WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
Posted on 04/10/2005 9:47:00 AM PDT by Alouette
Remove outposts, shelve the project to build in Maaleh Adumim, make more withdrawals in Judea and Samaria - these are some of the demands PM Sharon is likely to hear from Bush at his Texas ranch.
As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon exchanges the view from his Sycamore Ranch for the Texas ranch where he will be meeting with President Bush on Monday, he is likely to come under renewed American pressure to make further withdrawals from areas in Judea and Samaria.
The first demand will probably be for Sharon to fulfill prior commitments to tear down the new Jewish communities that have been set up in Judea and Samaria since Sharon was elected Prime Minister in 2001. The government has stated its intention to start tearing down those outposts after the disengagement is completed this summer.
The next Bush demand is likely to be to ensure that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, including the city of Maaleh Adumim just to the east of Jerusalem, are not expanded. The Administration considers expansion of such communities to be at odds with American policy and the Road Map plan.
Bush told reporters on Air Force One, on his way back from the Pope’s funeral on Friday, that he will most certainly take up the issue of Maaleh Adumim with Sharon at their meeting on Monday. “What I say publicly, I say privately, and that is that the Road Map has clear obligations on settlements, and that we expect the prime minister to adhere to those obligations,” Bush said.
Sharon recently announced that he intends to go forward with a ten-year-old plan to build 3,500 housing units between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem, paving the way for territorial contiguity between the two cities. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently declared that the project was “at odds” with U.S. policy.
Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres tried allaying Vice President Dick Cheney’s displeasure over the project at a meeting last Thursday. Peres told Cheney that despite Sharon’s proclamation, Israel really does not intend to implement the plan any time soon.
But Maaleh Admumim and the outpost issue may be only small potatoes compared to what the U.S. will soon be demanding of Israel, says Arutz-7's Haggai Huberman. U.S. media, influential academics, and leading American opinion makers have been very critical of Sharon’s Maaleh Adumim proposal, Huberman reports. "They intend to use antagonism to that proposal, along with the impending disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria, to sway public opinion in favor of having the administration pressure Israel for substantial territorial withdrawals in Judea and Samaria, in order to make way for an independent Palestinian state," he says.
Huberman’s sources say the expulsion plan has severely undercut Israel’s claim to hold on to Jewish populated areas in Judea and Samaria. "Liberal circles in the United States that apparently have substantial impact on foreign policy - even under Republican administrations - assert that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal obviates the long-held Israeli claim that settlements contribute to Israel’s security, and prove that just the opposite is true."
The expulsions also weaken Israel’s moral claim, Americans will say, that the territory forms a part of the Jews’ ancient homeland, entitling the government to settle Israeli citizens there without annexing the territory.
Academic circles from such prominent schools as Harvard and M.I.T. claim that the disengagement weakens Israel's logical case for retaining settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, Huberman reports.
The Israeli government claims that Bush’s intention, as stated in his letter to Sharon on April 14 last year, was to guarantee U.S. support for Israel's right to retain large settlement blocs. The reality on the ground, it is being said, might turn out to be very different, especially if Israel cannot come up with ethical or military reasons to keep these areas under Israeli control.
Once the outposts are removed, the U.S. will expect Israel to withdraw unilaterally from areas in Judea and Samaria that are not considered to be part of large settlement blocs. This could happen before the final-status negations are concluded, perhaps over the next year.
American policy makers are aware that the more Israel withdraws, the less it makes sense to the U.S. public, and to the world at large, to claim that other areas should be incorporated into Israel. In the end, therefore, the question of whether Bush promised or didn't promise might become a moot point.
WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
I wonder who pushing this agenda in State dept if Dubya administaition keep doing this crap Israel would fall in the ocean
I think that point
What pressure?
sharon is a traitor. He lets hamas leaders dance on the Temple Mount while Jews are prevented from praying. This Judenrat is death to Israel.
How many here would have voted for Bush had they known this was his policy?
Too much Clinton in Bush for me lately. God save the ever dwindling State of Israel.
The Road Map was submitted long ago. Bush has not changed but Sharon is making noises that are against the plan. Some of it is being followed but there are problems. Abbas must keep his thugs under control. We shall see how it works out.
How many here would have voted for Bush had they known this was his policy?
I would have and so should you. Bush is the best chance Israel has had so far. Why bail on him now?
What planet are you living on?
Bush orginally promised Israel wont have to accept the right of return for refugees, go back to 1949 borders, and dismantle settlements in the W.Bank. Now Bush says that is all negotiatable and nothing is final without PLO consent.
Sharon is happily going through with the Jewish cleansing of Gaza and soon W.Bank too!
A minor variation of "bush is the best friend Israel ever had" - the most frequently repeated statement here with respect to bush & Israel. I've asked those posters "why?" but have never received a reply; probably for the same reason they never support the asserion in the first place.
Do you mean people should have voted for Kerry?
Bush is the best chance Israel has had so far because he has recognized that security has to come before peace, and that you don't get peace by giving up land. He is not asking Israel to surrender the area between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, but he is asking Israel to keep it vacant.
I think this fuss about development of Ma'aleh Adumim and other West Bank cities is tragic. I would much prefer that the US back a variant of the Benny Elon plan. I would like to see Israel annex all land west of the Jordan River and kick out all "refugees" (who, as refugees, by definition are not living in their permanent homes). I have no doubt that Israel could absorb the remaining Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, especially if it adopts a constitution designating itself as the homeland for the Jews.
In my opinion, Prime Minister Sharon has become an enabler of a great disaster to Israel, by unilaterally insisting on evacuating Jews from Gaza and part of Judea (and, as the article suggests, delegitimizing Israel's claim to its land, anywhere). I think that this evacuation plan is the worst decision any Israeli government has made since its founding.
If I knew that Bush was going to do a "180" on his position on Israel, forcing them back to the "Auschvitz" lines, forcing them to move 8,000 people out of Gaza and kow tow to the Arabs about Jerusalem, I might have voted diferently.
If I knew that his secretary of state would traipse around the middle east attacking Israel for housing Jews in a settlement near Jerusalem, maybe.
Get a life.
The reason is that Bush is not really the great freind of Israel that they first thought. Admitting they are wrong and that there is a real problem with our foreign policy would be to painful to admit.
What bothers me most is Bush loading foreign aid on the PA while cutting programs for Americans at home.
That is liberal trife. Bush had increased loans to the PA and increasing spending at home. Only thing he cut were projected increases which is why we are so far in the red. Bush should cut foriegn aid and Programs for Americans at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.