Israel: It Will Reject U.S.-Backed Plan

Wasn't it partly because they wouldn't accept giving up any (5%) of the occuppied territories?

If so, why should they have had to?

What pissed Clinton off was that they left w/o making a counter-proposal, no?

 

Ok,

Blind stereotyping will get you no where Mr. Clutch. Have you even examined the Oslo accords?? The Palestinian "state" in the Olso accord was a joke. It was a police state monitored by Israel. They (the Palestinians) had no control over their borders and had patches (the Settlements) dividing their lands and cutting off main roads and routes. It was a sham-puppet state and the Palestinians were smart not to accept it.

And maybe you haven't studied the founders of Israel who were also "Terrorists". Have you read about the British killed by Jewish Terrorists trying to pressure England into creating Israel. Do you know that many of the founders of Israel like Shimon Peres were known wanted terrorists on Interpol?

Lets talk about solutions, not silly generalizations. The settlements are illegal as mandated by the United Nations. The US basically supports Israel's economy and it would collapse without the US support. We (the US) is seen in a negative fashion globally because of this financial relationship. The US says you do this and break down the settlements and return to your true borders as mandated by the UN and then you will get your pay check.

Then who cares about Palestinians and Israeli's. They will be in their own countries and they will not be mixed. Don't let Palestinians in Israel if you don't want to. There are no mixed settlments over the ashes of peoples homes so that should limit the violence if not eliminate it. Violence will stop because they have something to lose: a state and a government.

The most dangerous man is the one with nothing to lose. That is most of the Palestinian population.

 

We prop up their economy so we (the US) is in the position of strength. Our financial and political attachments adversely affect our public image globally which adversely affects our economic situation with the global nature of our corporations. So if we tell them to get the hell out of the settlements and obey UN mandates they better do it.

 

Originally posted by Lil
A couple of points.

1) The nature of OBL terrorism and PLO terrorism are fundamentally different. The PLO and other Palestinian terrorists targets almost exclusive Israel, an aggressor nation presently illegally occupying its lands. OBL targets Westerners the world over. The PLO publically states clear finite objectives, the establishment of an Palestinian nation and Israeli withdraw from occupied territories. OBL just does it for his hatred of America and the West's policies in the Middle East and against the Muslim world, and he will not stop until the West is totally defeated. One is fighting for the restoration of one's homeland. One is fighting for the destruction of another civilisation. To equate the two is quite simply wrong.

I was not equating the two, you did when you claimed that '99%' or Arab terrorists attack us because of our support of Israel. You helped prove my point that al qaeda attacked us for other reasons.

Thanks!

2) To accuse me of supporting terrorism is foolish. I find it as disgusting as you or anyone else would.

That's good to know, but if you re-read your post above, one can certainly draw such a conclusion.

For that matter, I find war disgusting too. When the interests of different nations (or coalitions) clash, and the conflict cannot be resolved, there is a continuum of actions which can be taken, depending on the relative strengths of the two parties:

1) Economic sanctions - when one side is economically dependent, often economic sanctions alone will force one side to concede.
2) War - when one side is militarily comparable, war will force the loser to concede.
3) Guerilla action - when one side is militarily disparate, the weaker side, can resist underground, like the Vietcong or Afghans vs. USSR.
4) Total asymmetry - when one side is militarily non-existent, the weaker side, can then take two paths:
a) passive (nonviolent) resistence
b) active (terrorist) resistence

And the Arab states and Palestine has tried EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE OPTIONS over their history. Nothing has worked. In fact, their infrastructure is so utterly destroyed and their resources so utterly exhausted now that they cannot conduct anything besides resistence at the lowest level. And since nonviolent resistence (protests, moral entreaties) obviously don't work, now they rely on the last resort, suicide bombing.

Is that right? NO! But do you honestly expect them to lie down and die? THEY WILL RESIST IN ANY WAY THEY CAN.

AND ISRAEL WILL DEFEND ITSELF TO INSURE ITS SURVIVAL.

Both sides can use that argument of extreme duress. It does not make there actions 'right' nor does it help solve the problem. Suicide bombers and Sharon are as far as you can get from a solution to the problem.

Nearly all of these types of conflicts result in "innocent civilian" casualties, whether direct (bombs) or indirect (starvation, disease). America's sanctions against Iraq killed far more "innocent civilians" ...

This has been debated ad nauseum here, but we are not responsible for the games saddam played re. the UN embargo. If you want links, maybe Mango will oblige you; he has some good ones.

...than all the Palestinian suicide bombers combined. In fact, Israel has killed far more Palestinian "innocent civilians" than the other way around. So what's your point?

I wrote this entire thing to point out that there can be hope for a just PEACE IN THE HOLY LAND, and you say that I endorse terrorism? thanks a lot, man.

p.s. i don't have numbers on how many terrorists actually became one because of Israel. all i know is that in EVERY arab terrorist testimony I've ever read in the media (5 or so), Israel is ALWAYS listed as a main concern. For every muslim friend I know (20 or so), Israel's brutal regime is always a burning issue. I'm not saying that is a significant sample, but I think the point is that it is COMMON SENSE! Are you saying that Israel's barbaric policies DOESN'T encourage terrorist activity?

Are you saying that by refuting your 99% claim, that I am arguing 0%? What type of weak logic is that?

What's very telling is you're use of 'barbaric' when it comes to Israel, and yet Palestinian suicide bombing is common sense to you. Well, to many others, suicide bombing is 'barbaric' and a militaristic response is common sense.

Both sides bear a lot of blame, and both sides have a serious need: security for the Israelis and land for the Palestinians. If you focus only on one, you will not find the solution.

 

I saw a PBS documentary that went into great detail on the negotiations. It was amazing how close they got to Arafat, Barak, the advisors, and the negotiations.

What happened at the end was Arafat claimed a certain part of Israeli land was a holy Muslim site. The Israelis tried to figure out what he was talking about, but it was an Jewish holy site they were not willing to give up. On the documentary, Barak was stunned that Arafat would come up with this. It was sabotage, pure and simple.

I'm sure the Palestinians would have liked the 5%, but they were very close nonetheless. And you are right that Arafat never gave a counteroffer. He was probably afraid Barak would accept.

 

I am not claiming that the Palestinians got a perfect deal. But
they got a very good deal, and the Israelis offered more than ever and everyone acknowledge that they were VERY close. Barak and Clinton thought they were very close, and they were willing to take huge risks in giving up more land. Were Barak and Clinton just stupid? No.

It is not a stereotype to say that Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Palestinian leaders are terrorists. That is a fact.

I am talking about solutions. Get rid of the terrorists, get back to the negotiating table, and agree to something. I am not disagreeing that the Israelis should stop their settlements, and I think the Palestinians should have a state and self- government. But to attack Israel because they refuse to lower their security measures is just wrong.

 

'Beggars can't be chosers' is a lousy argument. I imagine you can think up some analogies on your own.

Why should the Palestinians have to accept relinquishing Arab lands?

Israel doesn't have to give up a thing, unless it wants to survive. The hatred will only grow, and some day, terrorists or another Arab state will use WMD. It shouldn't even have to come down to a power issue, anyway. It should be based on what's morally right.

 

I never heard of that. Do you recall the name of the site?

 

Here's the link. But the exact detail of what I said isn't in the summary. But there are lots of good links and interviews, and it should be somewhere there.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/negotiations/index.html#campdavid

Prime Minister Ehud Barak urged Clinton to convene this summit. Barak wanted to push for a permanent agreement -- skipping interim redeployments called for in the Wye agreement -- and envisioned a two-state solution that would end the conflict.

Issues never before discussed at senior levels between Israelis and Palestinians -- Jerusalem, statehood, boundaries, refugees -- were put on the table. Barak and Clinton suggested a path-breaking plan permitting a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem. But the Palestinians criticized Barak for coming to Camp David with a proposal for dividing the West Bank they had already rejected. And,in their eyes, the Clinton/Barak plan would have left the new Palestinian state with significant loss of water and good land, almost split by Israeli annexation running east from Jerusalem, and with Israel getting roughly 9 percent of the West Bank. However, U.S. and Israeli officials contend that throughout the summit, the Palestinians rejected Israeli proposals while offering no proposal of their own. Publicly, both Clinton and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure to reach an agreement on a two-state solution.

 

Cohen, this may have been it. Palestinians rejected Israeli soverignity over the Wailing Wall.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501

But Dennis Ross, Clinton's special envoy to the Middle East, in a recent interview (on Fox News, April 21, 2002), who was present at the Arafat–Clinton White House meeting on January 2, says Arafat rejected "every single one of the ideas" presented by Clinton, even Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem's Old City.

 

The Temple Mount area and the mosques of Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock are probably what you are thinking of.

<a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/">Israeli troops, Palestinians clash after Sharon visits Jerusalem sacred site</a>

 

No, I know about that. There was something else in the negotiations where Arafat was completely ridiculous. He was making a completely new claim that Israel had never heard before.

 

C'mon, you're kidding me. At a minimum it's deceptive. Your title only tells half the story and is clearly (intentionally or not) deceiving.

Here is that AP excerpt...Israel will reject a U.S.-backed "road map" to Palestinian statehood if it is asked to compromise on security issues, such as the elimination and disarmament of what it calls Palestinian terrorist groups, a senior Israeli official said Saturday.

Israel has not issued a definitive statement rejecting a US backed plan as your title states. Israel has stated it will not compromise on its own security, and THAT is the major component of the AP story. And provided it's not raining or snowing, planes will leave the Houston airport. Hardly as earth-shattering as you or your title would have people believe.


As far as Israel being uncooperative...the only thing they've asked for is a cease of violence. Can anyone name any other historic examples where one country has given land to another country in exchange for simply peace?

FD Khan- Please explain the relevance of Jewish terrorists in Britain. That was nearly 60 years ago, I doubt any of them are even alive, and certainly not in any position of power (unlike Arafat). Unless, you're trying to argue that Israel was created based on strong arm tactics rather than the necessity for a Jewish asylum following the World War II extermination of over 6 million Jews because no such place existed

As for the refugee argument- here is a passage the UN Resolution 194: ... that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

There is NO statement of right of return, nor even specificity of nationality; there are nearly an equal number of Jews who were forced to leave Arab nations. Further, UN Resolution 194 was a General Assembly resolution not a Security Council, and therefore not binding.

Lil- You called it common sense. I don't see it. It is not common sense to give a group of people terrorizing your own people pieces of land with nothing but hopes that a group with such animosity towards you will be able to put a stop to the homicide bombings. That is the type of reasoning that France and Britain used; let the Fascist and Nazi regimes take Poland and the lesser countries, and they'll be appeased and stop there. We know the results of that. These terrorists don't hate America because America simply because supports Israel; they hate the capitalism and democracy that both Israel and America. But since Israel is the lesser one, we should just hang them out to dry; that sure worked for France and Britain in regards to Poland preceding World War II.

Israel does not have any reason to believe that the terrorists will stop terrorizing them if any agreement is reached, and they have no guarantees of such thing occurring. What else would Israel be getting out of this? If they one thing they're getting in return is peace, and they won't even get that, what's the point?

 

Cohen,

i don't want to make argument with you because i recognise you're one of the moderates who see the need for change in israel, on both sides. and so we're actually in agreement on that point.

i just favour the palestinians because i recognise a tinge of similarity between them and what Taiwan (my native land) can potentially become (and what tibet has already become). i'll be the first to admit that if god forbid any nation would do to taiwan what israel has done to palestine, i'd be first in line to be a terrorist.

many of the zionist founding fathers of israel (stern gang, irgun)professed the same willingness, for far less justification.

it's sad, unfortunate, despicable. but there is nothing more tragic than a conquered people and its down-trodden diaspora, and nothing more despicable than nations who persecutes them. you of all people should know this.

however, you're dead on when you say that it takes both sides' commitment for the peace to stick.

-----------
Mango, Mr. Clutch,

don't make it sound as if israel and u.s. ever made the palestinians a just offer.

this was the 1948 U.N. sanctioned partition plan:

and
this was the map mandated by U.N. resolution 242:


i don't see anything about any percentages here... i see a call for COMPLETE withdraw. i don't see anything about israeli presence in East Jerusalem or any of its holy sites either. Depending on which U.N. resolution you prefer, it was supposed to be either U.N.-administered or under jordanian administration, never under Israeli martial law.

to see israelis haggle over how much of their illegal spoils to keep, even while patting themselves on the back for being so "reasonable" and "generous", make them look like a bunch of shameless bandits.

 

i'll say it again. israel uses the term "security" in the most shameless ways. it uses it to justify:

1) continuous military incursions into Palestinean territory
2) bulldozing houses in refugee camps
3) arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture
4) assasinations
5) illegal occupation of foreign territory (golan heights, west bank, gaza strip).

i'm not saying that Israel does not have the right to security, it is just when this term is used by Sharon, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt...

We're not talking airport inspections here, we're talking occupation, human rights violations, and maintaining the total subjugation of an entire people here. the continued existence of these "security" measures will never be acceptable to Arab parties... so basically, israel IS by default rejecting any chance for the U.S. plan to succeed.

 

I have said that I will not respond to your post anymore, but this is getting ridiculous..You do this kind of crap all the time, and I and others waste time trying to respond by dealing with the issues, without reason. You are consistently the most ill-mannered, insulting poster in this forum. I am amazed that others continue to respond to you. I would expect better behaviour from grade school kids. Can you make a point without calling people names?

 

Regarding the UN Partition of 1947...The Palestineans declined the partition, and refused to recognize the Jewish state, and Israel was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. I fail to see the relevance to today- it was rejected by the Palestinian/Arab groups 50+ years ago in words, and even plainer in their invasion of the territory. Too late for them to go back to it now.

I don't think it could've been any clear, here is a quote from the Jordanian Prime Minister to the UN:Our position is clear, and has been proclaimed on every occasion. It is never to allow the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine and to exclude partition. And our object is to cooperate with the other Arab States in her deliverance. Once this aim is attained, the determination of her future status is the right and concern of her own people. Theirs alone is the last word. We have no other object or aim in view.

I will say I'm not the most ardent Sharon supporter, and consider him a little much of a hardliner, but based on Israel's political system and history, and I wouldn't suspect him to be in a capacity of power very much longer. Obviously change has to happen in order for there to be an Israeli-Palestinian peace, but considering there has been one PLO leader over the past ~20 years, and a wide variety of Israeli prime ministers, I don't think Sharon can be considered THE stumbling block for peace.

But, regarding your complaints of security-
1. first and foremost, the "assassinations" are of known terrorists and terrorist leaders, usually based on intel of a forthcoming attack- I'd think that'd go clearly under the category of security and defense.

2. The arrests etc. are not exactly arbitrary, however mistakes have been made, and inevitably will continue.

3. Re: the military incursion into Palestinean/illegal occupation- I don't think this is as cut and dry as you make it. First, I maintain that the refugees are being used as tools by the Arab nations- there were nearly 200,000 more Jewish refugees than Palestinean refugees, the difference being Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, while the predominantly Arab nations in the Middle East area refused to intake the Palestinian refugees, instead making them tools for their cause- the destruction of Israel (bear in mind, this is 1948).

Jordan, not "Palestine" lost the West Bank attacking Israel. Further, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were actually originally mandated to Israel as per the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which was preserved for the United Nations as well.

I am very confused by your interpretation of Resolution 242.There is no call for a "complete withdraw" is Resolution 242, here are several clarifications of its intent by those who would know-

From Eugene V. Rostow, one of the US officials who helped draft the resolution
Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved.

That's pretty point blank- territories being Israel's to administer.

The US Ambassador to the UN of the time, former SCJ Arthur Goldberg
The notable omissions - which were not accidental[/n] - in regard to withdrawal are the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably Insecure.

British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon- introduced the resolution to the council
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.

Moreso, occupation in and of itself is not illegal. Beyond that, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are NOT occupied territories, they are disputed territories. They were captured (or recaptured) from Jordan in the 6 Day War, and were not legally Jordan's to begin with. The West Bank and Gaza Strip lacked a sovereign nation prior to the 6 Day War.

Again, it takes 2 sides of the agreement. While you point to Israel not complying to its side of the Resolution, clearly, with the intifada and suicide bombings, "their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" has not occurred for Israel, I'm not sure how Israel can be the the primary recipient of blame for its own non-compliance.

Please specify the terms in which the West Bank/Gaza Strip "occupation" is illegal.

 

242 is often used just against Israel even though there clearly are references to recognizing Israel, but there also is a fairly clear demand for Israel to wthdraw from the newly acquired land, no?

Weren't the West Bank, Gaza, and some of what is now Israel proper intended for the Palestinian's under the UN Mandate? Just because Jordan had improperly annexed th West Bank, I don't see how that diminishes the Palestinian's rights to it, nor how that entitles Israel to it.

I just don't see how one can argue that the West Bank and Gaza are 'disputed' and not 'occupied'... unless one also argues that one can acquire land through conquering. Is that your argument?

 

Lil,

This report is from 1948.

<a HREF="http://domino.un.org/unispalselect.nsf/d3d3f04027b6e56285256bc00050873d/fdf734eb76c39d6385256c4c004cdba7!OpenDocument">First Special Report to the Security Council:
The Problem of Security in Palestine</a>

<i>.......C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein........

<b>
6. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognized the resolution of the Assembly and "anything deriving therefrom". The Subsequent communication of 6 February to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Arab Higher Committee set forth the following conclusions of the Arab Higher Committee Delegation:

"a. The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

"b. The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.

c. It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate wit the said commission.

d. The United Nations or its commission should not be misled the believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet wit any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

e. The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

f. The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

g. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.</b>
"The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child.

7. The Commission has no reason to doubt the determination and force of the organized resistance to the plan of partition by strong Arab elements inside and outside of Palestine. In an official report, dated 4 February 1948, the Mandatory Power states that:


"1. The High Commissioner for Palestine reported on 27 January that the security position had become more serious during the preceding week with the entry into Palestine of large parties of trained guerrillas from adjacent territory. A band of some 300 men had established itself in the Safad area of Galilee, and it was probably this band or part of it which carried out an intensive attack during that week on Yechiam settlement, using mortars and heavy automatics as well as rifles.

2. On the same date, the High Commissioner further reported that a second large bank of some 700 Syrians had entered Palestine via Trans-Jordan during the night of 20-21 January. This band had its own mechanized transport, its members were well equipped and provisioned, and wore battle dress. The party appears to have entered Trans-Jordan from Syria and then crossed into Palestine at a point at which the entry of Syrians was not expected. The Syrian and Lebanese frontiers are manned on the Palestine side by both troops and police, although the nature of the border country makes it extremely difficult to secure the entire frontier against illegal entry, especially at night. On arrival in Palestine, this band appears to have dispersed, and its is thus now impracticable to deal with it by military action. So far as is known, its numbers have not engaged in illegal activity beyond the possession of arms.

3. Arab morale is considered to have risen steadily as a result of these reinforcements, of the spectacular success of the Hebron Arabs in liquidating a Haganah column near Surif, and of the capture and successful dismantling by the Arab National Guard of a Jewish van filled with explosives which was to have been detonated in an Arab locality. Even the relatively serious loss of life and damage to property caused by Jewish reprisals, have, in the High Commissioner's view, failed to check the revival of confidence in the fellaheen and urban proletariat. Panic continues to increase, however, throughout the Arab middle classes, and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country.

4. Subsequent reports dated 2 February indicate that a further party of troops belonging to the 'Arab Liberation Army' arrived in Palestine via the Jisr Djamiyeh Bridge during the night of 29-30 January. The party, numbering some 950 men transported in 19 vehicles, consisted largely of non-Palestinian Arabs, all in uniform and well armed. It is now dispersed in small groups throughout villages of the Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm sub-districts. The security forces have taken action to prevent further incursions across the Jisr Djamiyeh and the Sheikh Husseini Bridges........."</i>

<hr color="blue">

Did Sharon <i>bait</i> the crowd when he took his stroll in 2000? I think so.
Sharon is terrible, but it could be worse.......someone like Avigdor Lieberman could be the leader.

If Arafat could check his ego and get out of the way, then Sharon/Likud would be in the spotlight for being the roadblock. It appears that Arafat doesn't want to relinquish control. With egotistical people like Sharon and Arafat in charge, it will be very difficult to make progress.

<hr color="blue">
From Haaretz, which is considered a center to left of center publication.
<a HREF="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=281617&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y">Analysis: Abu Mazen may pull out rather than present cabinet </a>
<i>Yasser Arafat continues to control both the most marginal and most important appointments in the Palestinian Authority.

For the last three weeks, ever since the Palestinian Legislative Council gave Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) the job of forming a cabinet as prime minister, and after innumerable legal tussles in the council over Arafat's authority in the era after the government is formed, it is becoming clear that Abu Mazen's mission is a lot more difficult than it originally appeared.

In the initial days after his appointment, Abu Mazen spread the word he wanted to appoint a government of technocrats that would lead to real change in the PA. But reality appears to have overruled him. In recent days, he has sent messages to Arafat and Arafat associates that he is considering giving up the effort.

Abu Mazen's travels throughout the West Bank and Gaza in recent weeks revealed to him a gloomy picture of what is going on in the PA-controlled areas. The various security forces are operating as private militias with criminal characteristics, the administration is corrupt, and personal corruption of several leading officials "astonished" him, say sources close to the prime minister-designate.

But apparently what most deters him now is a series of steps Arafat has taken in recent days that have made the PA chairman's intentions clear to Abu Mazen, the No. 2 man in the PLO and one of Fatah's founders.

Abu Mazen has discovered that two key security services, the General Intelligence force under Tawfiq Tirawi and the National Security force under Haj Ismail, two of the most dedicated Arafat loyalists, will continue to operate under direct command of Arafat even after Abu Mazen forms his government.

In addition, he found that Arafat is vetoing several of the ministers that have been mentioned as members of an Abu Mazen cabinet, particularly Mohammed Dahlan, the former head of Preventive Security in Gaza, whom Abu Mazen wants as interior minister, responsible for all the security services. Various "creative" formulas meant to leave the interior ministry in Abu Mazen's hands and name Dahlan as an adviser have also been ruled out by Arafat.

On Saturday, Abu Mazen discovered Arafat means to take over the formation of the government. He didn't send a direct message to that effect but instead convened Fatah's Central Committee in Ramallah and Abu Mazen was invited to brief the committee on expected Fatah appointees.

Arafat opened the meeting with the words, "We gave Abu Mazen authority and so far he has not provided us with the list of ministers." The intention was clear: Arafat wants the committee to make the appointments, and not Abu Mazen.

Instead of reporting on his plan, Abu Mazen understood which way the wind was blowing and preferred to conduct a discussion in which it became clear that most of the central committee members are demanding that Hanni el-Hassan, an Arafat loyalist, remain as interior minister.

Since Abu Mazen took on the job of forming a government, the name Hanni el-Hassan has been a red flag for him, the last person he wants in his cabinet.

He also found out that many of the members of the central committee are demanding they be appointed to the cabinet and that he can't satisfy the committee if he doesn't meet this demand.

Furthermore, Abu Mazen now realizes that in the best case, Arafat means to conduct the political negotiations with Israel and use Abu Mazen as a fig leaf.

Although the Palestinian Basic Law grants him authority, his maneuverability has been greatly reduced. In effect, other than the appointment of an office manager (Nabil Kasis of Bethlehem), he has not been able to do very much.

Even matters that appeared settled, like economic reforms, are turning out to be reversible.

In recent days, Sami Ramlawi, who served as a treasurer for Arafat in the Finance Ministry, has returned to his job even though he was deposed with the appointment of Finance Minister Salam Fayyad.

More than anyone else, Ramlawi is identified as Arafat's paymaster, operating directly on behalf of Arafat and handing out cash. The old system, whereby payrolls for security forces were made to the commanders of the forces, who then handed out the money to the troops - leading to much corruption - has returned.

The war in Iraq has also not made things easy for Abu Mazen. It is difficult to think of a more problematic time for him to be appointed. The argument that "while Iraq is fighting for its life, Abu Mazen was appointed with American bayonets," which began as a Hamas criticism, has been picked up by Fatah people, include Arafat's coteries.

Abu Mazen is slated to announce his government Thursday, but at this point it appears almost certain that he has not managed to form a framework that shapes the balance of power in the West Bank and Gaza according to his wishes. His government, if presented, is likely to be even broader than 22-24 ministers, a desperate attempt to satisfy everyone that may leave him with practically nothing.

Even if he decides to be prime minister, it now appears unlikely he will be able to make any real changes. </i>

 

Another example of Sharon seemingly thumbing his nose at Bush. Remember when Bush said "I meant what I said" about the Israeli invasion of the West Bank. Sharon kept doing what Bush told him not to and after a visit from Sharon, Bush kept quiet, and proclaimed Sharon "a man of peace". As votes are at stake, Bush doesn't appear to have the stones to deal with Sharon. Alternatively perhaps Bush is just against the Palestinians like Sharon and his occasional verbalizing of fairness is similar to the lie he continually told for months that he was undecided on war, as he moved with all haste toward it.
***************************************
Jews settle in Palestinian Jerusalem

Sharon tests Bush, Blair and the road map by letting families occupy contested district

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Monday April 7, 2003
The Guardian

Ariel Sharon has brushed aside an appeal by the White House to stop an unprecedented move by Jewish settlers into a Palestinian district of Jersualem which his critics say will further hinder a political settlement.
After more than two years of legal and political wrangling, Mr Sharon's office approved the plan last week and the first Jewish families have moved into new flats in the Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim settlement, beside the densely populated Arab district of Ras al-Amoud.

It is the first time a Jewish settlement has been built in a Palestinian area of Jerusalem since Israel seized control of the entire city in 1967.

The first settlers at the apartment complex, just a few hundred metres from the Wailing Wall, include a millionaire, Irving Moskowitz, and his son-in-law Ariel King, a far-right political activist.

More than 100 more families are expected to move in during the coming months.

Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser, telephoned Mr Sharon's office and warned that letting Jews move into the settlement might raise tension during the war on Iraq and further undermine the prospect of a political settlement.

Danny Seidemann, an adviser to previous Israeli leaders on how to divide Jerusalem, said Mr Sharon's approval for the settlers' move into Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim was a test for George Bush and Tony Blair, who meet in Belfast today to discuss, among other things, the "road map" to a Middle East peace deal which envisages a Palestinian state within three years.

"This is not something Sharon turned a blind eye to. This is something he gave the go ahead for even after Condoleezza Rice asked him not to," he said.

"The Jewish settlement in Ras al-Amoud makes a resolution more difficult and undermines the stability of the city. If the US is serious about the road map it will not countenance unilateral action on the settlements that predetermine an outcome to negotiations.

"If Mr Blair accepts this, it undermines his credibility when he says he is serious about the road map."

At the weekend Mr Sharon's chief aide, Dov Weisglass, said Israel was not prepared to make any concessions on "security issues"and would walk out of negotiations on the road map if forced to do so.

The prime minister's critics say that Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim is a political tactic to block the possibility of dividing Jerusalem as part of a peace deal.

It also undermines plans under the Camp David accords for a corridor to give Palestinians access to Muslim sites in Jerusalem's old city without having to pass through Israeli territory.

The flats at Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim are built on land bought in the 19th century by religious groups to expand a Jewish cemetery.

The property fell into Jordanian hands after Palestine was divided in 1948.

Jewish groups argue that they are entitled to live on the land, and to remove the Palestinian "squatters", under the Jews' right of return.

The courts agree, even though no similar right is extended to Palestinians driven from their homes in West Jerusalem.

Moreover, the supreme court has ruled that Palestinians cannot buy property in the Jewish quarter of the city, even if they once lived there.

Moni Mordecai, director of the pressure group Peace Now, accused the government of using the war in Iraq as a cover for the decision.

"The timing of this action raises the suspicion that the government intends to enable this underhanded opportunism that they hope will go unnoticed in the international community, to exploit a situation that holds disastrous implications for the area," he said.

Eyal Hareuveni, director of the Jerusalem branch of Peace Now, said: "This is a settler group, extremists who want to transfer the Arabs [out of their homeland].

"This is only a recipe for friction and violence."

An Israeli spokesman said the government had followed legal procedures in permitting the settlers to move in, and denied that it had a political motive.

Sharon