Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (40870)	4/25/2004 3:06:07 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794197

Why are the Palestinians so worried? DENNIS ROSS Apr. 22, 2004 The writer, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is a former US envoy to the Middle East. The Sharon-Bush plan isn't the last word In diplomacy, there are times when process and substance take on equal importance. Ideas that might be acceptable, or at least tolerable, if presented one way become wholly unacceptable when presented another way. That might help explain some of the backlash against President George W. Bush's announcement that the United States would endorse Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plans for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. By failing to include the Palestinians in the discussions, Bush clearly ruffled feathers. But did he dramatically transform Washington, D.C.'s positions on peace, as the Palestinians are now saying? Did he surrender the US's traditional role as an honest broker by tilting overwhelmingly to the Israeli side? Did he close off the possibility of future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations by determining the outcome in advance? I think not. A closer look at what Bush actually committed to suggests that the United States is neither precluding future negotiations nor is it determining their outcome. In his letter to Sharon, while explaining that Israel should not have to fully withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines but should be allowed instead to maintain sovereignty over several Jewish "population centers" in the West Bank, the president stated clearly that "any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities." That means that although the US might have an opinion on the subject, there can be no final borders drawn without Palestinian approval. Palestinians will be free to insist on arrangements, including territorial compensation, to make a final agreement acceptable to them. Similarly, Bush expressed his belief that a "just, fair, and realistic" solution would require refugees to be settled in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel - but he never suggested that there should not be negotiations on the subject. His statement, which frankly reflects a reality that many people on both sides acknowledge privately, is simply an American judgment on the direction those talks should take. In that sense, it is similar to Bush's earlier call for an independent Palestinian state - not American policy prior to this administration - which reflected his belief that there would be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the creation of such a state. SO IF there's still plenty of room for negotiation, why are the Palestinians so angry? Simply put, the Palestinians feel they've been excluded from the process. And they're right. The US-Israeli letters were worked out without any parallel talks with the Palestinians. Such discussions - focusing on how the Palestinians could take advantage of Sharon's plan to evacuate the Gaza settlements - could have tempered their response. Palestinians might still have had concerns, but at least their leaders could have pointed to their own discussions with the administration and explained that they would be seeking clarifications and assurances that Palestinian aspirations could still be achieved through negotiations. That would have made it easier to move forward from here. Building on the Sharon initiative is critical. For the last three years, we have been locked in a frozen situation of warfare between Israelis and Palestinians. There has been no peace process, only a dialogue of violence. The Sharon initiative at least creates the possibility for unfreezing the situation. By withdrawing from Gaza and evacuating settlements there, and in some cases in the West Bank, an opening is created for Palestinians to assume control in the areas from which Israel departs. Either Americans can help shape this new reality in a way that strengthens Palestinians who believe in peaceful coexistence, or we can stand aside, let the Israelis throw the keys over the fence, and hope for the best after the withdrawal. If that happens, we might find that Hamas gains in strength, taking credit for the Israeli withdrawal - a confirmation that violence pays off. Surely, if there is to be any hope of ending the conflict, that must not happen. In the months ahead, Palestinians who don't seek a radical Islamist future must rise to the challenge, assuming responsibility for security and good government, and working - with our help - to ensure that Israel's withdrawal helps their position. The stakes now are very high for all of us. (Los Angeles Times) This article can also be read at jpost.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (40870)	4/25/2004 6:01:15 PM
From: Triffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794197

Re: Bremer's address .. << an Iraq where the majority is not Sunni, Shia, Arab, Kurd or Turcoman, but Iraqi. >> That really states the problem doesn't it ?? Do we try to force these disparate groups to make a country called Iraq ?? Or do we allow this 'nation' to re-rationalize itself along it's ethnic and religious factions ?? I wonder if the people who live there consider themselves Iraqi first or as Bremer states Sunni, Shia, Arab, Kurd etc etc .. Was not present day Iraq a British mapmakers creation .. just lines drawn on a map with little regard for the diverse groups then living within ?? I've not been to the Middle East myself so I can't comment from first hand experience; but why couldn't we allow Iraq to just go away .. Allow the Kurds self-rule in the north or to allign with whatever group/country they most identify with .. same thing for the Shias in the south if that is what they want to do .. Baghdad can be run by an elected board of selectmen/women with all current identifiable minority groups having representation as the city/state it has always been throughout it's history .. The regions' oil revenue can/should be shared by all factions under some equitable scheme .. Just one thought for a possible workable future for the region .. What do the rest of you see as the outcome of our pursuing our present course of action ?? Jim in Ct ..