Posted on 06/17/2002 4:22:35 PM PDT by blam
Bush to recommend Ramallah as capital of Palestinian state
By Andrew Buncombe
18 June 2002
President George Bush is expected to recommend this week that Ramallah be established as the capital of an interim Palestinian state.
But while officials say the West Bank town is the most likely option for a base for the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure while negotiations continue, Mr Bush is expected to defer the most three difficult questions facing any permanent settlement: the borders of a future state, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
With little progress being made in the region towards a deal, there is much expectation surrounding Mr Bush's proposals, which he could announce tomorrow, having spent the weekend discussing the issue with his national security team. Among them was the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who received an angry reaction from the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, when she said the Palestinian Authority was "corrupt and cavorts with terror".
Mr Arafat has responded to American and Israeli criticism by announcing that the Palestinians would hold legislative and presidential elections in December or January, and by condemning suicide bombings in Israel. He criticised Ms Rice's most recent comment, saying: "We are implementing only what our people want us to do and we do not take orders from anyone."
The Palestinian leader also criticised Israel's building of a security fence along the border with the West Bank, condemning it as an "act of racism". He added: "It is a sinful assault on our land, an act of racism and apartheid which we totally reject."
Such rhetoric is not likely to go away once Mr Bush announces his proposals. According to reports, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, opposes establishing any sort of Palestinian state at the moment. He told The New York Times: "The Bush administration knows very well our position. It is premature now until the full cessation of terror and its incitement, and until there is real reform. I was willing to discuss a ceasefire under fire, but I cannot discuss political developments under fire. Many things must happen before that is discussed."
All sides accept that establishing an interim state will be weighed with problems and difficult decisions, including dealing with such issues as whether the Palestinians should be granted full membership of the UN instead of "permanent observer" status.
The former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, told The Los Angeles Times: "It's not going to be like any kind of state in the remaking, like Afghanistan. It's not going to be like a state in the making like East Timor. Both had either formal or informal trusteeships over them. The international community came in, in one form or another, and oversaw the process of building the state or rebuilding it."
Dennis Ross, a former special Middle East envoy, said: "It doesn't matter whether the idea is an interim state or a final state or different variations in between if the realities on the ground don't change then we won't have a chance to pursue any of them."
If he's gonna defer those questions, then why bother coming up with a peace plan at all? Personally, I don't think he should - but if he's going to, there's no point in 'deferring' the crucial sticking points.
In public, both governments would scream about the need of a Palestinian homeland, but behind closed doors they would be drooling over the new acreage. It could be sold as a type of land for peace; since Egypt and Jordan have kept the peace with Israel for decades, they will be rewarded with land.
The plan would place anti-American Egypt in league with a not-as-anti-American, more moderate Jordan, thus drawing Egypt slightly more in our corner. The new Jordan/Egypt axis would freak out Saudi Arabia which would be strongly against this plan, thus further dividing the Arab League. If these nations can't even unite on the solution to the Palestinian problem, they can't unite on anything.
Dubya wouldn't have to follow through with this, but it could make for some interesting geoplitics. just a thought.
Powell for Palestinian president.
But having a completely Jew-free Palestine is an act of racism and apartheid they would prefer.
Rewarding the Arabs for their terrorism with a second "palestinian" capital West of the Jordan only means that they will continue to try and destroy Israel.
Neither country wants this land, not because of the land itself, but because of its occupants. So-called "Palestinians" (there has never been a "Palestinian nation" in history) have been a thorn in the side of the Jordanians and Egyptians for decades, carrying out assassination plots, successful and unsuccessful, against the leaders of both countries.
There are very good reasons why the "Palestinian people" are not welcomed by other Arabs, chief among them the trail of destruction they leave in their wake. Witness Black September in Jordan and the PLO massacres in Lebanon. It's enough to ensure these people will be kept in "refugee camps" (which are more for the protection of those outside of them than within them) for decades to come.
A "Palestinian state" will not bring peace. Rather, it will elevate the violence now taking place to all-out war between Israel and "Palestine", with Arab states openly supporting and providing weapons to "Palestine". The concentration of weapons in "Palestinian" hands will result in massive casualties on both sides. Not a peaceful solution.
But after Israel is forced to occupy this land yet again, after more bloodshed, it will (hopefully) finally decide to solve this problem properly and keep the land, and send those Arabs within its borders who object back to their brother Arabs to fight amongst themselves.
Imal
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.