Report: Israel’s PM aims to scrap road map - will seek US approval

[Wordie]

Does this surprise anyone?

Report: Israel’s PM aims to scrap road map
Sharon will seek U.S. approval to annex parts of West Bank, paper says

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans eventually to scrap a U.S.-led “road map” to peace with the Palestinians and instead seek Washington’s blessing for annexing West Bank land, a newspaper said on Monday.

The report by senior staff of Maariv newspaper gave no source, but Sharon’s initial plans for last year’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were first floated in a similar way.

...The paper said Sharon, who is up for re-election in March, would argue that Israel was justified in abandoning the peace plan and setting borders unilaterally because of the failure of the Palestinians to crack down on militant groups.

...The Palestinians have failed to fulfil their obligation under the plan to start disarming factions spearheading a 5-year-old revolt. Israel has not met its own promise to stop expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10680637/

[madeline_con]

1. "Israel was justified in abandoning the peace plan..."

SSDD

[bpilgrim]

54. they've been acting all by themselves how can they abandon themselves?

or are they talking about the neoCONs 'plan'?

that never went past the neoCON photo-ops bout 3 years ago which was only a fig leaf for their war on iraq.

wtf plan are they talking about, r the palestinians in these meetings? :crazy:

peace

[Tom Joad]

2. Israel never accepted the "road map" to begin with.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Did the PA?

[Wordie]

4. If neither was willing to fulfill their obligations under the plan,

then neither should be able to benefit from it's scrapping, imo.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. That makes no sense. n/t

[Wordie]

9. What don't you understand? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Your post. n/t

[tinnypriv]

56. Yes

As the U.S. Secretary of State at the time (Powell) implicitly acknowledged. I highly doubt the PA ever intended to implement the Roadmap in a serious sense though, but thats conjecture. Fact is, the PA accepted the Roadmap, and Israel did not (as Powell essentially admitted).*


----

*. And even if he hadn't, the matter is overwhelmingly documented in Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. did you forget to say "snip?"

Paragraphs one and two are correct. Then, your post 'skips' to paragraphs 5, then jumps to paragraph 7. Did the report change?

Generally, one posts the article's first 4 paragraphs, or indicates "snips." It should have been posted as:

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans eventually to scrap a U.S.-led “road map” to peace with the Palestinians and instead seek Washington’s blessing for annexing West Bank land, a newspaper said on Monday.

The report by senior staff of Maariv newspaper gave no source, but Sharon’s initial plans for last year’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were first floated in a similar way.

Sharon’s spokesman declined comment, while a senior Israeli political source dismissed the report as “pure speculation”.

A senior Palestinian official said he doubted whether the United States or the European Union would endorse the plan described by Maariv.

The paragraphs you left out (bolded in the excerpt) and #6: "In public, Sharon remains very much committed to the road map for a Palestinian state on land captured in the 1967 Middle East war alongside a secure Israel. But Palestinians have long said they suspect Sharon intends to dictate terms.

Was this a simple mistake (Ha'aretz is known for changing articles) or intentional misdirection? The article does say it was "Updated: 7:55 a.m. ET Jan. 2, 2006," but that doesn't match the time of the post.

[Wordie]

7. There is no requirement, to my knowledge, to post only the first 4...

I chose the intro and concluding paragraphs. And since it was all boxed, it's clear that it all comes from the article. Hardly misdirection.

Is the reminder that it was not just the Pals who didn't fulfill their obligations objectionable?

Edited to add: I'm not certain what you mean about the time of the post. There's nothing wrong or questionable about it that I can see.

And as far as paragraph selection, I had to chose the ones I felt best represented the article. As I'm sure you realize, four paragraphs can rarely do justice to a lengthy article. But I can understand why you would want to add the part about the denials. Between the two of us, the article is now covered more fully.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. info for you...

Do not selectively quote articles with the intent to change the original meaning.

source

If not your intent was not to misdirect, then you should have included that there were breaks in the paragraphs you were quoting. You know as well as I do, that some don't bother reading the article, just the post. Perhaps a "warning" was needed here?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Your edit...

Simply...you posted an article in a disingenuous fashion. If you wanted to "capture" the essence, then you quote whatever paragraphs you want, but generally, you quote an article as it is printed, not as you wish it to be printed. If this still is confusing you, contact UGRR or Lithos.

This is how it should have looked...

Report: Israel’s PM aims to scrap road map
Sharon will seek U.S. approval to annex parts of West Bank, paper says

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans eventually to scrap a U.S.-led “road map” to peace with the Palestinians and instead seek Washington’s blessing for annexing West Bank land, a newspaper said on Monday.

The report by senior staff of Maariv newspaper gave no source, but Sharon’s initial plans for last year’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were first floated in a similar way.

---snip---

The paper said Sharon, who is up for re-election in March, would argue that Israel was justified in abandoning the peace plan and setting borders unilaterally because of the failure of the Palestinians to crack down on militant groups.

---snip---

The Palestinians have failed to fulfil their obligation under the plan to start disarming factions spearheading a 5-year-old revolt. Israel has not met its own promise to stop expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Editing and adding "..." doesn't change that the article was not shown as printed.

[yowzayowzayowza]

42. Wow! Snip Nannies!

Thatz a new one. The ellipsis werkz fine fer me.

Main Entry: el·lip·sis
Pronunciation: i-'lip-s&s, e-
Function: noun
1 a : the omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete b : a sudden leap from one topic to another
2 : marks or a mark (as ... or · or --) indicating an omission (as of words) or a pause

[Behind the Aegis]

49. read your own definition...

Ellipsis before something does not indicate a missing paragraph, but would indicate a missing sentence, as if one was quoting from the middle of a paragraph. Ellipsis between paragraphs would indicate missing paragraphs.

[yowzayowzayowza]

53. I rest my case.

Have a nice day. :D

[Behind the Aegis]

55. If you had one to rest.

:hi:

[yowzayowzayowza]

57. I dunno.

A thread-jack flame-war over the definition of plural might just reach the relevance of an ego invested in a missing carriage return.

[julianer]

8. Of course politicians

can always be trusted, especially someone like war criminal Sharon.

This is pretty much what was expected - continuation of illegal land grabs while giving lip service to peace.

Israel will ignore the law; it will grab more Palestinian land; it will carry on blaming the robbed people for the violence of their reaction; apologists will carry on cheering these crimes.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. So true...

...much like Abbas saying he would actually do something about the violence from the Gaza. They will continue to enjoy the Judenrein'ed Gaza and still pretend they have no control, but should be given, out-right, the WB. And, there will be those that continue to cheer the "resistance."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[julianer]

19. I have no idea who Rense are.

I did a google search and found a Fisk article. Anyway your attempt to shoot the messenger is noted.

Are you saying that Robert Fisk is a liar? Are you saying that the massacres didn't happen? Are you saying that Ariel Sharon didn't let the fascist militia into the refugee camps to massacre Palestinians, letting his troops stand by and watch?

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Then search again!

"Rense" is an anti-Semitic cesspool!

[julianer]

24. I apologise for that

I will know for the future.

However, Fisk is not an anti-semite. Nor are the facts in dispute. Ariel Sharon is a criminal of the worst sort. He should be in prison, not PM of Israel.

You cannot expect criminals who have been rewarded for their crimes, as Sharon has, to suddenly turn to the law.

From the point when Bush, Sharon and Blair decided to break their own 'road map' by de-facto recognising the Israeli settlements, the left predicted that this was a ruse to establish a firmer grip on the valuable parts of the occupied territory - as Dov Weissglass admitted. This is really the next part of that process.

When are you going to start supporting the law and stop supporting a war criminal?

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Good to know!

And, when are you going to see that there are TWO sides?

Criminals are running for office in the PA that everyone thinks Israel should allow. Why the double standard? Why should a leader (Abbas) who is a Holocaust denier (minimalist) be allowed to hold a seat and negotiate?

So, when are you going to start supporting an actual dialog, instead of a one-sided retreat?

[julianer]

30. You are deciding my opinions for me

I don't accept that there are 'two sides' to this. It implies that there is an equivalence of responsibility under law. In fact one 'side' is an occupier, the other the occupied. Israel should have no right to complain about the 'criminals' elected in Palestine. The Israeli prime minister is a war criminal himself.

I have told you repeatedly (though it makes no discernable difference to the 'debate') that I support the 'two state' solution formerly supported by the entire international community - until Bush, Blair and Sharon tore it up. However, given Israel's continued encroachment into Palestinian territory which makes a viable Palestinian state unviable, I would in practice support a secular federation of Israel and Palestine with a new constitution granting equality for all citizens under the law - in other words Israel will have to get rid of its racist characteristics and seek rapprochment based on the Palestinian right to return to land occupied after the original mandate terms were violated.

I also think that, in the long run, the longer Israel denies Palestinian rights the worse it will be for Israel. States cannot survive for long on the basis of racism and aggression - and the worse the racism and aggression is the harder the fall and retribution will be. Surely everyone wants to avoid that?

[Wordie]

21. Let's try Haaretz, then.

...Sharon's path to success has led from one failure to another, in the army as well as politics. A straight line leads from the army's commando Unit 101, which Sharon headed in the early 1950s, to the massacre at Sabra and Chatilla. While still in the army Sharon was a very political man, with direct contacts to Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Menachem Begin. On the eve of the Six-Day War he pushed for a preemptive attack on Egypt, in contrast to the wait-and-see policy of the Eshkol government. As the tension grew, Sharon told the chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin, to lock the entire government up in a room and declare war without its approval. This episode, which would seem sufficient to disqualify Sharon from ever holding office again in a democratic government, is not mentioned in Bloom and Hefez's book, although it does appear in a book by Ami Gluska.

As a politician, Sharon has often behaved as if he were still in the army. He tends to treat every restriction, be it legal, constitutional or ethical, as only an option. Thus he remains a dangerous man as he has always been. The authors of "The Shepherd" do not warn us against him. They go for him as a story.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/658797.html

[Behind the Aegis]

25. You have no point!

Unless you are saying an anti-Semitic cesspool is a legitimate source when it suits your needs!

This was about the "road map," not past offenses.

Should I drag up Abbas Holocaust denials, as well?

[Wordie]

27. LOL...Haaretz an "anti-semitic cesspool???

I quoted Haaretz. As for the other poster's reference, he already apologized. Those of us who are not anti-semitic can be easily caught unaware, because we don't spend time looking for anti-semitic material, it's easy not to know when we've stumbled upon a genuinely anti-semitic source. But that really isn't the topic of this thread.

Since the article I posted does really go to Sharon's governing style, what I posted was entirely relevant.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Poor reading skills.

I didn't say Ha'aretz was an anti-Semitic cesspool. However :applause: for your attempt to paint my post as such!

I was responding to his using an anti-Semitic crap-hole quoting something that had NOTHING to do with the original post. You jumped in with a quote from another source...which really doesn't even support the crap she quoted (read both articles).

I love this line..."because we don't spend time looking for anti-semitic material, it's easy not to know when we've stumbled upon a genuinely anti-semitic source." BRAVO! Would this be "ignorance of the law" is an excuse?

"Since the article I posted does really go to Sharon's governing style, what I posted was entirely relevant. My only reply can be: "But that really isn't the topic of this thread."

[Wordie]

32. Sharon's governing style has EVERYTHING to do with this topic.

"Since the article I posted does really go to Sharon's governing style, what I posted was entirely relevant. My only reply can be: "But that really isn't the topic of this thread."

It is Sharon who is planning to try to make this "scrapping of the road map" move, which had been so widely predicted in the first place. It is an attempt at an end-run around the peace process in general, presuming that since the other side didn't hold up their obligations, that should justify the theft of land from the other side. Except, to cease the theft of land was the obligation of the Israeli side in the first place, which they also did not meet. Why should they be rewarded with additional land, and a US approval of their unilateral demands, when they also did not meet their obligations? Observations that this is entirely in keeping with Sharon's past actions are right on the money.

BRAVO! Would this be "ignorance of the law" is an excuse?
No, an honest mistake is the excuse, and a reasonable one, it seems to me.
For a person to make a mistake on the internet seems hardly an issue that needs to be attacked so vigorously. Your continued harping makes it seem like you continue to think this was deliberate. It's easier to talk about than Sharon's latest aggression, I suppose.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. So, should I start posting Abbas articles?

Yes, of course, it is Sharon "scrapping the deal," even though another player is involved. It should be obvious that the PA has no control, yet, is expected to "rule" Palestine. :eyes: Why should another unilateral withdrawal and Judenrein be expected? OH WAIT..I know...because a "jew-free" Palestine is their "right!"

An honest mistake is OK. I do love how you portray my response as being "attacked so vigorously." A responding post is now a 'vigorous attack.' When the 'apology' was presented as was: "Good to know." Have to hate those "vigorous attacks!" :eyes:

"It's easier to talk about than Sharon's latest aggression, I suppose." I guess so...since you are not interested in a legitimate discussion.

[Wordie]

45. When did Sharon ever honor the deal? Did he not have responsibilities

as well? Can we have a "legitimate" discussion when that fact is simply ignored?

Do you think Sharon is blameless here? To read what you post it sounds like this was some new thing, in response to the Palestinian actions. When, since the time Sharon first agreed to the road map, was settlement building stopped? And why would you post material about Abbas; this is a thread about Sharon's actions. That's what I'd like to discuss.

And as far as the vigorous attack is concerned, you continued it in your response to me, #25, even though what I posted was from a source that I presumed you would consider legitimate, Haaretz. (The point I made was that it's not only anti-semitic sources that see Sharon's actions (or lack of them) at Sabra and Chatilla as reprehensible.)

[julianer]

35. Let's be clear about this shall we?

I am not an anti-semite and the link I gave to the anti-semitic site was an error. I apologise again. I would never seek to give credibility to anti-semites or anti-semitism of any sort.

I would, therefore, be grateful if you would do me the honour of accepting my word on this matter.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Gladly....

...on one condition...

...you acknowledge that not all Zionists are racists!

[julianer]

44. I have never said that

as you well know. Every post you make has a rather nasty piece of innuendo attached to it, I notice.

I say that zionism as a political philosophy is based on racism - the idea that Jews have the right to occupy other lands, that it is ok for the state to exclude some people from citizenship on the basis of race and that some zionists who support this are also racist (in the same way that parts of every population is racist). They justify the expansionist policies on the basis of racial (or cultural, if you prefer) inadequacy of Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general - the same racist propaganda that is presently being directed at muslims in general, in fact.

Many zionists are not racist but see the benefits of occupying other people's land and are unconcerned about the rights of the occupied. Others are merely confused and propagandised into thinking that Palestinians want to kill them and so are frightened into supporting repression.

None of this is specific to Israel or zionism. Racism flows from the political philosophy of zionism as it does from colonialism and imperialism more generally - I would argue that fundamentally it flows from capitalism itself, which needs colonialism and imperialism to survive. Any country that engages in imperialism will find it necessary to use racist justifications, though in every case a significant section of the population will reject such racism and fight against colonialism and for justice.

[julianer]

17. Who is 'cheering the resistance'?

Is this another smear - you can't get away with calling everyone an anti-semite so best to imply that they are supporters of 'terror'?

Why do you put the word resistance in quote marks? Aren't these people resisting Israeli occupation or have they just got some silliness in their 'culturally corrupt' heads again?

It's not really appropriate to use quote marks in this case because it implies that they are not really 'resistors' but something else - terrorists (the big scary alarm word de nos jours). Just use the word 'terrorist' and you can justify any aggression, as your ally, George W. Bush, has shown us.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Talk about rewording people's posts!!!

I have never called anyone here an anti-Semite, unlike those that have called all Zionists racists!

[julianer]

28. I suppose you are right about that

in terms of strict precision but, I'm sure you know, there are many claims of a 'tsunami' of anti-semitism (not least from the zionist Chief Rabbi in the UK, a proven liar) which is designed to smear anti-zionists. There is no evidence for this though, as far as I'm aware. It is called the 'new anti-semitism' by zionists. It is balls.

All zionists are racists to the degree that they seek to justify their occupation on the basis of some sort of inferiority of Palestinians, usually expressed in starkly Nazi terms such as 'cultural corruption' including by some 'progressives' here. Not all zionists do this however. Some simply justify their illegality on the grounds of force, others seek to use more humanitarian arguments about women's rights etc. All though treat Palestinians as removable items that are simply in the way of Israeli colonialism. In this respect the whole zionist project is deeply racist, just like all colonialism. There is a very strong argument that colonialism must give rise to racism against the colonised - how else can these things be justified? This racism frequently takes the form of the colonisers 'bringing civilisation' to the benighted 'backward' people who should be grateful to the occupiers.

I'm a Brit - I grew up as our empire was decaying - and I'm very familiar with all the racist arguments of colonialism. I see them more and more in relation to the neo-imperialism of Israel and the USA.

In reality it is simply another smear on your part to claim that people have called allzionists racist. I haven't done this - I haven't seen anyone else do this. I have called the Israeli state racist but this is simply a statement of fact which you can't deny. You would have if you could.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[julianer]

33. Your point being? n/t

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wordie]

16. Some other things the article said:

It's also interesting to note that the article said that Sharon has already approached persons in the Bush administration (I wonder who) with these plans, using as a justification that there is no real chance of peace through negotiations with the Pals. Saeb Erekat has weighed in, saying that he doubts the US and EU would endorse it.

Further, the article says that Sharon wants Bush to approve the annexation of parts of the West Bank and parts of Arab East Jerusalem, and a plan to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

I should also add that other versions of this report have been appearing in other media throughout the day. I didn't post it earlier, until it appeared on MSNBC as well. The timing of this report, coming as it does on the eve of Palestinian elections, is disatrous.

[julianer]

18. Facts on the ground

It's straight out of the neo-con/zionist playbook.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. interchangable are they?! n/t

[julianer]

37. They certainly seem to share

many strategic ideas, and appear to have very close links in terms of political relationships, yes.

I don't really see how you can deny this.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. only if you think...

...Zionist and "neo-con" are interchangeable."

[julianer]

47. I don't understand

You seem to be saying that you can only deny close links between zionists and neo-cons by thinking they are interchangeable. The sense of this statement eludes me. Could you elaborate.

[rodeodance]

48. Bush will stick by his roadmap. It is part of his legacy.

[Wordie]

50. Saeb Erekat calls plan "sinister"; Henry Kissenger is involved in this.

Erakat: Sharon's Substitute Plan of Roadmap "Sinister"

RAMMALLAH, Palestine, January 3,2006 (IPC+Agencies) - - Dr Saeb Erekat, the Chief negotiator, designated yesterday the plan of canceling the Roadmap blueprint in the Middle East which was ascribed to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a sinister plan and chimera.

He told the press "If Israel wanted peace with the Palestinian people there would be only one way; to withdraw from the 1967-occupied lands including Jerusalem, to allow a Palestinian state with sovereignty to be established, and to resolve the issue of the refugees in accordance with the UN resolution 194. Without this peace will not come true."

..."Then Sharon would declare the roadmap to end, and would put forth an alternative plan that suggests America demarcate the eastern borders of Israel which will include around 8 to 21 per cent of the West Bank lands, gain control over the old city of Jerusalem, and transfer the responsibility of the Arab neighbouhoods to the PNA."

Furthermore it made clear that Henry Kissinger - a US secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 - is trying to market the idea as an American one that is imposed on Israel, referring that both of the American administration and the Israeli government do not expect Abbas's government could manage to have control over the situation within the coming period, and that the US will not response to the idea until it is fully and carefully studied.

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=12796

I certainly hope you are right, rodeodance. The article also mentions that the Israelis are suggesting that the US take on a "mandate" in the Palestinian areas because of the claim that the Palestinians "...cannot control their own affairs." I surely don't think that the US would agree to a mandate in the area. However, the article does seem to be a bit contradictory, because in other sections it both says that the PNA would be eliminated, and also says that it would be the PNA that would take control of the lands. So who knows what the plan really is.

If it's Kissenger who is the one floating the plan on the US side, will Bush be wise enough to resist it? I don't have a lot of confidence in Bush's wisdom, I'm afraid. And if those around him want this plan to go forward, what is he likely to do? It is ominous that the US has not rejected this plan outright, but instead they say they want to study the plan. If they remained 100% committed to the road map, would they hesitate?

There are many on the left who have predicted this from the beginning.

[Wordie]

51. W.House hopes Palestinian election goes forward (Reuters)

This looks like a sign that you may be right, rodeodance. Good.

W.House hopes Palestinian election goes forward
03 Jan 2006 16:49:54 GMT
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush wants Palestinian elections to go forward as scheduled this month with no delay and thinks Palestinians should be allowed to vote in East Jerusalem, a White House official said on Tuesday.

Bush is hoping the Jan. 25 vote will mark a step forward in his vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.

..."It's our desire to see the elections go forward as scheduled," said a White House spokesman.

..."We believe that people must have access to the ballot," the White House spokesman said. "Arrangements have been made in the past to ensure that those persons can vote and we believe some arrangements should be possible at this time."

[Wordie]

43. I find the timing of the publication of this article troubling,

as it comes just on the eve of the Palestinian elections, which should occur later this month (unless Abbas does go ahead and cancel them). The information was initially published by Maariv, which I understand to be considered solid. The article (or variations of the report) has already been picked up by news outlets in Iran, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, etc., so it's clear it's causing quite a stir.

What effect are these revelations likely to have, on both the Palestinian elections this month, and the Israeli ones in March?