Thursday, April 15, 2004
George Bush’s blind spot
Why is it so damn hard to understand that you aren't going to satisfy the Palestinians by giving them the functional equivalent of a South African Bantustan? Check out the map contained in this page to see what Ariel Sharon’s “courageous” pullback means in terms of the total number of settlements. Sharon will dismantle FOUR settlement in the West Bank out of HUNDREDS. What definition of "courageous" would allow something so pusillanimous to be qualified as such? It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Sharon’s Likud party is falling in line with the plan (now that Bush has all but given his stamp of approval to it), given that they get to keep practically every settlement in the West Bank. Of course, just to show how crazy certain elements in Likud are, Sharon was unsure of winning a vote on this policy within his party until Bush approved of the deal.
Note the distribution of settlements in the West Bank. How on EARTH does Israel hope to defend them? They will likely require a means to move military hardware to and from the settlements, leading to roads that are defended against Palestinians, resulting in a “nation” where it will STILL take hours for Palestinians to move from one town to the other.
I expect Sharon to move very fast on this, given that there is no guarantee Bush will be president within a year. Facts on the ground seem to be Sharon’s approach to dealing with the Palestinians.
Sharon needs to ask himself, though, whether his “courageous” offer is truly going to be enough to end the Intifada. If it doesn’t, then he will have accomplished absolutely nothing, and will likely end up reoccupying the Palestinian lands he has pulled back from.. If that is the case, expect that a future American administration serious about resolving the situation in Israel WILL force Sharon (or a future Israeli leader) to do what they should have done long ago – give Palestinians something with a passing resemblance to a modern nation state.
Why is it so damn hard to understand that you aren't going to satisfy the Palestinians by giving them the functional equivalent of a South African Bantustan? Check out the map contained in this page to see what Ariel Sharon’s “courageous” pullback means in terms of the total number of settlements. Sharon will dismantle FOUR settlement in the West Bank out of HUNDREDS. What definition of "courageous" would allow something so pusillanimous to be qualified as such? It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Sharon’s Likud party is falling in line with the plan (now that Bush has all but given his stamp of approval to it), given that they get to keep practically every settlement in the West Bank. Of course, just to show how crazy certain elements in Likud are, Sharon was unsure of winning a vote on this policy within his party until Bush approved of the deal.
Note the distribution of settlements in the West Bank. How on EARTH does Israel hope to defend them? They will likely require a means to move military hardware to and from the settlements, leading to roads that are defended against Palestinians, resulting in a “nation” where it will STILL take hours for Palestinians to move from one town to the other.
I expect Sharon to move very fast on this, given that there is no guarantee Bush will be president within a year. Facts on the ground seem to be Sharon’s approach to dealing with the Palestinians.
Sharon needs to ask himself, though, whether his “courageous” offer is truly going to be enough to end the Intifada. If it doesn’t, then he will have accomplished absolutely nothing, and will likely end up reoccupying the Palestinian lands he has pulled back from.. If that is the case, expect that a future American administration serious about resolving the situation in Israel WILL force Sharon (or a future Israeli leader) to do what they should have done long ago – give Palestinians something with a passing resemblance to a modern nation state.
