You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Sharon readies plan for total West Bank pullout by '08
2005-11-25
TEL AVIV — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has drafted a plan for Israel's withdrawal from virtually all of the West Bank by 2008. Political sources said Sharon has begun briefing senior U.S. officials of his intention to withdraw unilaterally from more than 95 percent of the West Bank. They said Sharon, who quit the ruling Likud Party on Nov. 21, would seek a U.S. and international security presence in the area as well as a commitment for the dismantling of Palestinian insurgency groups.
One: the withdrawal won't include East Jerusalem and the parts of the West Bank inside the Security Fence.

Two: American soldiers will not be part of the security presence. I'll bet on that.
On Wednesday, Haim Ramon, a Cabinet minister who joined Sharon's new party, said the prime minister plans to withdraw unilaterally to what would constitute Israel's final borders, Middle East Newsline reported. Ramon said Sharon does not plan to discuss this before the parliamentary elections, scheduled for March 28. "His decision [to quit the Likud] stems from his desire to bring the state of Israel to permanent borders during his term of office," Eli Landau, a longtime confidante of Sharon, said. "He knows that this step will be a dramatic one."

The sources said Sharon's plan was based on an assessment that the Palestinian Authority was not prepared to sign a formal peace agreement with Israel. They said that under this scenario Sharon would order a unilateral withdrawal from more than 90 percent of the West Bank, but retain control over air space.

The pullout would be accompanied by a pledge from Sharon of an additional pullout and full Palestinian independence should the PA dismantle insurgency groups and maintain security cooperation with Israel. The sources said a version of the plan has already been drafted by Israel's National Security Council.

On Nov. 21, Sharon pledged to lay the "foundation for a peace in which we set the permanent borders of the state, while insisting on the dismantling of the terror organizations." He did not elaborate, but stressed that this plan would be within the parameters of the so-called roadmap announced by U.S. President George Bush in 2002.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  I dont agree with the stradegy I am more of a increasing punishment untill surrender kind of guy, like everytime thire is a attack more territory was siezed pernamently until the border cities and such were encompased with the Muslim pops being displaced further back. Of course the world would flip but as long as the US didnt get to crazy it would be fine.

However with the plan they got going now I somewhat understand, I see the advantage Jaruselam the jewel of jewels and the solidification of the border and strategic areas even thou a lot of settlements would be lost of course unless you were willing to go with my option they never really were viable anyway thou, but the down side I think the PA will not anytime soon if ever be a able to control thier territory so the Israli's will forever be responsible for "oppressing" the terrorist and thier unfortunate neighbors.

I would suggest if this retreat would be the goal it should be by giving the Gaza back to Egypt, and West Bank to Jordan, both are stable nations that could stabalize the territories if nessecary. In return they get the extra territory the butload of International aid that would pour in as soon as they were turned over. Then let them if they want turn it into a nation.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-11-25 21:54  

#8  MoO, judging from Israeli response to rocket attacks post Gaza pullout, I beg to differ.
Posted by: ed   2005-11-25 17:29  

#7  Written on the back of the map is part B, "Do anything bad, and we will kick your @ss. This time for good. You had your chance."
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2005-11-25 17:12  

#6  Not only won't any agreement be honored, Israel still has the problem of a million muslims within the country. In addition to a muslim population subverting it from inside, Israelis will have the problem of an out of control external enemy on their long border lobbing rockets and sending terrorist attacks.
Posted by: ed   2005-11-25 17:02  

#5  I can't believe he will unilaterally pull out of the Jordan valley, which is Israel's effective border with Jordan. Israel has to retain control of who and what goes into the West Bank until they have a agreement with the Pals that can be monitored.
Posted by: Apostate   2005-11-25 16:55  

#4  Can't agree with you, LH. The Pals will never honor any agreement they sign, and nobody knows that better than Ariel Sharon. No, Gaza was part A and the West Bank will be part B of Sharon's legacy: Israel's final and defensible borders.
Posted by: Grunter   2005-11-25 16:43  

#3  That Ariel Sharon is one smart man. He is waging Peace like a weapon! ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-11-25 16:06  

#2  My opinion is that the threat of such a unilateral move (to include the annexation of the areas west of the wall) is in part for negotiating purposes - Sharon says to the Pals, you get your house in order, OR I do this. I think he's not excluding the possibility that this gambit will succeed, and he wont have to do a unilateral withdrawl, but can get a negotiated settlement on good terms (less territory, but a Pal signoff on the end of the conflict that can be used to get recognition and trade from the arab world) instead.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2005-11-25 15:49  

#1  This would seem to be a statement of a three-year party platform for his new party. Unlike in Labor or Likud, it clearly states a position that the Israeli on the street would either be for or against. That is a very good strategy. Voters love that kind of clarity.

By being limited to one issue at the start, it also maximizes the number of people who will be interested. That is, nobody will really know how his new party stands on other issues, whereas the other two parties have lots of baggage.

What is critical now is that he attract as many moderates from the Labor party as from Likud. If none of their leaders jump ship, then he will have to take the harder course to try and sway the rank and file.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-11-25 15:25  

00:00