Prime Miniser Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ahead of their talks in Jerusalem on Sunday.
(AP)
Condoleezza Rice laying a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem on Sunday.
(Reuters)
Posted on 02/06/2005 12:53:43 PM PST by anotherview
Last Update: 06/02/2005 20:55
Rice urges Israel to avoid unilateral steps on J'lem
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent Haaretz Staff and Agencies
Prime Miniser Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ahead of their talks in Jerusalem on Sunday.
Condoleezza Rice laying a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem on Sunday.
(AP)
(Reuters)
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and President Moshe Katsav, and urged them to maintain the status quo over Jerusalem, and avoid taking any unilateral steps on the disputed capital which could harm Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Israeli sources said Rice was referring to the government's decision from last summer to apply the absentee property law to tens of thousands of dunams (acres) of Palestinian property in East Jerusalem. Attorney General Menachem Mazuz last week instructed Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to order an immediate halt to the application of the law. The sources said Rice may also have been referring to the decision to build the separation fence in Jerusalem, and to expand Jewish neighborhoods in the city.
Rice said Sunday that the disengagement plan is an historic opportunity, and that the future security of Palestinians and Israelis will be ensured only by two states exisiting side by side.
In an interview with TV Channel 2 Rice emphasized the importance of direct contact between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, and minimum involvement of mediators such as the U.S.
When asked about the right of return for Palestinian refugees, the secretary of state said that while new demographic realities since 1967 must be taken into account, the parties must reach an agreement accommodating to the needs of them both.
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who was the first Israeli official to meet with Rice on Sunday, told the secretary of state, "Israel will not relinquish its sovereignty over Jerusalem. The issue of Jerusalem will be left to the final status agreement, but we have to intention to harm the Palestinians."
Rice also said that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan must be implemented without delay, and carried out according to its timetable. She told Shalom that Abu Mazen [Abbas] was elected through democratic elections and he needs as much help as possible to give a firm basis to his leadership. Shalom responded that "the pain of the settlers [to be evacuated under the plan] must be understood and empathy must be shown. These people do not know where they will live or where they will work.
Rice arrived in Israel in an optimistic mood Sunday afternoon, as she prepared for talks with Israeli and Palestinian officials two days before the first official Middle East summit since the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat last November.
Her first stop was a visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, where she laid a wreath inside the Hall of Remembrance.
She then met with Shalom, followed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. She is also due to meet President Moshe Katsav later Sunday.
Ahead of their meeting, Sharon said he was sure his talks with Rice would "contribute to the friendly relations between the two countries." Sharon said he also expected her visit to contribute to the peace process, "which we want to very much want to push forward in the region."
In response, Rice said U.S.-Israel relations were solid "because we share not just interests but values." She said her goal was to "try to advance the cause of peace and to overcome the scourge of terrorism."
Before meeting Shalom, Rice said, "we will ask of our partners and our friends in Israel that Israel continues to make the hard decisions that must be taken in order to promote peace and... the emergence of a democratic Palestinian state.
"This is a time of optimism because fundamental changes are underway in the Middle East as a whole," she added.
After their meeting, Shalom told Channel 2 television that he gave Rice Israel's demands of the Palestinians.
"If the Palestinians do not to everything to halt the smuggling of weapons through tunnels, close the tunnels, close the weapons workshops, gather up illegal weapons - we would simply be giving the violent groups time to regroup and then carry out terror attacks that could collapse the whole process," he said.
On Monday, Rice will travel to the West Bank city of Ramallah for talks with Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia.
Tuesday's summit, hosted and initiated by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, will be attended by Sharon, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah.
Although the U.S. has said that the secretary of state will not attend the talks, her agenda is likely to include in part a review of the plans for the summit.
Rice has signaled she prefers to see Sharon and Abbas make progress as free of foreign mediation as possible.
"I hope we would all get into a mind-set that says if the parties are able to continue to move on their own, that's the very best outcome," Rice told reporters en route to Ankara, the stop before Israel.
Preparations for the Egypt summit are being finalized, but not before her arrival.
Israeli officials assessed that the secretary of state would commend both sides on their recent efforts.
Paul Patin, a spokesman of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, said Rice would bring up a wide range of issues, including Israel's commitment under the internationally backed road map peace plan to dismantle dozens of unauthorized West Bank settlement outposts and Israeli gestures to the Palestinians, such as the removal of Israeli checkpoints that disrupt Palestinian travel - gestures that would bolster confidence in the new Palestinian leadership.
"Outposts are something that they promised to remove years ago and we expect them to abide by their commitments," Patin said.
She is also expected to call on the Palestinians to do more to restore security and bring an end to violence.
For their part, the Americans are trying to play down Rice's absence from the Egyptian summit.
"It is not necessary to participate at the highest level in every gathering in order to be a major player and part of the solution," a State Department spokesman explained Saturday.
In Israel, police raised their level of operations in various regions around the country Sunday, in anticipation of Rice's arrival and the run-up to Tuesday's summit.
Police decided to bolster forces around the country and checkpoints were set up between the seam line and various Israeli cities. Police will conduct both regular and undercover patrols.
Sharon may invite Mubarak Israeli officials, meanwhile, said Sunday that Sharon may invite his Egyptian counterpart to visit Israel during Tuesday's summit, as relations between the former enemies continue to flourish.
The invitations "is quite likely," said an unnamed official. "We would very much like him to come."
In recent months relations have improved as Egypt took a larger role in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians. The last visit by an Egyptian leader to Israel was by Mubarak in 1995, when he came to the funeral of assassinated prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
LOL. I, the extremist? Alouette, American in Israel, Nachum, Yehuda, et al... do you believe this? Are you reading this? I am am Israeli right-wing extremist who doesn't belong on Free Republic. Sunsong says it so it must be true.
I am often attacked as the leftist by the large number of pro-Israel Freepers who favor a more right-wing, nationalist position in Israeli politics. I am attacked for my willingness to compromise and my support of Prime Minister Sharon as an "appeaser".
I find this all too humorous. If the right sees me as a leftist and you, a Bush supporter, see me as a right-wing extremist then I must, indeed, be doing something right and supporting a mainstream conservative position.
Thank you for the positive reinforcement, as unintended as it was.
I can not claim to know what is the best course for
Israel to take. I do believe that the best course for
America to take would be to support The Israelis. They
do not wish for our destruction.
The Israelis are not going to bend over and take in the a@@ for you and your Pali terrorist friends.
Unfortunately, if a person happens to disagree with this administration on any issue (especially if they are a Jew), they run the risk of being labled an "extremist" here at FR.
IMHO, in a debate about Israel that is one step removed from having (gasp) "dual loyalty". You seem to represent the "America, love it or leave it" attitude. anotherview's opinions may frustrate the heck out of me, but they are not only entitled to be on FR, but should be encouraged.
Debate is a healthy thing. (especially when I am winning)
A Palestinian state has been the policy since about 2002. My devotion to America is strong. I support the President's policy. It is you who are pro-yourself. As I say - you may be happier on some extremist site somewhere.
An aside: I though you wanted to discuss policies, not make personal attacks. Looks like you don't live by your own admonitions. Why am I not surprised?
Look at the title of this thread. It questions whether Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, does it not?
In 1995 Congress passed The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act by a vote of 93-5 in the Senate and 374-37 in the House. My "extremist" view was shared by most all Republicans and Democrats alike. Secretary Rice's statements fly in the face of the will of the Congress and the vast majority of the American people.
This is from the text of the Act, verbatim:
(9)In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress "strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected".
(10)In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
...
(13)In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging "planning to begin now" for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.
(14)In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem "should take place no later than....1999".
...
(16)The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.
(17)In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry
SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.
(a)Statement of the Policy of the United States.—
(1)Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;
(2)Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and
(3)the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
This was signed into law by President Clinton, making it the official policy of the United States. President George W. Bush, the one whom you admire so much and feel obliged to defend, made it part of his campaign in 2000. He repeated the promise in his 2004 campaign.
Why is it "extremist" to support the policy stated by both Republicans and Democrats, including President Bush, and supported by most Americans? Why is it "extremist" or "anti-Bush and anti-Rice" to point out in forceful language that Secretary Rice's statements contradict this policy, a policy which won President Bush votes of both politically conservative and moderate Jews and Christians?
My sentiments to you. Let us see whether Sharon responds to our requests or not.
We will see. They have so far! As for the terrorist friends smear. The Palestians deserve a good life - just as all people do. Once they stop terrorism - they deserve a state. That is US policy. Maybe you should think about that...
My view is that this is an American site. If you want to debate on an Israeli site - there are plenty out there. And this site firmly supports President Bush. Those who adamantly oppose America or the President should be encouraged to find an extremist site somewhere.
Oh no they didn't...
Terrorists Planning Suicide Bombings Apprehended
15:13 Feb 07, '05 / 28 Shevat 5765
(IsraelNN.com) In an Arab town adjacent to Modi'in, a unit of artillery corps soldiers this morning apprehended a Hamas terrorist suspected of planning a series of suicide bombings. The attacks, it was revealed, were scheduled for the next few days.
In addition, in Remana, west of Jenin, a paratroop unit caught a woman who was planning to personally commit a suicide bombing for Islamic Jihad.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=76531
LOL. I knew you would probably react that way, which is why I pinged you.
I think you and I are mainly on the same side in that we want a safe, secure, and Jewish Israel. Where we differ is on the best way to achieve that goal.
I find my distrust of Abbas and Palestinian intentions at this moment in time has me suddenly arguing on the same side you take against the same people you argue with :)
"Dual loyalty" always bothered me. It is an accusation I heard often when I was in the States but my pro-Israel view and my dual nationality were known. So far in the nearly 45 years I have lived on this planet love of Israel and love of the United States have never caused me a conflict. The two countries share the same basic values and goals.
Anyway, I thought you would find it funny that I was somehow too extremist in a pro-Israel/national camp sort of way. Thanks for the post.
Your views are extremist because they are outside the mainstream of American thought. You are here with your commrades bashing President Bush and Secretary Rice. You are opposed to stated American policy for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I think you would be happier on some extremist site somewhere.
Israel tried to make peace a million times and each time they are rejected by their muslim enemies who hate them.
Are you threatening that Israel has to give into US Demands that would compromise her security or else it will face a US on slaught?
IF so what will the US do nuke them?
The US leaders dont have the balls to nuke Afghanistan after 9/11 and you think they all the balls to send US troops to the middle of ISrael-Muslim conflict. Last time US sent troops their in Lebanon 240 US marines were killed and the US ranaway like a coward.
So far Israel has responded to our requests. The movement toward a Palestinian state is going forward. I'm sure that Israel will continue to listen to America and for the most part be grateful for our support - irregardless of the extremist fringe so evident here.
Fortunately that isn't Jim Robinson's view. This is what he describes his site as:
Welcome to Free Republic!
"Free Republic is the premiere online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."
In addition to that, as long as I have been a member on this site, he has welcomed debate about Israel and those who support her.
Not really the US can easily be energy independent but still decides to use Muslim Nazi oil.
Funny, I was born in the U.S. and still hold American citizenship. I first registered as a Republican in 1978 on my 18th birthday. I have pointed out that my views are shared by most Republicans (and Democrats) in Congress and have been signed into law. This very President used them as a campaign issue. What makes you think I voted for someone other than President Bush?
Being "adamantly opposed" to the President's views on immigration and the handling of the border with Mexico is probably a view shared by most Freepers. Most seem to want strict enforcement of immigration laws. The same can be said of this new position espoused by Secretary Rice on Jerusalem.
Why can't you understand that disagreeing with the President on some issues is not the same as being "adamantly opposed" to the President overall? Why can you not understand that it is not anti-American?
Whether you admit it or not the United States and Israel have been fighting the same war on terrorism against the same radical Islamic, anti-democratic, and anti-American forces. We have the same enemy. The Palestinian leadership you are so quick to embrace has continued terrorist attacks up to and including today. Why do you support them? Why do you see defenders of Israel as the enemy rather than Arab-Muslin terrorists?
We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!
So far, when we say "jump", Israel asks "how high?".
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.