What did Bush signal? -- George Bisharat on the "convergence"

[Tom Joad]

Lucky for Olmert that Bush is President, I doubt any other would support such an extreme step by Israel (although congress regularly supports resolutions, Presidents tend to be a bit more cautious, not so Bush the Younger). Unlucky for those of us who care about human rights. Or peace. Or a future. This will be a disaster for the whole region.

The unilateral annexation of prime real estate in the West Bank, taken by military force, is otherwise known as the "Convergence", or more recently as the "realignment". Israel is marketing this as a bold step for "peace", but with any objective analysis, one can see something much different. It is nothing less than a plan for isolating Palestinians into Cantons... the 21st century version of apartheid. No Palestinians will be allowed in vast areas of the West Bank, taken during the '67 war.

Note also that Israel has been saying "there is no suitable partner for peace" for years, not just when Hamas was elected.

Bisharat is a well-respected professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. I am proud to know him.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/29/EDGDOIJI5R1.DTL&hw=bisharat&sn=001&sc=1000
What did Bush signal?
Did President Bush give Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a red light or a green light for his plan to unilaterally annex parts of the Palestinian West Bank? That is what many are asking in the aftermath of Olmert's visit to Washington, D.C., last week. The confusion arises from President Bush's clear admonition that Olmert must attempt to negotiate with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, coupled with his approving remarks regarding Olmert's "bold ideas."

The particular "bold idea" in question is what Olmert and his Kadima Party call their "convergence" plan. While they market the plan as a "withdrawal" that will ostensibly reduce conflict with the Palestinians, the plan, in fact, would allow Israel to seize large parts of the West Bank, including some of the best agricultural land and most valuable water resources. An estimated 60,000 to 70,000 Israeli settlers will be relocated from settlements more distant from Israel's pre-1967 borders to larger settlements that are closer to Israel, but still on the West Bank.

This would continue long-term Israeli policies of racial gerrymandering, aimed at absorbing maximum Palestinian land while minimizing the number of Palestinian residents it governs. Most settlers would be relocated to the west of the wall being built by Israel primarily in the West Bank -- and accordingly judged illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004.

Over the last year, Israel has quietly declared the Jordan Valley -- almost one-third of the West Bank -- a "closed area" to Palestinians, and Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that they would never surrender control over Israel's eastern border. In aggregate, this could mean that Israel will eventually assert sovereignty over nearly half of the West Bank, far more than the 10 percent on which the large settlement blocs sit.

Read the whole thing.

[TomInTib]

1. And wasn't the 'yellow armband' bs convenient?

Guarantee you georgie green lighted the whole deal to prop up Olmert.

[Tom Joad]

2. I think that armband story really had anything to do with bush propping

up Olmert. It does have to do with the push for war with Iran, and that is clearly supported by pro-Israel lobbyists in the US, which is something they very openly advocate. or as they say, "taking action".

[TomInTib]

3. I believe it was both.

Way too convenient timing.

Remember, Olmert also called for 'action'.

[Tom Joad]

4. I think the US would back a military action taken by Israel.

[TomInTib]

5. I fully agree.

But I think it will be a case of the Israelis backing our blunders.

Goodness, this looks like a Tom-Tom telegram.