Posted on 09/29/2003 7:46:21 PM PDT by yonif
DETROIT - A senior U.S. diplomat said on Monday that Israel's refusal to stop building settlements in the West Bank threatened its future as a democratic Jewish state.
The warning came in a speech by William Burns, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, at the U.S.-Arab Economic Forum in Detroit, a conference exploring ways of fostering growth, development and trade between the United States and the Arab world.
"As Israeli settlements expand and their populations increase, it becomes increasingly difficult to see how the two peoples will be separated into two states," Burns said.
"The fact is that settlements continue to grow today, encouraged by specific government policies and at enormous expense to Israel's economy, and this persists even as it becomes clear that the logic of settlements and the reality of demographics could threaten the future of Israel as a Jewish democracy." Burns was referring to experts' predictions that Jews will become a minority in the area encompassing Israel, the West Bank and Gaza by 2020.
Burns added that Israel's settlement policy ran counter to the goal, supported by U.S. President George W. Bush, of creating a contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the two eventually living side by side in peace.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a speech to the forum later, claimed U.S. progress in rebuilding Iraq and having "mobilized the world against terrorism," while calling on Palestinians to help get the "road map" back on track.
Powell's 35-minute speech was interrupted by applause just twice, in a city with one of the largest Arab and Islamic populations outside the Middle East.
One was when Powell reinforced the call for an end to Israeli settlement activity and the other when he urged an end to the opening of "unauthorized outposts" by Israel.
Burns and Powell both also criticized Israel's planned security fence through the West Bank. Palestinians describe the fence as a new "Berlin Wall." Israel says it needs it to keep out suicide bombers.
Powell's 35-minute speech was interrupted by applause just twice, in a city with one of the largest Arab and Islamic populations outside the Middle East. One was when Powell reinforced the call for an end to Israeli settlement activity and the other when he urged an end to the opening of "unauthorized outposts" by Israel.
That's easy. Send them back to their homeland, Jordan.
Jews have to leave for a "Palestine" to be established and they can't stay there, but the Arabs (1.3M) in Israel, are to stay in Israel.
U.S. Counterterrorism Policy
First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals;
Second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes;
Third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them to change their behavior; and
Fourth, bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of those countries that work with the U.S. and require assistance.
Question: How do you find someone to make this work that is acceptable to the United States and Israel and also has credibility with the Palestinian people? And as settlements expand and the fence is built, it's carving up the West Bank and doesn't it almost preclude the possibility of a Palestinian state?
Secretary Powell: We painfully came to the conclusion that Chairman Arafat was not a partner for peace. The Israelis had come to that conclusion some time ago. President Clinton came to that conclusion at the very end of his administration. The last day of his administration he called me as I was getting ready to become Secretary of State the next day and all of his efforts had just come to naught. And he let me have it for about 20 minutes on the phone about Yasser Arafat and how a great deal had been put before him and he didn't take it.
I tried for 14 months to try to get Mr. Arafat to move. I got him out of his confinement in the Muqata'a (Arafat's compound) twice. I went into the Muqata'a through Israeli lines, then the Palestinian lines, with one set of bodyguards passing me off to another set of bodyguards and I sat there across from him when he had a machine gun on his desk and told him that you've got to change. You simply have to become a partner for peace and start taking action against terrorists or we're not going to get anywhere and I'm not going to be able to deal with you.
We got him out of that situation and he didn't change. And so last year, the 24th of June, the president gave a speech, a vision for the Palestinian state that would need new leadership. And guess what, we found new leadership in Prime Minister Abbas, so the Palestinians, with Arafat, created a prime minister position, and we wanted to work with him. And that's why the president went to Aqaba and before that Sharm al-Sheik.
But Abbas was not able to get full control of all the security forces, couldn't wrest them away from Arafat, Arafat constantly undercut him. And finally Abbas said "I've got to have it or I'm going to quit." Arafat didn't give it and he quit.
Arafat is still seen by the Palestinian people as their leader. You can't take away from people what they think about leadership and who their leader should be. But the Palestinian people have to start looking at what that leadership has gotten them. It's not gotten them one day closer to the Palestinian state.
And they're cheering him on now because the Israelis, I think, made a mistake in threatening to exile him and kill him and other things. They just put him back on Page One and every television station. It was a mistake.
With respect to the second part of your question, actions such as continuing settlement activity and a fence that is on your property is fine, but as it transgresses and goes into Palestinian territory, you're creating a de facto situation which makes it harder to define the contiguous line needed for a Palestinian state. We've made it clear to the Israelis that we wouldn't be interested in any final solution that looks like Bantustan or a bunch of little fiefdoms all over the West Bank. It has to be a contiguous, sensible state. So if we can get to the point where we're having those discussions it will be very tough. President Clinton had some very tough discussions with the Israelis and got them to acknowledge how much would have to be given up in order to bring peace between the two parties.
I think if you can get to that point where serious negotiations on what the state looks like take place, you can make progress. Because the reality is that Israel needs peace just as badly as the Palestinians do. Demographically Israelis need peace. Arabs and Palestinians will outnumber them and it will, de facto, by demography, become a Palestinian area pressing in on Israel. Isreali leaders know this and the Israeli people know it. And they know they will have to make the kinds of sacrifices suggested by your question.
Then what do you do with Resolution 242. With Oslo, with Hebron, with the Wye Accords.
Israel is double-minded on the situation. It says that it has the right to build settlements in the West Bank, yet, it turns right around and states that it stands by UN Resolution 242. Which is it?
Israel can't have it both ways. If it wants the land (and I'm not talking about 90% of the settlements located on the Green Line... those settlements are in accordance to UN Resolution 242) as it's own... then Israel has to quit building settlements in what they acknowledge as Palestinian lands.
But, the world community has to realize that the new Palestinian state can't be Judenrein either. If Jews want to live in Jericho or Hebron in a Palestinian state, they should be welcomed. If Hebron or Jericho is in the new Palestinian state, then Israel can't carve out a section and say that it is Israel sovereign territory.
Talked about a hackneyed sentence... sorry... it should read...
Israel can't have it both ways. It it wants the land conquered in 1967, then it needs to state that unequivocably. If it plans to return the land to the Palestinians, then Israel needs to quit building on it.
Resolution 242 did more than suggest that Israel should turn over the land via negotiations. The authors of 242 and those who signed on to it made provisions for the recognition of Israel and a Palestinian state. The only negotiation would be over secure and stable borders for Israel. It wasn't land for peace... but peace first than land... That is why I don't have a problem with the settlements down the Green Line.
I don't even have a problem if Israel said we are annexing the whole West Bank and Gaza strip. I think it would be legal and ethical for them to do that.
My posts only suggest that Israel needs to make up her mind and quit playing a double game. They have promised, with 242, 336, Oslo, Wye, Hebron Accords, and Camp David II, that the would be willing to see some sort of Palestinian state come into being... (either autonomous rule or a sovereign state depending on who is Prime Minister at the time)... If that is the end result of Israeli policy, then the far-flung settlements deep into the territory promised to the Palestinians need to go. Why are there Israeli settlements in Gaza? Etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.