end up with a deal.

I agree Sharon's current Green line plus 10% (the Western security wall if it does not reach out to pick up the Ar'il settlement) is a land grab, which makes the Green line plus 44% if the Easter Security wall is built with Ar'il on the Israeli side and the PA left with Swiss "Cantons" a huge land grab. If peace were on the line I suspect Israel would take the 3.5% adjustment that was on offer in Jan 2000 - but the rule then by the PA was that until all is agreed, nothing is agreed - so I do not know if the 3.5% was real - or attached to a right of return.

In any case - if there is no reason to moderate the land grab - like a reduction in terror - I do not see how Sharon will be convinced to moderate it.

And by this time next year - this will all be past tense - and new facts will be on the ground - and it will be very hard to go back to Taba.

Indeed the new Geneva Plan is close to Taba, and Arafat says he likes it - but does not say he accepts it. I suspect there is a 9 month window on getting something fair for the PA - fair being defined by me as like Taba.

[bluesoul]

17. Facts on the ground

New facts on the ground? You mean land grabbing and stealing. Facts on the ground mean nothing if you have international law and UN conventions to respect. In the end Israel will have to do that, like it or not.Which means pulling out of the OT.

[tinnypriv]

18. This has ZERO to do with the PA

Let me get this right:

Some premises:

1. The US doesn't support Geneva
2. Israel doesn't either.

3. Arafat says he likes it, but does not speak the exact words you're looking for.

And your conclusion:

The PA is the problem?

[The Magistrate]

Indeed, Mr. Papau

It has always seemed to me criminal folly that President Clinton's negotiated proposals were not accepted by Arafat. It is impossible to argue that the current situation represents any sort of improvement over the situation then current, either in the state of the people of Arab Palestine, or in the prospects for securing their legitimate aspirations.

While you are doubtless correct concerning Sharon's attitudes and motivation, it does not seem wise to me to condition not annexing land on an end to armed activity by the various Arab Palestinian irregular bodies. First, Israel has no real right to annex more land, and second, the annexation of land is certain to increase the support of ordinary Arab Palestinians for those armed bodies, and thus lead to greater activity by them.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Taba...

I understood that the Taba talks were informal non-binding discussions only where they could see how close they were on some issues, and that they took place after Barak resigned as Israeli PM and before Sharon beat him at the next election. And I thought it was Barak, not Arafat who brought an early end to the negotiations...

I found a joint Israeli-Palestinian statement on the Taba talks

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/Taba1.html

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

19. The Machine Hiccoughed

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[papau]

20. Amen to that thought - and I agree doing the right thing - not fencing in

more than the 3.5% on offer, or at least less than the 5.6% that Barak said was the minimum, at Taba - has its own rewards -

Of course Green line exactness will always be the call - even here at DU! - but I would think it would help the Israeli self-image if they did the minimum that was on offer or needed at Taba.

As to someone saying Arafat is not a problem re Geneva - well, the history of what Arafat "says" and then does - even in which lanuage he says it in - is for scholars - Until submitted to the PA legislature and approved, nothing will happen - no one is going to take Arafat at his "word".

[tinnypriv]

21. I think you missed the point

You're choosing to focus on Arafat, when the US government is on CLEAR AND EXPLICIT record as not supporting Geneva.

Which is the problem to tackle first, considering you're an American:

1. Arafat not explicitly supporting Geneva (virtually the same as the position of Shimon Peres)

or

2. The US government outright rejecting the accords categorically.

?

If you're interested in implementing something close to Taba, honesty would suggest door number 2.

[papau]

22. With Bush as President there will be no pressure from the US - so

what the US does is not important to getting something done

I agree getting rid of Bush is job 1 - but another track is possible in the meantime, in my opinion, as I believe the Israeli 's would accept Generva if they were certain the PA accepted Generva.

So I focus - not on Arafat - but on the PA legislature and its vote - if there is one - on Generva. What Arafat says does not really matter, as his words are unlikely to convey his intentions - at least not "exactly".

And yes - the rejection by State of the Accords - saying the US policy is the "road map and nothing else" - was a downer. But it was also something that the Dems can do nothing about until we have at least one of the houses in the legislature, or we have a Dem president.

[Sesquipedalian]

23. You really believe a democrat would?

I'll bet you anything the first thing the new democrats state department would do regarding Israel would be to reclassify the West Bank and Gaza from Occupied Territories to Disputed Territories. Clinton's state department did this when it came in.

Palestinians are all on their own, no one from either party is going to pressure Israel. Pressure them with what? No way is anyone going to grab the purse strings and especially not a Democrat. Maybe, just maybe, if they are acting especially evil they will wind up getting less of a raise than they ask for (but still a raise in aid) like back when Reagan was president and supposedly angry about Lebanon.

[papau]

29. Clinton did indeed use "Disputed Territories" - but he also pushed

very hard for a fair settlement - Taba being as close as he got.

I grant you the formal proposals he got from Israel at the Camp David Talks sucked if viewed from a PA viewpoint. But again Taba was - and is the solution.

And I think any Dem president will have no problem to where Clinton Left off and presure the heck out of whatever is the Gov of Israel at the time.

The thing about Taba is that it is fair so the GOP can not dump on it. The Pa gives up right of return plus some small slivers of land compared to the Green line - and that is really all they should be asked to give up. The Pnac folks controlling the Bush whitehouse would have no influence in a Dem whitehouse.

It really is past the time for discussing "international Law - if it exists" and Moral or historic right to the land. The only agreement possible is Taba - or the Geneva variation of Taba - so lets agree and give the kids in the region a future.

[Sesquipedalian]

30. What part did Clinton have to play in Taba?

Taba was January of 2001!

[papau]

35. Until Jan 20, 2001, Bush was not President.

:-)

:toast:

:-)

night!

[Darranar]

38. He is today?

I assume you mean illegitimate president?

[Sesquipedalian]

49. Taba was the 22nd through the 28th

If anything I think you could make a case that Clinton leaving and uncertainty of what the Bush state deparment might do led the Israeli's to be a bit more conciliatory.

[papau]

50. Clinton Parameters for Taba accepted 12/28/2000 by all sides

http://www.fmep.org/documents/clinton_parameters12-23-00.html
The Clinton Parameters
December 23rd, 2000
(Note: After the failure of the Camp David Summit in July, 2000 to achieve a peace agreement between Israeli and Palestinian delegations led, respectively, by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, negotiations continued between the two sides and gaps between the parties on various issues were narrowed, but there was no comprehensive agreement. In a last ditch effort, U.S. President Bill Clinton offered the following "Parameters" on December 23 to Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at a meeting in the White House. President Clinton's "Parameters" were not the terms of a final deal, but guidelines for final accelerated negotiations he hoped could be concluded in the coming weeks. He said his terms would not be binding on his successor when he would leave office in January 2001.
Arafat, after a delay, accepted the Clinton parameters, but with questions and reservations. Barak accepted the parameters, but Israel's position was also equivocal. The parameters laid the foundation for the final negotiations that took place in January 2001 at Taba before the election of Ariel Sharon in February 2001 that effectively ended the peace process. )

CLINTON FRAMEWORK ACCEPTED BY ISRAEL/PA 12/28/2000: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/beilin.html


http://www.ariga.com/treaties/taba.shtml
Miguel Moratinos, the European Union's on-the-ground-envoy to the Middle East, was an observer/participant at the Taba peremantne status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, at the end of both the Clinton and Barak administrations The following is his version of what was accomplished and what was not at those talks held in late 2000 and early 2001, in the Egyptian resort, Taba, just over the border from the Israeli port-resort, Eilat
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_taba.php
In December 2000, talks were held with Israeli and Palestinian teams in Washington hosted by President Clinton who presented a bridging proposal to the parties aimed at ending the al Aqsa intifada. That proposal was taken up at marathon talks between Israeli and Palestinian delegations at the Egyptian resort of Taba between January 22 and January 28, 2001.

[Equinox]

47. Magistrate...with the facts on the ground...

the Two State Solution is equally if not more impossible than the One State Solution.

Just my opinion though.

[Equinox]

46. Worth repeating

By Definiition a massive right of return ends a Jewish state.

Not at all. Just means the end of Israel as a racist state.

Edit: fixed something

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Just because you say it

Doesn't make it true.

Israel is the homeland for the religious/ethnic/cultural group that is the Jewish people. Many nations are homelands to such groups.

[Equinox]

63. Just because you deny it...doesn't make it false. n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. No it is obviously false

Race is not the sole determining factor.

[Equinox]

45. Agreed, Magistrate....

Today, we are all Palestinians

[Jim Sagle]

61. Speak for yourself.

[Equinox]

64. I am.

Today, we are all Palestinians

See. Said it all by myself.

[bemildred]

7. I wonder what prompts this sudden burst of honesty?

Edit: Ah, I see its a hopeful extrapolation.

[tinnypriv]

24. And quite handily, Ma'ariv publishes an exclusive route of the wall

Crap quality map though:



http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/568/206.html

Quick key (though I'm sure this will hit places like PENGON, EI etc):



For anybody unclear, the break is around Ari'el (due to U.S. pressure).

[tinnypriv]

25. Quick assessment

Doesn't nulify the Geneva Accords, but is worse than them.

Is better than recent projections to the west of Ramallah, also better than recent projections to the south-east of Hebron.

Is also completely illegal (but that is of no importance to US/Israeli planners).

:eyes:

[tinnypriv]

31. In addition

These "double barriers" are monsterous crimes on the scale of South African bastustans. Probably worse in fact.

Soviet Africa if you like (Berlin + Apartheid).

:grr:

[Equinox]

48. I like that....

I'm just going to refer to the WB and Gaza as Soviet Africa.

You might want to trademark that term. I have a feeling it might be worth some duckets.

:eyes:

[Aidoneus]

26. Israel Publishes Map of Planned Barrier (+Sharon's eastern wall idea)

thanks for the map..

Israel Publishes Map of Planned Barrier
33 minutes ago
By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - For the first time, Israel published a detailed map Friday of its planned security barrier, which would encircle tens of thousands of Palestinians, cutting them off from the rest of the West Bank, while keeping about 80 percent of Jewish settlers on the Israeli side of the fence.

The fence's snaking path, sloping from flat land up into mountains, cuts deep into the West Bank and will likely enflame already fierce international opposition.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the military also was planning a final section of the barrier in the eastern area of the West Bank and would soon present it to the Cabinet. That section, which would cut Palestinians off from the Jordan Valley, would likely pass a few miles from the Jordan River, he said in a TV interview.

"The route is being planned now. The moment it will be completed, it will be presented to the government," Sharon said.

--snip--

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=721&e=7&u=/ap/20031024/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

[bluesoul]

27. Crimes

against humanity!

[tinnypriv]

28. Thanks for the link

Ravi beat me by 1 minute :D

Check this out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12898-2003Oct24.html

Washington Post gets down and blows fat-boy without even being asked. Notice how "barrier" is the word on Nessman's filed AP report, yet WP changes it to "fence"?

This Orwell shit is getting waaay too much. :eyes:

[papau]

33. That's a 10/3 map - is it also the final version?

Some other recent maps are at below links:

http://www.btselem.org/Images/Maps/Jerusalem_Fence_Eng.pdf

http://www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt/report1/ocha_wall1_page11.pdf

But I can not find todays "final" map!

[tinnypriv]

36. That is todays map

The one all the wire articles are referring to. It was only published today (24/10/03).

It isn't based on projections like others before today - it is the official version of the GOI (the first of its kind published, hence the interest).

[Aidoneus]

39. can't quite tell from the map

is it still the plan to encircle Tulkarm & Qalqilyah (among others)?

[Aidoneus]

40. of possible note, B'Tselem's from the 15th

doesn't have today's final updates, and does not speculate on the really sadistic eastern section, but is very detailed..
http://www.btselem.org/Images/Maps/Full_Fence_Map_2003_Eng.pdf

[tinnypriv]

42. Yeah, got that, PENGON's is better

http://www.pengon.org/wall/poster.html

(the PDF) :)

[Aidoneus]

44. damn..

that's detailed, never had a PDF slow down my computer like that before. :)

[papau]

52. It is a great map-I posted the html version in this thread - but 7/03 date

means it does not show what the latest version is.

[tinnypriv]

69. The latest (and official one) is the one I posted

:)

[papau]

51. great map - thanks for posting!

:-)



This is easier to read but is dated early July 2003

[tinnypriv]

41. Qalkilya is already 99% done

But it is my understanding that Tulkarm will not be encircled by the main barrier. An additional fence is planned, which isn't detailed on this map (or is, but is not visible).

[tinnypriv]

32. US ends efforts to halt Israel's security wall - Financial Times

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565357054

[Resistance]

34. excuse me, FT

but when did the U.S. ever make an "effort" in the first place?

[Saudade]

37. Bush

I can only imagine the sort of jokes that Ariel Sharon tells about his sock puppet Bush in private venues.

I think Bush is completely intimidated on every level by the obese war criminal.

[Equinox]

43. The Understatement of the Year Award goes to:

....drum roll please.....

veer into the West Bank, the activists said.

veer!

When you nudge the white line on the highway you would veer into the next lane. In this case, Israel has used the exit ramp straight from the left lane crossing all four lanes!