| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| AP: Israeli Talks Settlement Withdrawal |
| 2003-12-12 |
| Follow-up, EFL JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel may soon be compelled to dismantle a ``considerable’’ number of Jewish settlements and draw a border around the rest, Israel’s vice premier told The Associated Press on Thursday - a go-it-alone approach he suggested has Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s tacit backing. Such talk by Vice Premier Ehud Olmert about the West Bank and Gaza Strip is increasingly spooking the Palestinians, who fear they will end up with much less land than in a negotiated agreement. Whaddya know, it kinda does look that way on a map. Israel has said it would keep chasing militants until Palestinian security forces crack down themselves - as required by the U.S.-backed ``road map’’ peace plan. However, Qureia has said he cannot use force against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups for fear of sparking civil war. "They’ll kill me!" Olmert told AP in an interview Thursday that there cannot be a peace deal without such a clampdown, and that time is running out. ``If there is no agreement, I believe it is incumbent on Israel to take unilateral steps and to create a unilateral separation between us and the Palestinians,’’ said Olmert, a Sharon confidante. Israel will ``definitely’’ not withdraw to the 1967 lines, and will also keep ``the united city of Jerusalem,’’ Olmert said. Bus is leaving, Yasser. ``But it will be a lot different from the reality that exists today,’’ he said, adding that most Palestinians would no longer live under Israeli rule. Referring to a new border, he said that while it would include some major settlements, ``a considerable amount of settlements and a considerable number of people will have to move into different areas.’’ That has to be painful for Sharon. Olmert said he was not sending up a trial balloon for Sharon, but that ``if you ask me if the general direction of the prime minister is similar to mine, the answer is yes.’’ A removal of settlements would be a dramatic departure for Sharon, who has been the settler movement’s leading patron for a quarter century. In recent days, Olmert has defended his plan against harsh criticism from Sharon’s Likud Party, but the prime minister has not joined in the attack. Instead, Sharon has spoken repeatedly about possible unilateral moves, and is to deliver a major policy speech at a conference on national security next week. Looks like security trumps settlements. Olmert said it is up to the Palestinians to decide whether they want to Bus just honked its horn, Yasser. Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, warned that it would be ``a terrible mistake to try to impose a solution on us by force.’’ However, Qureia appears to be in an increasingly weak position. He started from an increasingly weak position. How can anyone tell whether he’s weaker? Only way to know for sure is if he suddenly stops breathing. He has failed to win a promise by militants to halt attacks on Israelis. They have told him they want to hear from Israel first whether it is willing to halt all military operations, including targeted killings of Since that worked so well in the past. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 ..Qureia has said he cannot use force against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups for fear of sparking civil war. This affliction (also suffered by Abu Mazen) is called "being unable to make the hard decisions". |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-12 2:26:13 PM |
| #5 I am amazed at the similarity between the Palestinian mind-set and that of the hard-core liberals in America. Both deal with emotion. EMOTION is the driving force behind their actions; not logic; not cause-and-effect; not end results -- just pure, unbridled EMOTION. This is what leads our liberals to support sexual freedom of any kind with anyone; to support anti-Christian values (which inhibit some emotions); and to support the dialog of personal destruction in debates (even among themselves). It is all pretty discusting and petty and I am very disturbed about this possible linking of EMOTION between the Palestinian (and other jihadists) and the Americal Liberals. |
| Posted by: SamIII 2003-12-12 10:41:07 AM |
| #4 Because we'll be blamed for failing to stop the Paleo Civil War. Not that I personally care about that little detail... |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-12-12 10:31:40 AM |
| #3 However, Qureia has said he cannot use force against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups for fear of sparking civil war. Can anyone explain to me why this should be a problem for us? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 8:43:00 AM |
| #2 looks like,just maybe,Yasser/Qureia are going to get"Lesson 1"in the art of negotiation and compromise(L1)"Half a loaf is better than none" |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-12-12 7:32:57 AM |
| #1 The Arafish will not rest in peace (pun intended) until he completely and ireversibly destroys any chance for his people to see a reasonable agreement with Israel in their liftimes. It's high time his own people see the light and assasinate him before the shit hits the fan. Maybe a civil war is better than the alternative ? The problem with them is that they are not pragmatic and will continue their stupid terrorist acts until they loose everything they had and more. |
| Posted by: The Dodo 2003-12-12 4:41:18 AM |