President Bush, rejecting the advice of top political analysts who say that a Palestinian state is a dangerous idea for both Israel and the U.S., outlined a plan last night for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state - but only after its precursor, the Palestinian Authority, uproots terrorism.
\"My vision is two states living side by side in peace and security,\" Bush began, but emphasized several times that this could not happen under the current circumstances, as the current PA leadership is \"compromised by terror.\" He made no mention, however, of the findings of a poll released this month by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre (JMCC) showing that it\'s not only the leadership\'s problem. The survey shows that a majority of PA residents believe the aim of their 20-month-old uprising should be to eliminate Israel, and not just to end Israeli \"occupation\" of Judea and Samaria. Many official PA symbols show the entire map of Israel as their \"future\" country - contrary to the wishful thinking of \"two states living side by side.\"
A Wall Street Journal Europe Editorial on May 15 of this year explained the Likud party decision to object to a Palestinian state as follows:
\"…What [the Likud did] is make clear that they do not want a state in the West Bank and Gaza, one that was free to raise an army, amass military materiel and sign treaties with nations hostile to Israel. These are all sensible concerns. Israel should not be forced to accept the creation of a state on its borders capable of threatening its very existence…\"
Given the above, a bright spot of the speech from Israel\'s standpoint was the fact that Bush will not immediately push for the establishment of the new state. Contrary to many press reports, his call for Israel to withdraw its forces to the positions they held on the eve of the Oslo War was not absolute, but only \"as we make progress towards security.\" He also did not demand a return to the 1967 borders, but rather to \"secure and recognizable borders\" - in accordance with the UN resolutions that call upon Israel to withdraw from \"territories,\" not from \"the territories.\" Bush further called for an end to Israeli settlement activity - but only \"consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell committee,\" i.e., only after terrorism has been combated.
Prime Minister Sharon may have read that part of the speech a bit differently, however. He told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today that he is not happy with Bush\'s demand for a settlement freeze, \"and certainly not while the violence continues.\"
\"My vision is two states living side by side in peace and security,\" Bush began, but emphasized several times that this could not happen under the current circumstances, as the current PA leadership is \"compromised by terror.\" He made no mention, however, of the findings of a poll released this month by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre (JMCC) showing that it\'s not only the leadership\'s problem. The survey shows that a majority of PA residents believe the aim of their 20-month-old uprising should be to eliminate Israel, and not just to end Israeli \"occupation\" of Judea and Samaria. Many official PA symbols show the entire map of Israel as their \"future\" country - contrary to the wishful thinking of \"two states living side by side.\"
A Wall Street Journal Europe Editorial on May 15 of this year explained the Likud party decision to object to a Palestinian state as follows:
\"…What [the Likud did] is make clear that they do not want a state in the West Bank and Gaza, one that was free to raise an army, amass military materiel and sign treaties with nations hostile to Israel. These are all sensible concerns. Israel should not be forced to accept the creation of a state on its borders capable of threatening its very existence…\"
Given the above, a bright spot of the speech from Israel\'s standpoint was the fact that Bush will not immediately push for the establishment of the new state. Contrary to many press reports, his call for Israel to withdraw its forces to the positions they held on the eve of the Oslo War was not absolute, but only \"as we make progress towards security.\" He also did not demand a return to the 1967 borders, but rather to \"secure and recognizable borders\" - in accordance with the UN resolutions that call upon Israel to withdraw from \"territories,\" not from \"the territories.\" Bush further called for an end to Israeli settlement activity - but only \"consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell committee,\" i.e., only after terrorism has been combated.
Prime Minister Sharon may have read that part of the speech a bit differently, however. He told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today that he is not happy with Bush\'s demand for a settlement freeze, \"and certainly not while the violence continues.\"