Israel to push ahead with plans for unilateral moves if summit with Pal...

[Herschel]

Israel will push forward with plans to withdraw from some Palestinian areas and draw its own borders if a summit between Israeli and Palestinian leaders next week doesn't revive a peace plan, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Saturday.

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders tentatively agreed to meet Tuesday if a final planning session goes well on Sunday.

cut

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/13/international1342EST0555.DTL

Israel is developing a solution in concert with America. Unfortunate that the Palestinians have never been able to reign in terror and be a partner in the process. At this point, they will simply be informed of developments.

[BEZARK]

1. They will undoubtedly make a repy though.

I'd skip the bus ride for pizza when in Tel Aviv.

[_Jumper_]

2. An imposed solution would not be seen as legitimate

Outside of Israel and the US. The threat of an imposed solution is a good bargaining chip, but does anyone really think Sharon wants true peace and a just settlement?

[GabysPoppy]

4. Israel wants Peace and a Settlement

They would also like an entity to negotiate with that has the same goal.

[_Jumper_]

6. Israelis do, so do Palestinians

But their leaders don't.

[Kyuss rocks]

7. What goal is that?

If you don't mind my asking.

[GabysPoppy]

8. Peace and a settlement

n/t necessary

[_Jumper_]

10. Sharon and Likud want peace and a just settlement?

Since you equate the PA with Palestinians, you must equate Israel's government with Israelis.

[GabysPoppy]

11. This is what I said

"Israel wants Peace and a Settlement

They would also like an entity to negotiate with that has the same goal."


You decided to "REWRITE" my words to say Sharon and Likud.

:shrug:

[Kyuss rocks]

12. What do you think of Bush's policy towards Israel?

Is there anything worth criticizng about it? It seems to me he's the most pro-Israeli (or pro-Likud, if you will) president since Tricky Dick.

[Lithos]

16. Strawman

And non-sequitor to what GP said. To support Israel does not automatically mean supporting or agreeing with either Sharon or Bush.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. True...

To support Israel does not automatically mean supporting or agreeing with either Sharon or Bush.

And to support Israel does not automatically mean that people can't also support the Palestinians. That point seems to get overlooked constantly in this forum...

Obviously it's clear that to support Israel doesn't mean supporting Bush's policies, I don't think it's as clear as that when it comes to Sharon's policies. There are some people who believe that if someone publicly criticises Sharon's policies, they're anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic, and try to make out that people voicing legitimate criticism of those policies are blaming everything on Israel, and they'd even blame Israel for their poor moggy getting squished by a passing car. Anyway, I think it's very possible to support Israel without having to publicly agree with most if not all of Sharon's policies regarding the Occupied Territories, and there's definately been 'pro-Israel' folk that do that. The unfortunate thing is that they're the exception rather than the norm, and when they do pop up in articles and on forums, they're like a breath of fresh air...

Violet...

[GabysPoppy]

17. I have said this more than once

bush* is the biggest anti-Semite on this planet. Anything he does vis a vis Israel is for his benefit and no one else's.

If he could envision a profit in tossing Israel into the sea he wouldn't have to think twice.

bush* is evil personified. He is "pro-BFEE" and nothing else.

*bush is not a human. I am confident that upon his death, even hell will reject him.

I hope I have answered your question.

[lefty_mcduff]

18. Bravo.

Well said, old chum....

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Then what you should have said was...

"Israelis wants Peace and a Settlement..."

Nah, that wouldn't have worked, because the next sentence was: 'They would also like an entity to negotiate with that has the same goal.' The Israeli people aren't expected to negotiate with other governments. It's the entity that's the govt of Israel (and this includes Sharon and Likud) that's supposed to do that...

I'm sure that the vast majority of Israelis would want peace and a settlement. The crunch is what they see as peace and a settlement. For quite a few, that would mean Israel (with the Occupied Territories included as part of Israel) having peace and even if it meant forced transfer of the Palestinians, they'd still classify it as peace. For many others, it would mean what it means to me and other 'pro-Palestinian' posters here, and that is a peaceful settlement to the conflict that is fair for both people and has an end result of two states living peacefully side by side with borders that are secure and defined, and with both states being independent. Using that meaning, which should be the one that every single person in this forum agrees with, Sharon and his govt (shorthand term = Israel) are most definately not interested in peace...

It's a bit amusing to try reading things using the concept that using the name of a state isn't talking about it's leadership, but about the people of the state. I've read a lot of criticism of the US both here at DU and elsewhere, and it puts a whole new light on comments like: 'The US decision to drop an atom bomb on Hiroshima....' Strangely enough, I'd always thought it was the leadership of the US who made that decision, not the American population ;)

Violet...

[TahitiNut]

15. A paradox wrapped in many conundrums.

It's arguable that "Israel" is sufficiently monolithic in either their goals or the means to achieve them. Even at the conjecturally simplest, not everyone wants 'peace' (under whatever conditions one might hypothesize) when some regard its antithesis to be their self-interest. Even those who might, to one degree or another, desire peace usually annotate their desire with a plethora of differing fine print.

The same can be said of their various opposing factions, whether one nominates them as "Palestinians" or anything else. No matter what "entity" might be nominated as representing some collection of factions in this conflict, the questions of legitimacy and assurance will certainly continue.

If there's anything that seems certain, it is that conditions in the Middle East which have been extant for over 50 years (two generations) have given rise to (and attracted) a vast array of interests, both locally and globally, having more self-interest in conflict than in peace.

For sure, though, they aren't the ones doing much of the dying -- on any "side."

[ex_jew]

3. I believe that borders represent an agreement between two states

Without that agreement, there is no border. Those who feel the border belongs in the other man's land are not going to be stopped by a line on a map, and of course the "defenders" will feel free to pursue insurgents back across the same imaginary line. What has been gained ?

[_Jumper_]

5. Land and water

The Palestinians will have to subsist in Bandustans because of Likud and the GOP.

[Kyuss rocks]

13. Thank you for pointing that out. eom

[Darranar]

9. Yes, who cares about the stupid Palestinians?

"Human rights", "self-determination", "international law"... All that stuff is just worthless fluff invented by extreme leftists.

Us pragmatists know that the best way to stop hatred and terrorism is to oppress the population even further and steal more land. That will make them hate Israel even more, therefore making them hate Israel less. This will stop terrorism.

[Kyuss rocks]

14. That seems to be the mindset of many.

Sadly.