ISRAEL MAKES MAJOR SECURITY CONCESSIONS

Rice Wins Concessions from Israel - Matthew Lee
Secretary of State Rice, visiting the region for the second time this month, announced a series of concrete steps by Israel aimed at improving the Palestinian economy. The agreement includes: removing 50 travel barriers in and around Jenin, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Ramallah; dismantling one permanent roadblock; deploying 700 Jordanian-trained Palestinian police in Jenin and allowing them to take delivery of armored vehicles; raising the number of Palestinian businessmen allowed into Israel; increasing the number of work permits for Palestinian laborers; building new housing for Palestinians in 25 villages; connecting Palestinian villages to the Israeli power grid; and Israeli support for large-scale economic development programs and encouragement of foreign investment. (AP/Washington Post)

THE U.S. WAS "VERY SURPRISED" AT THE EXTENT OF ISRAELI CONCESSIONS.  INDEED, ISRAEL SEEMS TO HAVE AGREED TO SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE ITS SECURITY.  BUT CONDI DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING....

LUCKILY, A CIVILIAN SAVED HIMSELF FROM BEING THE FIRST VICTIM OF ISRAEL'S CONCESSIONS.

WHAT IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED?

Fitzgerald: Reversing the roles of the Arabs and Israel (Jihad Watch)
A Jihad Watch reader asked me: “If the Israel/Palestinian conflict were exactly the same as it is, only the roles of the two warring parties were exactly reversed, would you then switch allegiances to the Palestinian side?”

Let's see. [READ ON]

PALI OLD GUARD REGRETS MISSED OPPORTUNITIES OF 1947

Among the Palestinian Old Guard, Aging and Sidelined, Defiance Mixes with Regrets
Looking back to the UN partition plan of 1947, which envisaged Jewish and Palestinian states living side by side in peace, Nayef Hawatmeh comes to the painful acknowledgment of an opportunity missed. "After 60 years, we are struggling for what we could have had in 1947," laments the leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. "We have missed many historic opportunities." In a year when Israel is celebrating its 60th birthday, Hawatmeh and his generation of leaders are still in exile and fading from the scene. (AP/International Herald Tribune)

AND IN 60 MORE YEARS THE "NEW" "OLD GUARD" WILL BE MOURNING THE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES OF THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY.

ABBAS LETS DOWN GUARD TO JORDANIAN PRESS

Abbas in Briefing to Jordanian Daily Al-Dustour : I Am Against the Armed Struggle – But In Future Stages Things May Change (MEMRI)

On February 28, 2008, the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour published a summary of a briefing given to its editorial staff by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  The following are excerpts from Al-Dustour's summary of the briefing:

We Oppose the Concept of a Jewish State

"In Abbas's opinion, the Annapolis summit gave a boost to the political peace process, which we would like to see proceed according to the Road Map plan, incorporating the Arab [i.e. Saudi] initiative and U.S. President George Bush's vision. [The Road Map] calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state and an end of the occupation of the territories occupied in 1967. It is well known that the Road Map plan has become international [i.e. U.N. Security Council] Resolution No. 1515.

"However, while we cannot say that any significant results have been achieved so far, we are on our way, and aspire to reach a satisfactory solution before the end of 2008 – [a solution] that will end the conflict and ensure peace in the Middle East. Abbas added that when such a solution is reached, it will be presented to the Palestinian people, so that it can express its opinion. If [the Palestinian people] accept the plan, well and good! If they reject it, this will mean that they reject us [as well].

"Abbas stressed that he is opposed to the so-called 'Jewish state,' saying, We already rejected such a proposal at the Annapolis summit, last November in the U.S. [In fact,] the summit almost broke up over this issue. We were asked at the time [to agree] that the summit's concluding statement should refer to the Jewish state – but we categorically objected to this..."

I Never Asked Hamas to Recognize Israel

"As regards recognizing Israel, Abbas said: I never asked Hamas to recognize Israel; I only asked this of the national unity government, which maintained contacts with Israel. This is what I said to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and he supported me. Hamas ran in the elections on the basis of the Oslo accords, which recognize Israel. Nor am I the only one to demand recognition of Israel: indeed, the Arab initiative – which enjoys an Arab Muslim consensus – is prepared to [recognize Israel] if it withdraws from all territories occupied since 1967..."

I Am Against the Armed Struggle; However, in Future Stages Things may Change

"About the resistance, Abbas said: It was I who, in 1965, had the honor of firing the first bullet. Many people, locally and abroad, know the resistance for what it is, how and under what circumstances it brings pride – and when it does not, what benefit can be derived from it, and what constitutes serious, genuine, and effective resistance. It is also commonly known when resistance may cause harm, and when the time, place, and circumstances are auspicious.

"[Abbas continued:] We [Fatah] had the honor of leading the resistance. We instructed everyone, including Hizbullah, as to what the resistance means. They were educated in our camps... At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages things may change..."

ABBAS: IF PEACE NOT ACHIEVED IN 2008, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN

Abbas: If peace not achieved in 2008, it will never happen (JPost)
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas urged the US on Monday to make good on its promise to work for a Middle East peace settlement by the end of the year, warning that there would not be any future chances.

Abbas spoke following a closed door meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Jordanian capital of Amman and warned that if the Bush administration didn't make good on its pledge to "make 2008 the year to broker peace, then there will never be any future chances to achieve this goal."

The Palestinians and Israelis are negotiating a final peace settlement, which the Bush administration hopes would lead to the creation of an independent Palestinian state later this year.

The US "must understand it is to play an active role, not just as a supervisor, by intervening directly to help make peace," Abbas told reporters. He also urged Israel "to stop escalating the situation in the Palestinian territories and stop all attacks in the Gaza Strip, including firing missiles there."

OLMERT'S MISGUIDED OPTIMISM

Olmert’s Misguided Optimism by Eric Trager (Contentions)

Credit Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with one thing: he’s probably the only world leader more publicly optimistic about Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects than George W. Bush. Yesterday, Olmert announced that Israel would begin negotiating final borders with the Palestinians, the ongoing crisis in Gaza notwithstanding. “On this issue there is a set of previous understandings and international backing,” Olmert said, raising expectations in the Israeli press for an “easy” solution.

Of course, Olmert is delusional—Israeli-Palestinian consensus on border issues is light years away. Just ask the Arabic press, which completely ignored Olmert’s negotiations announcement. Instead, the Palestine News Agency, al-Jazeera, and al-Quds placed Israel’s decision to construct new housing units in East Jerusalem among its top headlines, while al-Hayat al-Jadida bemoaned “the Judaization of Jerusalem.” Meanwhile, al-Ayyam’s coverage of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s visit to Washington emphasized his call for an end to Israeli settlement activity—an appropriate focus, given Fayyad’s newly avowed pessimismtowards the peace process.

The source of this widening gap between Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ outlooks appears to be Olmert’s fixation on Bush’s April 2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which Olmert cited in his call for border negotiations. In this letter, Bush acknowledged that, “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” At the time, Israelis interpreted this as recognizing settlement blocs along the Green Line as a diplomatic reward for the forthcoming Gaza disengagement, thus removing the mutual exclusivity of land-for-peace with settlement expansion.

In fact, the letter recognized no such thing. Rather, it simply allowed for the possibility that future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would opt for “mutually agreed changes” to the Green Line in establishing final borders, and promised to endorse these changes if they were formulated by the two sides. Moreover, the letter made repeated reference to the Road Map, the first phase of which explicitly calls on Israel to freeze settlement activity.

Of course, settlement activity is not the primary reason for the absence of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Indeed, considering the full-scale guerilla war that will likely hit Gaza in the near future, the settlements are small beans. Still, the Prime Minister’s inability to recognize the distance that exists between him and his Palestinian counterparts on borders—which is roughly the distance between the Green Line and the eastern edge of Har Homa—is confounding. If Olmert hopes to bridge that distance, he would be well advised to match his stated goals with policy, finally acknowledging the extent to which continued settlement building is inconsistent with peace efforts.

BUSH'S MIDEAST U-TURN

Bush's Mideast U-Turn By BASSEM EID AND NATAN SHARANSKY (WSJ)
On June 24, 2002, President Bush presented his vision for an Israeli-Palestinian peace.... 

The real breakthrough of Mr. Bush's vision five-and-a-half years ago was not his call for a two-state solution or even the call for Palestinians to "choose leaders not compromised by terror." Rather, the breakthrough was in making peace conditional on a fundamental transformation of Palestinian society: "I call upon [Palestinians] to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. . . . A Palestinian state will never be created by terror -- it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism."

Many critics argued at the time that linking the peace process to a transformation of Palestinian society was a radical departure in peacemaking. It was. And it was long overdue.

What had guided policymakers for the previous decade was the idea that a "moderate" Palestinian leader who would fight terror and make peace with Israel needed to be "strengthened" at all costs. Yasser Arafat was their moderate. He was given territory, weapons, money and a warm diplomatic embrace.

Completely ignored was what was happening within Palestinian society. As Arafat was hollowing out civil society, handing control of the economy to corrupt cronies, squirreling away billions of dollars into his private accounts, trampling on the rights of his own people, and using PA-controlled media and schools to indoctrinate a generation into a culture of hatred, the international community's bear hug only tightened. Indeed, Arafat's emerging dictatorship was seen as an asset in the peace process. Here was the "strong" leader, it was argued, who could make a deal. Nothing should be done to weaken him.

Mr. Bush's speech was supposed to change all this. It was supposed to shift the focus to where it should have always been: on helping Palestinians build a decent society that would protect the rights of their own people and promote peace with its neighbors. It was supposed to begin the hard work of helping Palestinians reconstruct their civil society, build a free economy, establish real courts, reform their security services, and revamp their educational system.

President Bush deserves much credit for placing a spotlight on the issues of democracy and human rights and for his firm belief that the advance of freedom is critical for international peace and stability. He made this idea a focus of his second inaugural address and reiterated it last June in Prague at a conference of dissidents from around the world. Last month, President Bush did not flinch from speaking about freedom and human rights in the heart of Arabia.

But the past few years have shown that when it comes to dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, the vital link between freedom and peace is almost entirely ignored. True, the administration is not doing anything against the wishes of the current Israeli and Palestinian leadership. But just as the Oslo peace process of the 1990s was a disaster that Israeli and Palestinian leaders wholeheartedly embraced, the current peacemaking round will prove equally disastrous because it ignores what is most important.

Rather than begin the long and difficult process to transform Palestinian society and ultimately pave the road to peace, the administration has consistently supported quick and foolish solutions: from crafting a "road map" that only paid lip service to reform; to backing a unilateral disengagement that by its nature ignored Palestinian society; to pressing for snap elections that preceded rather than followed reform and thereby brought Hamas to power.

REPORT: ISRAEL SECRETLY NEGOTIATING TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM

PA official reports progress over Jerusalem in secret talks (JPost)A senior PA official in Ramallah told the Jerusalem Post on Saturday that the Palestinian negotiating team headed by former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei had been holding secret talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and other government officials in the past few weeks.

A spokesperson from Livni's office said that he was "not allowed to respond to anything going on in the [negotiating] room."

"The main progress has been achieved during the secret talks, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem. Today we can say that Israel is prepared to withdraw from almost all the Arab neighborhoods and villages in Jerusalem. Israel is prepared to redivide Jerusalem and this is a positive development," the Ramallah official said.

Post's J'lem story may topple gov't (JPost)
Shas chairman Eli Yishai indicated on Monday that his party's days in the government were numbered, due to The Jerusalem Post's story that the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams were conducting secret talks on the future of Jerusalem.

Yishai told reporters who attended his faction's weekly meeting that he would speak about the story in Sunday's paper with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

He had not spoken to either one by press time and the Olmert associates he did reach downplayed the report.

"I will check the story and if it's true, Shas will leave the government," Yishai told the Post.

Yishai also issued a new threat that any diplomatic progress on any issue while Kassams fall on Sderot could lead to the party's departure from the coalition. Yishai escalated his warning beyond previous threats, which focused solely on Jerusalem.

But Yishai's threat to leave over the Post story was seen as more serious, because it applied to negotiations that have already taken place, while the new threat deals with potential future talks.

BLAIR CLAIMS P.A. IMPLEMENTING ROAD MAP

Blair claims PA implementing roadmap - let's fact check (ELDER OF ZIYON)

From Ynet: International Middle East envoy Tony Blair said on Thursday the Palestinians were meeting their security obligations under a long-stalled Road Map peace plan and that Israel should start responding. "I think it is important to recognise that what has happened here in Nablus over these past few months is, of course, precisely what phase one of the 'road map' asks for," Blair said during a visit to the northern West Bank city of Nablus. Really?   ELDER OF ZIYON CHECKS THE FACTS AND MAKES BLAIR SOUND LIKE A LYING FOOL...HERE.

LET'S REALLY TALK ABOUT REFUGEES, SHALL WE?

A Modest Proposal for Middle East Peace - Victor Davis Hanson
Why not hold an international conference on all displaced populations, many from the post-war, late 1940s? Perhaps it would be best to start with the millions of Germans who were expelled from East Prussia in 1945, or Indians who were uprooted from ancestral homes in what is now Pakistan, or over half-a-million Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Iraq, and Syria. Were these refugees ever adequately compensated for lost property and damages? Can they be given promises of the right to return to their ancestral homes under protection of their host countries? The ensuing solutions might shed light on Palestinian aspirations to return to land lost sixty years ago to Israel.

Another international panel could take up the issue of returning territory lost by defeat in war. Ten percent of historic Germany is now part of Poland. The Russians still occupy many of the Kurile Islands, and Greek Cyprus lost sizable territory in 1974 after the invasion by Turkey. The Western Sahara is still annexed by Morocco, while over 15% of disputed Azerbaijan has been controlled by Armenia since 1994. Additionally, all of independent Tibet has been under Chinese occupation since 1951. Surely if some general framework concerning these occupations could first be worked out, the results might then be applied to the much smaller West Bank and Golan Heights. (National Review)

FIRST "CORE ISSUE": INCITEMENT

The First "Core Issue": Incitement - Elihu Richter (Jerusalem Post)

• Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that it was words, not machinery, that produced Auschwitz. Incitement and hate language are early warning signs of genocidal intent by their perpetrators. If the rocks, daggers, guns, suicide bombs, Kassams and long-range missiles are the hardware of today's terror threats to Israel, it is the incitement that is the software.
• An end to state-sponsored incitement to terror belongs right on top of the negotiating agenda, before any discussions on borders, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, and all the other issues. The first "confidence-building measure" should be ending incitement, cutting off funding for those spreading such incitement, and prosecuting those who propagate hatred, not only in the PA, but its hinterland in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
• It is state-sponsored incitement, and not what is whispered between diplomats, that signals the intentions of states or their surrogate organizations. The blowback from "the street" makes the decision-makers captive to such messages. So long as incitement warps the minds of coming generations, no diplomatic solution of the conflict between Israel and the Muslim world will be sustainable.
• Israel should be demanding an end to funding by U.S., EU and UN agencies of all educational institutions that tolerate or issue hate language. Until Saudi Arabia and Egypt put an end to the propagation of the ugly anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish motifs in their mosques, texts, universities and media, neither should have any credibility as a participant or intermediary in any peace process.
• The road map explicitly calls for an end to incitement as an essential precondition for all future agreements. Official monitoring, reporting and sanctioning of incitement are the essential next steps to eradicating this fundamental obstacle to peace and threat to human life.

ROAD MAP, R.I.P.

The Road Map: 2003-2008 (Contentions)

The Road Map is officially dead. Its cause of death: the Bush administration’s impatience. In a stunningly frank statement to the Washington Times, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice begrudged the Road Map’s “sequentiality,” according to which the cessation of Palestinian terrorism and Israeli settlement-building were prerequisites for final status negotiations. “You don’t want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven’t fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure and prevent that from moving forward on the negotiations,” Rice said.

In today’s Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby lambasted Rice’s statements, arguing that they marked the end of the Bush doctrine:

In its hunger for Arab support against Iran - and perhaps in a quest for a historic “legacy” - the administration has dropped “with us or with the terrorists.” It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists. “Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Rice says.

Though Jacoby seems to forget that it’s Iran—and not Abbas’ current government—that “stands unequivocally with the terrorists,” he is right to confront Rice’s apparent A.D.D. After all, the Road Map was only launched once it became abundantly clear that countering Palestinian terrorism and final status negotiations could not be done “in parallel,” as Rice suggests—a historical detail that the Secretary has sadly forgotten.

Yet, as far as Israelis and Palestinians concerned, Rice’s sudden memory lapse will hardly matter. In the aftermath of President Bush’s recent trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, tensions have flared. Today, Palestinian militants fired 40 rockets from Gaza, while Israel has killed 24 Palestinians, including seven civilians, in the past two days. In short, the death of the Road Map has no consequence for Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects, which have always been modest and remain so.

But as far as American credibility is concerned, Rice’s statements do not bode well. Indeed, if the sudden push for Israeli-Palestinian peace is really all about building a broad coalition against Iran, Rice’s dismissal of the Road Map—which was supported by the U.N., E.U., and Russia after much arm-twisting—is truly counterintuitive. Moreover, what kind of message does it send when the Secretary of State kills her own administration’s peace plan because she finds the first steps too challenging?

CARTOON: CORE ISSUES

ISRAEL, P.A. START TALKS ON "CORE ISSUES"

Israel, PA Start Talks on "Core Issues" - Herb Keinon
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurei formally began discussions Monday in Jerusalem on the "core issues" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, security and water. Government officials said that Livni and Qurei will meet weekly. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stipulated that any agreement hammered out would not be implemented until the PA dismantled the terrorist infrastructure and fought terrorism. (Jerusalem Post)

BUSH THROWS ISRAEL UNDER THE BUS

Peace In Our Time (Spectator UK)

Rarely has a moral compass been so completely and publicly destroyed by its owner. George W Bush’s presidency has been defined by the moral position he took, under the impetus of 9/11, to repudiate the amoral realpolitik of his predecessors in appeasing and rewarding aggression while ignoring or even punishing its victims. Instead he would hold the aggressor’s feet to the fire and support and promote those who stood for freedom and democracy. Controversial as this doctrine undoubtedly was in the eyes of many in the US and around the world, it was at least consistent — with one niggling exception. On the Israel Arab impasse, Bush veered between making extraordinarily impressive speeches which correctly identified Arab aggression and incitement to hatred of Israel as the core problem to be addressed, and the imposition of the ‘Road Map’ which, by detailing the steps both Israel and the Palestinians had to take, descended into the kind of moral equivalence — and thus negation of the centrality of Arab aggression — which has kept this conflict alive for the past sixty years. At the time, however, it seemed that the Road Map was no more or less than a sop to Tony Blair — who has always failed grievously to grasp that the Palestinians don’t want a state, they want the Jewish state — as a gesture of thanks for his support over Iraq.

With Bush’s visit to the Middle East this week, however, any such residual excuse is blown away along with the last shreds of his claim to moral integrity. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he said blithely, was eminently possible this year. But everything he then said was about pushing Israel to make ‘painful concessions’ rather than the Palestinians. Since the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East is the Arab rejection of the Jews’ right to their own ancestral home — the fact that Mahmoud Abbas not only has consistently refused to halt the continuing violence against Israel by both Hamas and his own Fatah affiliates, not only has refused to halt the incitement to hatred of Israel perpetrated daily by his own education system and PA controlled media, but has also repeatedly and consistently demanded the right of mass Palestinian immigration to Israel, thus showing his ‘aspiration’ for a Palestinian homeland existing peacefully alongside Israel to be totally bogus as was underlined by his chief negotiator’s recent declaration that the Palestinians would never recognised Israel as a Jewish state — Bush’s position is tantamount to pushing Israel to surrender to an enemy still hell-bent upon Israel’s annihilation.

OLMERT TO ALLOW 50,000 PALIS TO "RETURN"?

Report: Olmert Agrees to Allow in 50,000 Arab 'Refugees' by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) The issue of "Arab refugees" has long been a matter of widespread consensus in Israel, with even left-wing parties declaring that allowing them into Israel would endanger its very existence as a Jewish state. Nevertheless, the subject does not appear to be going away. Reports are that Prime Minister Olmert has now agreed to allow 50,000 Arabs who left Israel in 1948 - or are descendants of those who did - to enter and live in Israel.

Channel Ten reported Thursday night that in a private meeting between Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen, the two agreed that in the final-status agreement, Israel would withdraw from 92% of Judea and Samaria, including all the non-Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. It was also agreed that 50,000 "refugees from 1948" would enter and live in the State of Israel.

U.S. ADMITS PEACE HANGS ON FATE OF GAZA

U.S. Admits Mideast Peace Deal Hangs on Fate of Gaza
A senior U.S. official acknowledged on Saturday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal would depend on the fate of Gaza, which is controlled by the Islamist movement Hamas. The official said the fate of Bush's targeted peace deal by the end of this year depended on Abbas taking back control of Gaza. "I don't think in the long term that an agreement is going to work if Hamas continues to control Gaza," he said. The official also drew a distinction between any Israeli-Palestinian agreement and its actual implementation. "The parties will have to agree on how they want to structure the agreement, but I think that there have been general thoughts that there will be first a framework and later a comprehensive agreement....This will all play out in quite a period of time."  (AFP/Yahoo)

See also Olmert: Bush Said No Peace Deal Will Be Implemented Until Violence from Gaza Ends
Prime Minister Olmert reported to the Cabinet Sunday on the visit to Israel of President Bush: "The President...reiterated the U.S.'s absolute commitment that no agreement between us and the Palestinians can be carried out on the ground before the Roadmap is implemented in full, including all of its commitments regarding the security of the State of Israel both in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria. There is no separation between Gaza and Judea and Samaria regarding the Palestinians' commitments. The U.S. President said that we are discussing the establishment of two states for two peoples and not three states for two peoples. The emphasis on this is very important."  (Prime Minister's Office)

ON PRESIDENT BUSH'S USE OF THE WORD, "OCCUPATION"

“Occupation”? by Peter Wehner (Contentions)
In Ramallah yesterday President Bush declared there “should be an end to the [Israeli] occupation that began in 1967.”

Invoking the word “occupation,” which Israeli leaders have also used, strikes me as an odd and unhelpful thing. The West Bank and Gaza, as well as the Sinai desert and Golan Heights, were lost in an Arab war of aggression against Israel–and yet the aggressor states took on the mantle of the aggrieved. This historical fact cannot be stressed often enough: Israel did not set out to conquer anything; it seized the land in a war of self-defense. And Israel ceded—at Camp David in 1979—more land in pursuit of peace than virtually any victor in history. Israel gave up more than 90 percent of the land, including oil-rich land, it won in a war in which it was not the aggressor state. Post-World War II Germany lost land compared to pre-World War II Germany—but Germans do not refer to that lost land as “occupied territory.” It lost the land in a war—and when you lose a war, you often lose land, and the claims on that land.

It’s worth adding that if Arab nations have such a deep, abiding interest in a Palestinian homeland, why didn’t they give them one when they could. During their 19-year rule (1948-1967) neither Jordan nor Egypt made any effort to establish a Palestinian state in either the West Bank or Gaza. No demands for a West Bank and Gaza independent state were heard until Israel took control of these areas in a defensive war for its survival.

This does not necessarily mean that Israel should not cede land in the West Bank; it might be in Israel’s interest to do such a thing, given the demographic and security realities it faces. But to keep referring to the West Bank as “occupied territory” perpetrates a myth—holds Israel to a double standard that is often used and always wrong.

BUSH MANAGES TO UPSET EVERYONE ON MID-EAST TRIP

Bush Gives Israel Scope for Antiterror Acts - John D. McKinnon and Cam Simpson
President Bush signaled he would give Israel broad leeway to continue raids targeting Palestinian militants and to develop settlements in disputed parts of Jerusalem, despite international pressure to curb such actions. Bush and his aides suggested they were more focused on getting Olmert and Abbas to make progress in the negotiations over a Palestinian state and less worried about making sure each side immediately met all its existing international peace obligations.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that given Abbas' lack of control over the violence, the implementation of the roadmap obligations "may take longer" than the process of reaching an agreement in principle over the outlines of a Palestinian state. Hadley also said the issues surrounding some of the disputed settlements would become far easier to resolve once the borders of a Palestinian state had been decided. (Wall Street Journal)

Bush in Israel: Palestinian State Cannot Be Launching Pad for Terrorists
President Bush said in Jerusalem on Wednesday: "We're in conflict with radicals and extremists who are willing to murder innocent people to achieve a dark vision. And this is an historic opportunity for the world to fight those terrorists." "I believe that two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace, is in the best interests of America and the world. I believe it's in the long-term security interests of Israel....[But] there has to be a firm commitment by a Palestinian government to deal with extremists and terrorists who might be willing to use Palestinian territory as a launching pad into Israel....You can't expect the Israelis, and I certainly don't, to accept a state on their border which would become a launching pad for terrorist activities." (White House)

Bush predicts Mideast peace treaty (AP)
President Bush, summing up meetings with both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, said Thursday that a peace accord will require "painful political concessions" by each. Resolving the status of Jerusalem will be hard, he said, and he called for the end of the "occupation" of Arab land by the Israeli military....

Bush gave his most detailed summation yet of what a final peace should include, including U.S. expectations for the resolution of some of the hardest issues in the violent conflict, one of the world's longest-running and most intractable. He used tough language intended to put both sides on notice that he sees no reason they cannot get down to serious business, "starting right now."

In his set of U.S. bottom lines were security for Israel, a "contiguous" state for the Palestinians and the expectation that final borders will be negotiated to accommodate territorial changes since Israel's formation 60 years ago.

He made a point of using a loaded term — occupation — to describe Israeli control over land that would eventually form the bulk of an independent Palestinian state. That he did so in Jerusalem underscored that he is trying not to seem partial to Israel.

On borders, Bush said "any agreement will require adjustments" to the lines drawn for Israel in the late 1940s. He was referring to Israeli neighborhoods on disputed lands that Israel would keep when an independent Palestinian state is formed.

At the same time, Bush reiterated that Palestinians deserve better than a "Swiss cheese" state, and that a state wouldn't be viable otherwise.

"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear," he said. "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush was referring to the West Bank when he spoke of occupation.

SO MUCH FOR THE ROADMAP

REMEMBER THE ROADMAP? CORE ISSUES (REFUGEES, JERUSALEM) WERE NOT TO BE DISCUSSED UNTIL PALESTINIANS HAD CRACKED DOWN ON TERROR AND ENDED THEIR MEDIA INCITEMENT AND ANTI-SEMITISM.

Olmert, Abbas Agree on Structure for Talks on Core Issues - Roni Sofer
Prime Minister Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas agreed Tuesday to hold negotiations on core issues according to a "three-level" model. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and head of the Palestinian negotiating team Ahmed Qureia will discuss the core issues in a direct dialogue. The negotiation teams will then discuss the issues in detail. In case of disagreement, Abbas and Olmert will intervene. A senior source at the Prime Minister's Office said that Olmert and Abbas have been discussing the core issues over the past few months. (Ynet News)