And were he to say that, it would not be the truth. After all, the entire point of Oslo, Camp David, and Wye River, was for the purpose of creating a process that would lead to a Palestininan state.
Ah, but it would be true. Under Clinton, the purpose was implicit; Bush has made it explicit, just as he did for the idea that the Israelis could keep some settlements, which was equally true but implicit under Clinton. Explicit makes a difference in diplomacy.
And he couldn't have made the same kind of statement with directly endorsing Israel's retention of settlements in the West Bank, effectively given Palestnian peace opponents new ammunition for rejecting any peace proposal?
This comment might make sense if there were any Palestinian peace proponents, but there aren't, not with a shred of power. There is nobody to negotiate with on the Palestinian side while Arafat lives. Pretending there is, is what created the logjam. Bush and Sharon are interested in breaking the logjam. Which they just did.
He could have, IMO, warned that they were these peace terms rejected, that he might be unwilling, or unable, to pressure Israel over those settlements, and that Palestinian intransigence might lead to those settlements being made permanent...
Bush did this last year. See "Road Map". Why do you think that the Palestinians should be given an infinite amount of chances before their intransigence starts to cost them?
Apparently I missed that story.. Do you have a link?
debka.com |
