Bush hails 'historic' Sharon plan

[cut]

Bush hails 'historic' Sharon plan


US President George W Bush has hailed Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plans to disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

Mr Bush called Mr Sharon's proposals "historic and courageous".

He restated his commitment to a Palestinian state, but appeared to rule out one which included the whole West Bank, saying realities on the ground had changed.

But Yasser Arafat said US backing for the plan would wreck all peace hopes.

A statement from the Palestinian leader's office said American endorsement of Mr Sharon's settlement plans "will settle the issues that were up for negotiation in the final-status talks and will lead to the destruction of... the peace process".


West Bank settlers (not including East Jerusalem): 240,000
Settlement block populations:
Maale Adumim - 30,000
Ariel - 18,000
Kiryat Arba - 4,000
Hebron enclave - 500
Givat Zeev - 10,000
Gush Etzion - 30,000

The "disengagement" plan envisages Israel uprooting all settlements on the Gaza Strip but holding on to six settlement blocs in the West Bank.

Palestinians fear US approval of Mr Sharon's plan could scupper the "roadmap" and with it, their chances of establishing a state that includes all of the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr Sharon's proposal to uproot settlements also faces fierce opposition from cabinet right-wingers and the settlers' lobby back in Israel.

Observers say Mr Sharon is hoping that Mr Bush's endorsement of the plan will win over doubters, sceptics and opponents in Israel.

His Likud party is to hold a binding vote on the issue on 2 May.

Many settlers also say they feel betrayed by Mr Sharon, who was seen as the champion of the settler movement.

About 92,500 Israelis live in the six settlements - out of a total of 240,000 in the West Bank, or 400,000 if east Jerusalem is included.

Another 7,500 live in enclaves in the Gaza Strip, alongside 1.3 million Palestinians.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3626945.stm

Published: 2004/04/14 17:24:33 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Anyone else think this might be a major strategic mistake?

[Javehn]

From what aspect ?

[cut]

more then one; with the current problems in Iraq such a hig profile u-turn is exactly what isn't needed. Also backing each pther for re-election often backfires, e.g. Major supporting Bush Snr's re-election. At the moment Blair is not backing either Bush or Kerry, because he knows that it often backfires.

I meant a strategic mistake in terms of I.R. not internal Israeli politics btw. I don't know enough right now to judge the isreali situation.

[duck]

Dubya is proud to be just an Israeli tool. Any laid-back dinners with messieurs Ledeen or Perle lately?

[UkrainianAmerican]

Dubya is proud to be just an Israeli tool. Any laid-back dinners with messieurs Ledeen or Perle lately?
:bash:

[duck]

His idiotic statement will be used by the Iraqi insurgents to the full extent. Every word spoken by Dubya just now is measured in blood.

[SeanAshi]

Dubya is proud to be just an Israeli tool. One allie looking afther the other..all the arab countries have each other, Israel has the United States.

[IDFM203]

Dubya is proud to be just an Israeli tool. Any laid-back dinners with messieurs Ledeen or Perle lately?Yep I wasn’t sure before (even though from your past postings I should have been more sure) and as such I kept it to myself but I knew for sure for now that your zionist title before in another thread that you started the other day is what you actually believe and you weren’t being sarcastic at all.

Oh and well you can think he is an Israeli tool I look at it the exact opposite.

That 3b a year buys you to be in almost full control of what we do whereas we need to visit overtime we need something done for our own defense and it restrains us in our defense, something which you wouldn’t do if you were in the same situation (and in fact you are in much less of one and yet your nation has acted much less restrained then how you have demanded we be for the past few years)

As for Leeden and pearl yes keep on believing that nonsense, I guess you believe that I am acutely in my location that I claim I am or that it even exists :roll:

Shalom :D

[Mr. Nielsen]

Anyone else think this might be a major strategic mistake?

With the serious situation in Iraq, it is certainly not the right time for president Bush to show weakness.

[Rantanplan]

Dubya is proud to be just an Israeli tool. Any laid-back dinners with messieurs Ledeen or Perle lately?

Idiot

[IDFM203]

Anyone else think this might be a major strategic mistake?

With the serious situation in Iraq, it is certainly not the right time for president Bush to show weakness.haha ;) very smart way of saying excatly the same stupid thing that what duck said (I give you credit for the way you put it ;) )

No Sharon showed weakness by begging to do something and flying over to ask permission for something for our own defense, and that thing IMO is also a sign of weakness in that it will be perceived by our enemies as a sign of weakness!!

I guess we both arent the biggest fans of Sharon ;) (we might afterall have something in common p-) )

Shalom :D

[duck]

Well, how bright would you rate those statements right now when soldiers are dying in Iraq trying to prove the opposite, that the USA is not biased in the Israel/Palestine conflict? It does not even matter what the Prez thinks in private or how his aides view the issue, but to provoke the Arab world at this moment is irresponsible and downright crazy.

Lobby groups for various causes do exist, I have to inform you. Some are paid by China, some by Microsoft, some by Jewish organisations. Having several people in the administration with an open ear for Israel does not constitute a "Zionist conspiracy" but should be open knowledge. That's democracy.

Btw, I realize how revolutionary Sharon's new attitude has been for the religious right in Israel. But how to explain that to the Shiite working poor in Iraq?

[IDFM203]

Well, how bright would you rate those statements right now when soldiers are dying in Iraq trying to prove the opposite, that the USA is not biased in the Israel/Palestine conflict? It does not even matter what the Prez thinks in private or how his aides view the issue, but to provoke the Arab world at this moment is irresponsible and downright crazy. First of all no matter what he will provoke the Arab world…believe me he cant say a word of anything without provoking them,…..gee you can do what’s right or you can always pander to the Arab world.

Israel is also at war and frankly I am disgusted that sharon even needs to go ask permission for our own defense but I guess that is what your 3b pays for (haha and you say that bush is a tool for Israel :roll: )

Israel needs to do something NOW while our soldiers and citizens are also dying and as such the president IMO with some of his statements only spoke the reality as in Israel indeed is not going to accacpt a right of return and that we aren’t going back to the green line (and no that has nothing to do with religious reason whatsoever).



Lobby groups for various causes do exist, I have to inform you. Some are paid by China, some by Microsoft, some by Jewish organisations. Having several people in the administration with an open ear for Israel does not constitute a "Zionist conspiracy" but should be open knowledge. That's democracy. indeed lobby groups exist as does oil lobbies as does Arab lobbies and those two combined IMO also make a big dent in the decision making in the U.S

There are several people in that administration (James Baker for one) that have an ear for oil and Arab interests as well.

But you framed it as Bush is a tool and that is a bit more then mere democracy and lobbies but is verging on absurdities of the usual BS anti semetic conspiracies of BS Zionist control theories


Btw, I realize how revolutionary Sharon's new attitude has been for the religious right in Israel. But how to explain that to the Shiite working poor in Iraq? first of all sharon doesn’t need to explain OUR security to anyone in Iraq or anywhere else…he needs to explain it to us, period!!.

Btw I am unhappy with him as well so I guess we have something in common.

As for your statement “revolutionary Sharon's new attitude has been for the religious right” perhaps you should elberate exactly as to what you mean here for I can go in many directions and I prefer to not misunderstand what you are saying.

Btw just note that I am not religious nor is many that think like me religious and yet we still have our views and as such I caution you not to make a fallacy in assuming that everyone who opposes some of what sharon did from a right POV is some religious person for many are NOT!!


Shalom :D

[ExtraT]

Anyone else think this might be a major strategic mistake?

With the serious situation in Iraq, it is certainly not the right time for president Bush to show weakness.

How are the crosses, Mr. Nielsen? rofl

[UkrainianAmerican]

Anyone else think this might be a major strategic mistake?

With the serious situation in Iraq, it is certainly not the right time for president Bush to show weakness.
Actually he showed STRENGTH is his defiance against the "Arabs Street's humble feelings"

[ExtraT]

I meant a strategic mistake in terms of I.R. not internal Israeli politics btw. I don't know enough right now to judge the isreali situation.

Well, I think it's an attempt to show that the infamous "road map" is still alive. Which of course is a complete bul****, since the withdrawal is completely unilateral.

Also, "Pals" will certainly not play for Bush, and will make every effort to prove that "roadmap" is in fact dead.

So, it may very well be a mistake.

For Israel, I believe, withdrawl from Gaza is an absolutely right course of action. We never were interested in Gaza. It is an uncontrollable snakepit, even Egypt doesn't want it back. And the Gaza settlements will be relocated to Judeah and Samaria, so we are not really losing any territory.

One thing that we absolutely MUST do is level these sttlements, before pulling out. It's "Pals'" wet dream to capture the Jewish homes - let's not give them the satisfaction. p-)

[talib_killa34]

The problem is the failure to rein in Hamas...

As if the PA even could if it wanted to.

[MEGR]

I stand by Israel, and I'm happy that the Prez stood up for them like he should.. Like a true ally. Unlike some of our other "allies," Israel sticks by us when needed also.

[cut]

Whatever the other reasons are I think claiming that it would contribute to peace and/or freedom in the middleeast is blatant bull**** and they know it. I don't know who they are aiming those kinds of comments at, maybe the american public? or the global audience whoever it is they are taking them for fools.

[cut]

I stand by Israel, and I'm happy that the Prez stood up for them like he should.. Like a true ally. Unlike some of our other "allies," Israel sticks by us when needed also.

Despite being the first US president ever to do it?

[IDFM203]

Whatever the other reasons are I think claiming that it would contribute to peace and/or freedom in the middleeast is blatant bull**** and they know it. IPerhaps it wont bring peace or freedom to the middle east (btw did he say that) and its becouse of this move? :roll: IMO Sharon is doing this for he like me (even though I actually have problems with what he did but its more from a right POV) believe that after Israel in the 90’s already pulled out of every pali’ town and city and yet the killings never stopped and the incitement and non-acceptance of Israel never stopped and after Barak offered basically everything and it was rejected by a war, well we realize that real and genuine accaptence and peace is frankly unattainable from the other side simply because a lot of them (including the Arab world) want the whole Israel and nothing less will satisfy and as such the next best thing is to have secure and defensible borders and that is what this is all about.

I mean they had their chance and they rejected it so of course after four years of war things aren’t going to be the same or that everything that was offered before will be offered again.No life doesnt work that way, a right of return (which is suicide for Israel) which was never on the table, though some compromises of letting in some was before on and a full withdrawal which was but indeed is now off the table and IMO should not ever be on the table with the present realties in place and IMO bush recognizes those relities and his statements simply are coming to terms with that as opposed to contiuning on with false hopes that the other side was never going to live up to regardless of what Israel did or didnt do.

You say it wont bring peace I say nothing short of abandoning the whole Israel, would anything Israel did or didn’t do or what bush said or didnt say bring any peace.

Its about time Israel move more aggressively to make our borders more secure instead of falling for another suicidal process and further making big moves for false hopes (as Oslo clearly proved) that were never going to happen from the other side regardless of what Israel did or didn’t do.


Shalom :D

[IDFM203]

I stand by Israel, and I'm happy that the Prez stood up for them like he should.. Like a true ally. Unlike some of our other "allies," Israel sticks by us when needed also.

Despite being the first US president ever to do it?I think I might agree with you though I am not sure exactly what you are saying and I don’t want to misunderstand it so perhaps can you elaborate on what exactly you meant here?


Shalom :D

[cut]

I stand by Israel, and I'm happy that the Prez stood up for them like he should.. Like a true ally. Unlike some of our other "allies," Israel sticks by us when needed also.

Despite being the first US president ever to do it?I think I might agree with you though I am not sure exactly what you are saying and I don’t want to misunderstand it so perhaps can you elaborate on what exactly you meant here?


Shalom :D

I'll try.

George W Bush is the first US president ever, republican or democratic, to give such a strong backing to a politically sensitive plan such as this one. I expect he is not the only one to have thought of it that way but the other presidents would not have said anything, because of the US's role as mediator. But to me this seems to be even more thoughtless because of the risk to troops, and the delicate balancing act, in Iraq.


I think Europeans should become medeators in peace talks if Bush gets re-elected.

[IDFM203]

I'll try.

George W Bush is the first US president ever, republican or democratic, to give such a strong backing to a politically sensitive plan such as this one. ok yes he is the first to endorse a more IMO realistic plan (even though I personally disagree with certin aspects of it) for security instead of backing false hopes and unrealistic plans such as in the past where in fact Israel made the big moves (like pulling out of every Pali' city and town etc… and barak offered much more etc…) and yet we never got anything in return nor was there ever a change in any a level of thier non-acceptance for Israel


I expect he is not the only one to have thought of it that way but the other presidents would not have said anything, its not about who thought of it or not and in fact this was not a U.S. plan at all, Clinton for example would not have supported this no matter what just like a left labor Barak gov. wouldn’t support this (well maybee now he does ;) ).

Hell just like you are more on the left I am more on the right, it’s a difference of opinion and IMO a difference of a reality view on what is the real realities that we face (and I feel that history in my conflict has proven me to be correct).


because of the US's role as mediator. ok U.S. is a mediater and is supposed to be fair but where did it ever come down on the palis for never living up to any of their deals after Israel pulled out and then after Barak offered etc…??

No IMO it was a mediator under Clinton to a disadvantage to Israel but I guess you see it differntly (as per a right/left view of things)

So now IMO he is making up for it based on the real realties that Israel has always faced.

I mean for you nothing short of Israel only compromising or the U.S. only demanding that Israel only comprise will make it seem fair to you.



But to me this seems to be even more thoughtless because of the risk to troops, and the delicate balancing act, in Iraq. well that is debatable for I contest that Bush, no matter what he says or does, cant do any right in terms of the Arab world, Anyways Sharon was going to do this anyways as is our defense our right to act as such and Bush can either live up to what he preaches about how he defends his nation or he can not.

I think this time he chose to live up to what he preaches


I think Europeans should become medeators in peace talks if Bush gets re-elected. what?? :roll: :roll: That is so absurd from an Israeli POV that I am not even going to bother to make a detailed answer as to why.

Even if Bush didnt get reelected (or if he does) or even if Bush or the U.S. cut off relations, Israel will not nor should it turn to Europe to be a “mediator” (I mean you might accuse Bush of favoring Israel but the exact opposite is true with regards to who Europe favors and to how Israel is falsely portrayed in alot of europe)

Shalom :D

[cut]

I'll try.

George W Bush is the first US president ever, republican or democratic, to give such a strong backing to a politically sensitive plan such as this one.

ok yes he is the first to endorse a more IMO realistic plan (even though I personally disagree with certin aspects of it) for security instead of backing false hopes and unrealistic plans such as in the past where in fact Israel made the big moves (like pulling out of every Plai city and town etc… and barak offered much more etc…) and yet we never got anything in return nor was there ever a change in any a level of thier non-acceptance for Israel


Yes but on the other hand what is the point of endorsing a realistic plan that works away from peace.



I expect he is not the only one to have thought of it that way but the other presidents would not have said anything, its not about who thought of it or not and in fact this was not a U.S. plan at all, Clinton for example would not have supported this no matter what just like a left labor Barak gov. wouldn’t support this (well maybee now he does ;) ).
Hell just like you are more on the left I am more on the right, it’s a difference of opinion and IMO a difference of a reality view on what is the real realities that we face (and I feel that history in my conflict has proven me to be correct).

Wasn't this kind of plan inconcievable with any other US president?

I don't think this is necessarily a matter of left and right.




because of the US's role as mediator. ok U.S. is a mediater and is supposed to be fair but where did it ever come down on the palis for never living up to any of their deals after Israel pulled out and then after Barak offered etc…??

No IMO it was a mediator under Clinton to a disadvantage to Israel but I guess you see it differntly (as per a right/left view of things)

So now IMO he is making up for it based on the real realties that Israel has always faced.

I mean for you nothing short of Israel only compromising or the U.S. only demanding that Israel only comprise will make it seem fair to you.

Mediation under Clinton was the most successful in terms of peace, conflict resolution was one of his strong points, where as you can be sure Bush will never miss a conflict.

You may see mediation as disadvantagious to Israel when done properly, but you must always make sacrifices for peace. And Israel is the one that is a fully fledged country so the sacrifices may seem greater.




But to me this seems to be even more thoughtless because of the risk to troops, and the delicate balancing act, in Iraq. well that is debatable for I contest that Bush, no matter what he says or does, cant do any right in terms of the Arab world, Anyways Sharon was going to do this anyways as is our defense our right to act as such and Bush can either live up to what he preaches about how he defends his nation or he can not.

I think this time he chose to live up to what he preaches

If Bush can't do anything right for the arab world at the moment he should cool it, wait for the problems in Iraq to straighten out before doing something that he knows will piss arabs off.







I think Europeans should become medeators in peace talks if Bush gets re-elected. what?? :roll: :roll: That is so absurd from an Israeli POV that I am not even going to bother to make a detailed answer as to why.

Even if Bush didnt get reelected (or if he does) or even if Bush or the U.S. cut off relations, Israel will not nor should it turn to Europe to be a “mediator” (I mean you might accuse Bush of favoring Israel but the exact opposite is true with regards to who Europe favors and to how Israel is falsely portrayed in alot of europe)

Shalom :D

and how palestine is falsely portrade in the US?
Come on! Israel has the upper hand in this they need someone that the palestinians can't instantly dismiss. And despite some of the the posts on here I know that European governments are nowhere near as close to palestine as the US is to Israel. And if that still isn't fair enough the UK could be the mediator. Do you see the UK as "being to the right" of europe?

[IDFM203]

Yes but on the other hand what is the point of endorsing a realistic plan that works away from peace. aahh?? How does it work away from peace? I simply said that it might not bring any as I don’t think any plan will bring any but working away is not something I agree with.

Secondly he endorsed a plan that the Israeli gov. came up with that IMO falls in line with his own rhetoric and what he is doing to defend his own nation.



Wasn't this kind of plan inconcievable with any other US president?

I don't think this is necessarily a matter of left and right. no I think it is a right or left issue after 911 for indeed before perhaps not with anyone INCLUDING Bush (for believe me before 911 he was as hypocritical as Clinton was as per what he said and how after he got hit on how he himself acted) but after 911 a republican/right gov, no matter who is in charge IMO would have endorsed it or more likely to and a democratic/left would not have.



Mediation under Clinton was the most successful in terms of peace, conflict resolution was one of his strong points, where as you can be sure Bush will never miss a conflict.
What?? Under Clinton we got no peace, we got an illusion of it and yet even when Israel made all the big moves (as I outlined before) it still got killings and still the hatred and non acceptance of Israel was still taught and very prevalent.

Under Clinton in fact I would argue that there was NO real accountability on the Pali’s to reciprocate in any real and genuine way (instead of the BS in English that Arafat said while in Arabic saying something else or arresting a few and then a few days later releasing them as the revolving door phrase came to be known)

There was no conflict resolution under Clinton, no all there was, was Israel making all the moves and getting nothing in return.


You may see mediation as disadvantagious to Israel when done properly, but you must always make sacrifices for peace. no I see it as such when it is done IMproperly. Israel ALREADY made BIG sacrifices and got NOTHING in return….can you tell me what the pali’s ever compromised on (and spare me the few token English words of whatever from a few of the pali elites for that was not said in Arabic frequently nor was it in English any true representation of what most of them really thought)???



If Bush can't do anything right for the arab world at the moment he should cool it,

wait for the problems in Iraq to straighten out before doing something that he knows will piss arabs off. [quote]First of all at whether this moment or at that moment he cant do anything right in their eyes especially with regards to Israel unless of course they get ALL that they want.

Secondly its not him doing it but Israel is and it was going to regardless and he can either back us as per his own rhetoric on how he defends his own nation or he can not and IMO not do the right thing,

He chose the right thing based on my opinion on what’s right to do, which is back up his own rhetoric.

Of course you want him to always pander to the Arab world well IMO you can never please them regardless of this or not doing this.
[quote]
and how palestine is falsely portrade in the US? much less then how Israel is falsely portrayed in Europe that’s for sure


Come on! Israel has the upper hand in this they need someone that the palestinians can't instantly dismiss. big mistake, and that supposed upper hand has been a huge liability in terms of perception of realties as to what exactly our upper hand is and what exactly can we do with it or what do we do with it.


And despite some of the the posts on here I know that European governments are nowhere near as close to palestine as the US is to Israel. haha ;) and you think I have my perception of Europe from posters here? :roll:

No I strongly disagree with what you just wrote (and its not based on what’s posted here).

Europe is IMO extremely biased to the Palestinians and the amount of falsehoods in Europe about Israel or how it operates IMO far exceed any bias that the U.S. has towards Israel or the amount of falsehoods that are of the Palestinians in the U.S.

BTW You know you might find this hard to believe, but there is a lot of false hoods about Israel in the U.S. as well (I mean a lot in the U.S. media is far more left wing then you might think they are).


And if that still isn't fair enough the UK could be the mediator. Do you see the UK as "being to the right" of europe? well after London’s Mayer says what he said :roll: ….also I am not going to get into who is more right or who is more left, for regardless, yes even in the UK (and btw I have many Brit friends that live there who tell me this as well) they are very hostile towards Israel (your media in general is IMO one of the worst)

So no, no one in Israel can see anyone in Europe that is fair and not biased for the Arabs.

Shalom :D

[Yard Ape]

Anyone else think this might be a major strategic mistake?Some media will find it easy to put a negative spin on this. The BBC report did not show much, but you can see where people will find a cause in more of the details:


By OLIVER MOORE
Globe and Mail Update (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040414.wbush0414_3/BNStory/Front/)

U.S. President George W. Bush told Palestinian refugees Wednesday to forget about ever returning to their ancestral homes in what is now Israel.

Indicating a major shift in policy, Mr. Bush rejected the "right of return" for Palestinians uprooted in the 1940s and suggested that Palestinians should recognize that some Jewish settlements on the West Bank are here to stay.

Leaving Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon beaming at a joint press conference in Washington, Mr. Bush sparked fury among Palestinians and Jewish settlers alike by endorsing Mr. Sharon's plan to evacuate all Gaza settlements but only some of the smaller West Bank settlements.

In furious comments to reporters in Ramallah, moderate Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia insisted that his people “will not accept” Mr. Bush's position.

“Bush is the first U.S. president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. We reject this, we will not accept it,” he told reporters at his West Bank home. “Nobody in the world has the right to give up Palestinian rights.”

A spokesman for the violent group Islamic Jihad went further.

“Bush's denial of the Palestinians' right to return were a declaration of war against the Palestinian people,” Khaled al-Batsh told *******. “Bush and Sharon will have to shoulder the responsibility for the new cycle of war.”

While Mr. Bush did not explicitly say that the United States supported Israel's keeping its biggest settlements on the West Bank – home to about a quarter million Israelis – he lauded Mr. Sharon as “historic and courageous” for his plan to clear “certain military installations and settlements” from the West Bank.

The U.S. President also twice referred to Israel as a Jewish state, alluding to arguments that allowing millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes would alter the fundamental character of the country.

"The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than Israel," he argued.

Mr. Bush said it would be "unrealistic" for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate based on the assumption of returning to 1949 armistice lines. His statement is significant because Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and has since settled hundreds of thousands of Israelis in these territories.

"The realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly in the last several decades. And any [political] settlement must take into account these realities," Mr. Bush said.

Spokesmen for settlers in the territories denounced any plan to give up land seized in 1967, saying that giving up the settlements is tantamount to surrendering to terrorism.

[citizen-k]

The plan means that Israel will get out of Gaza...

So let me get it straight, dear Europeans - you think Israel should stay in Gaza? :cantbeli:

I mean, just make up your mind already cause its damn hard to make you people happy!

As for "Israel's internal" affairs, Bush's statement will help Sharon to generate a revolution - 200,000 Likud party memebers will vote for/against this program, which might be a huge change in the Likud views and actions.

The only people who are against this plan are those who realy want the war to go on - those who hate Israel from the left and those who hate Israel from the right. (And yes, the religious population in Israel has a lot to worry about in case peace will ever come...)

Asking Israel to staty in Gaza until there is a Palestinians consent us actually asking (wanting?) Israel to stay in Gaza forever, untill it will lose the war.

[talib_killa34]

Yep. p-)

[StarvingStudent47]

The plan means that Israel will get out of Gaza...

So let me get it straight, dear Europeans - you think Israel should stay in Gaza? :cantbeli:

I mean, just make up your mind already cause its damn hard to make you people happy!

As for "Israel's internal" affairs, Bush's statement will help Sharon to generate a revolution - 200,000 Likud party memebers will vote for/against this program, which might be a huge change in the Likud views and actions.

The only people who are against this plan are those who realy want the war to go on - those who hate Israel from the left and those who hate Israel from the right. (And yes, the religious population in Israel has a lot to worry about in case peace will ever come...)

Asking Israel to staty in Gaza until there is a Palestinians consent us actually asking (wanting?) Israel to stay in Gaza forever, untill it will lose the war.

What he said. I don't see why all you Europeans are objecting to an ISRAELI WITHDRAWL plan. Unless, like Arafat, you reject any plan that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel.

[M1A2U2]

Well cut and duck, im sure you know more about this the bush administration so you have every right to critizise their decision. You should run for pres i doubt theres anyone in the world who knows more about politics than u guys.

[cut]

Well cut and duck, im sure you know more about this the bush administration so you have every right to critizise their decision. You should run for pres i doubt theres anyone in the world who knows more about politics than u guys.

This is international politics, which is what I study, I see no reason why anyone should assume Bush is doing a good job.

[cut]

Yes but on the other hand what is the point of endorsing a realistic plan that works away from peace. aahh?? How does it work away from peace? I simply said that it might not bring any as I don’t think any plan will bring any but working away is not something I agree with.


A decision that affects palestinians like this and they get no say, which obviously means they will not stand for any attempt to sort things out which means no peace. You can force peace on terrorists in the short term, but in the long term the palestinian authority has to be worked with if this is ever going to stop. What will become of those large settlements in the west bank, will they become part of "palestine" or israel?

I'm not against them being there because of the location I don't think that is palestinian land anymore then I do israeli land, but because of the problems it causes.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Yes but on the other hand what is the point of endorsing a realistic plan that works away from peace. aahh?? How does it work away from peace? I simply said that it might not bring any as I don’t think any plan will bring any but working away is not something I agree with.


A decision that affects palestinians like this and they get no say, which obviously means they will not stand for any attempt to sort things out which means no peace. You can force peace on terrorists in the short term, but in the long term the palestinian authority has to be worked with if this is ever going to stop. What will become of those large settlements in the west bank, will they become part of "palestine" or israel?

I'm not against them being there because of the location I don't think that is palestinian land anymore then I do israeli land, but because of the problems it causes.
They had their say for 3 years, by way of suicide bombings, and polls showing they support them overwhelmingly.

[cut]

not exactly voice of the people is it.

[UkrainianAmerican]

not exactly voice of the people is it.
They dont seem to mind.
O and you remeber Yassins funeral by any chance?

[cut]

not exactly voice of the people is it.
They dont seem to mind.
O and you remeber Yassins funeral by any chance?

Hamas doesn't only do terrorism, they have all sorts of schemes to help poor palestinians, a way of buying support maybe, but none the less some people don't support Hamas for their fight against israelis but because of the help they get from them.

Even then those who went to his funeral do not have to support Hamas, most people were disgusted with the way he was killed.

[Javehn]

Hamas doesn't only do terrorism, they have all sorts of schemes to help poor palestinians, a way of buying support maybe, but none the less some people don't support Hamas for their fight against israelis but because of the help they get from them.

Even then those who went to his funeral do not have to support Hamas, most people were disgusted with the way he was killed.

Unless you strongly confusing Hamas with Hisballah , the percentage of the money that helps people are pretty small , and the money goes mostly to support the families of suicide killers / fighters of the group and "Boot camps" , Anti Israel broshures and papers . All the rest goes to militant issues . God damn , they have militant organisation (Ez a Din El Kasam brigades ) inside militant organisation !

Now my friend talled me that his team captured once a Hamas guy with 4 kilo of Marijuana . I am pretty shure the guy didn't spent some of his money to buy it .

[cut]

Hamas doesn't only do terrorism, they have all sorts of schemes to help poor palestinians, a way of buying support maybe, but none the less some people don't support Hamas for their fight against israelis but because of the help they get from them.

Even then those who went to his funeral do not have to support Hamas, most people were disgusted with the way he was killed.

Unless you strongly confusing Hamas with Hisballah , the percentage of the money that helps people are pretty small , and the money goes mostly to support the families of suicide killers / fighters of the group and "Boot camps" , Anti Israel broshures and papers . All the rest goes to militant issues . God damn , they have militant organisation (Ez a Din El Kasam brigades ) inside militant organisation !

Now my friend talled me that his team captured once a Hamas guy with 4 kilo of Marijuana . I am pretty shure the guy didn't spent some of his money to buy it .

Yeah i'm probably thinking of hisballah :cantbeli: I don't know why but everytime I set out to debate about world politics involving israel, I always end up splitting hairs, about the palestinians vs. israelis argument :(

[UkrainianAmerican]

Hamas doesn't only do terrorism, they have all sorts of schemes to help poor palestinians, a way of buying support maybe, but none the less some people don't support Hamas for their fight against israelis but because of the help they get from them.

Even then those who went to his funeral do not have to support Hamas, most people were disgusted with the way he was killed.

Unless you strongly confusing Hamas with Hisballah , the percentage of the money that helps people are pretty small , and the money goes mostly to support the families of suicide killers / fighters of the group and "Boot camps" , Anti Israel broshures and papers . All the rest goes to militant issues . God damn , they have militant organisation (Ez a Din El Kasam brigades ) inside militant organisation !

Now my friend talled me that his team captured once a Hamas guy with 4 kilo of Marijuana . I am pretty shure the guy didn't spent some of his money to buy it .

Yeah i'm probably thinking of hisballah :cantbeli: I don't know why but everytime I set out to debate about world politics involving israel, I always end up splitting hairs, about the palestinians vs. israelis argument :(
p0wned! :lol:

[Javehn]

Do as i do , i hate ****ing politicians , and politics . It's ussually them , and not military that starts wars , and they are the ones who don't give an army to win the war after it's allready started . Soldiers have more respect for each other, when they don't try to kill each other that is .

[cut]

Hamas doesn't only do terrorism, they have all sorts of schemes to help poor palestinians, a way of buying support maybe, but none the less some people don't support Hamas for their fight against israelis but because of the help they get from them.

Even then those who went to his funeral do not have to support Hamas, most people were disgusted with the way he was killed.

Unless you strongly confusing Hamas with Hisballah , the percentage of the money that helps people are pretty small , and the money goes mostly to support the families of suicide killers / fighters of the group and "Boot camps" , Anti Israel broshures and papers . All the rest goes to militant issues . God damn , they have militant organisation (Ez a Din El Kasam brigades ) inside militant organisation !

Now my friend talled me that his team captured once a Hamas guy with 4 kilo of Marijuana . I am pretty shure the guy didn't spent some of his money to buy it .

Yeah i'm probably thinking of hisballah :cantbeli: I don't know why but everytime I set out to debate about world politics involving israel, I always end up splitting hairs, about the palestinians vs. israelis argument :(
p0wned! :lol:

pesky kid :P I could still argue my point but I'd have to backtrack and I'm sick of isreal/palestian argument, so I'll let you have this one..

[IDFM203]

”aahh?? How does it work away from peace? I simply said that it might not bring any as I don’t think any plan will bring any but working away is not something I agree with”

A decision that affects palestinians like this and they get no say, which obviously means they will not stand for any attempt to sort things out which means no peace. No you don’t get it, they had plenty of say before and instead of them working for peace they worked for war. In the 90’s, Israel negotiated with them and indeed made big moves like pulling out of every pali’ city and town to where they had over 95 percent autonomy over their own lives, and guess what, killing of Israelis went up (as compared to before the 90’s) and the Palestinian authority that was supposed to fight the terrorists did NOT and in fact helped as we have learnt that truth in the past few years.

I mean even when he made a show for the west and arrested a few, days later they were released in what’s now known as his revolving door policy.

Not only that, but the incitement in the schools and the rabid non-acceptance of Israel in any borders, never ceased as was supposed to happen.

Then after Barak offered to pull out of almost everything it was rejected by a war.

So after all that, indeed we are now making unilateral moves for we realize that the Palestinian authority has not worked for peace and in fact the opposite is true and in fact plenty of terrorists over the past few years have been from the Palestinian authority.

So no our security cant be dependent on their (false) promises and as such and as a result of a conclusion that there simply is no genuine peace partner on the other side, we have no choice but to make independent security decisions that will give us safe and secure borders.

That’s what this does!!

So no we aren’t moving away from peace, simply we are moving for a safer security in the absence of any peace regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do.

Lastly I repeat as for what this plan entails and why IMO it should be recognized as Israel’s right to do. “I mean they had their chance and they rejected it so of course after four years of war things aren’t going to be the same or that everything that was offered before will be offered again.No life doesnt work that way, a right of return (which is suicide for Israel) which was never on the table, though some compromises of letting in some was before on and a full withdrawal which was but indeed is now off the table and IMO should not ever be on the table with the present realties in place and IMO bush recognizes those realities and his statements simply are coming to terms with that as opposed to continuing on with false hopes that the other side was never going to live up to regardless of what Israel did or didn’t do.


Shalom :D

[citizen-k]

not exactly voice of the people is it.
Actually it is. (Hammas & Fatah are both dealing with terror & both are controlled "by the people")

Only thing is Fataf invented a thing called "tanzim" wich is a "military" branch of the Fatah. (Which is stupid cause Fatah itself is the military branch of the PLO :cantbeli: )

Any way:

1) Occupation is bad
2) The Palestinians failed to create a stable leadership
3) Signing agreements with a leadershipless people (especially arabs) is useless and dangerous. (Oslo rings a bell?)

What do we have then?

4) Get the hell out - let them fight each other,(behind a security fence which will pervent them from killing us) untill they will come up with a strong and peace loving leadership. (or until they will all starve to death, whatever comes first)

Try to get over the European anti-Israeli approach, 85% of Israelis will be HAPPY to get back to the 67' borders (99% give or take) if they could only be sure the other side will let go.

[cut]

look at this! the one time I screw up and everyone has a go..