Sharon admits Israel is occupying West Bank

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/26/1053801338519.html



Sharon: Israel must end its 'occupation'
May 27 2003
By Michael Dobbs, Mike Allen
Washington




Ariel Sharon after the peace-plan vote.


Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has defended Israeli approval of a US-backed "road map" peace plan to his rightist political party, saying Israel cannot keep 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation forever.

"We don't like the word, but this is occupation. To keep 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is bad for Israel and the Palestinians . . . We need to get away from this in a way that won't hurt our security. This cannot continue forever," he said. But Mr Sharon also said he still had reservations about the plan, which includes a blanket freeze on expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Mr Sharon won cabinet approval for the peace plan - which for the first time accepts the creation of a Palestinian state - despite the doubts of right-wing ministers including members of Likud, where many oppose establishment of a Palestinian state.

Mr Sharon said he would abandon the plan if the Palestinians did not halt violence against Israelis.



So, it is officially an occupation. That took a while, but the fact is now acknowledged by all sides.

The catch, though, is in the halting of violence clause. I would say the pattern of violence will be much like that of the IRA, intermittent, sustained, splinter groups. Any catch all end is not going to happen.

[hisham]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/26/1053801338519.html



So, it is officially an occupation. That took a while, but the fact is now acknowledged by all sides.

The catch, though, is in the halting of violence clause. I would say the pattern of violence will be much like that of the IRA, intermittent, sustained, splinter groups. Any catch all end is not going to happen.
Can you imagine the reactions if this part of the article "But Mr Sharon also said he still had reservations about the plan" was: But "Mr Abbas or Arafat" also said he still had reservations about the plan?

[HarryKeogh]

having sharon, one stubborn SOB, admit this is a big step, i think.

man, oh man, i hope this works out. i also hope in the three years it will take to have a palestinian state the cubs and red sox will each win a world series.

[renata]

I do not think Sharon ever denied it was an occupation. Can you point me to a speech of his where he denied it? Some radical members of the government may hvae, but not him to my knowledge.



He did not abandon it after Hamas tried to sabotage it last week with 5 suicide bombings in 48 hours, so I doubt he is looking for an excuse. I believe he is looking for a good faith effort at crackdown for Hamas. Israel is not naive, they understand some acts of violence may continue. What would be unacceptable is the old pretense of cracking down and revolving doors of Palestinian prisons.

[Gem]

I was surprised a lot too.

But guess what?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030527/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_isarel_sharon_030527122255

Sharon backtracks on term "occupation" in face of internal rebellion

I think he regrets saying that.

But the damage has been done, and I wouldn't be surprised if the palestinians starts using what Sharon said to their advantage.

Gem

[renata]

Originally posted by Gem
I was surprised a lot too.

But guess what?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030527/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_isarel_sharon_030527122255



I think he regrets saying that.

But the damage has been done, and I wouldn't be surprised if the palestinians starts using what Sharon said to their advantage.

Gem


I guess I was wrong in thinking it was an accepted term. Not the first time, not the last.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by renata
I do not think Sharon ever denied it was an occupation. Can you point me to a speech of his where he denied it? Some radical members of the government may hvae, but not him to my knowledge.


True. I would like to know too when has he said that there was no occupation.

[hgc]

Note also that Sharon was careful to say that it's the Palestinian people under occupation -- not any particular territory. He's not as likely to give up the over 95% of the West Bank that Barak had on the table.

[Baker]

If it’s an occupation shouldn’t it be occupying part of Jordan that is who they won the land from after their failed attempt to destroy Israel?

[renata]

Originally posted by renata in the Conversation thread on 5/22


As we speak, Arafat is once again attempting to undermine his PM in their struggle for power. I hope Abbas has enough clout and strength to stand up to Arafat and to Hamas, and be a strong partner in peace.




It makes me sad to report that my post was disturbingly prescient.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030527/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_533


Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) stepped in to assert Tuesday that he — not his prime minister — is in charge of the Palestinian side in negotiations with Israel, throwing plans for an Israeli-Palestinian summit into confusion.

The dispute underlined the power struggle between Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister he grudgingly appointed under international pressure, as efforts to move forward on a new peace plan intensified.

Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) had been set to hold talks Wednesday on implementing the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan — their second meeting since Abbas assumed office in April.

But at a meeting of the PLO executive committee, Arafat said he wanted to review Israeli proposals on security arrangements before approving another summit — raising the possibility of a delay, a member of the committee said on condition of anonymity.

...

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said he had been told the Sharon-Abbas meeting was postponed "for technical reasons." And White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said he "would not be surprised if a bilateral meeting still took place in the near future."

The PLO executive member said that with the jockeying over the summit, Arafat was sending a message to the United States, Israel and Abbas that Arafat makes the decisions over negotiations.

Arafat has been fighting a rearguard action to limit Abbas' powers — objecting to the makeup of his Cabinet, retaining control of most Palestinian security forces and keeping for himself the final word over peace moves.

The law that brought in Abbas in April limits his authority and gives the PLO executive the right of approval over negotiating steps with Israel. Arafat controls the PLO executive, where Abbas is his deputy.

Israel and the United States have been seeking to sideline Arafat, charging that he is tainted by terrorism and has led his Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) into corruption and inefficiency.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Arial Sharon has just spoken a word publicly for the first time: “occupation.” That was his reference to his nation’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And he has indicated that, under the right conditions, Israel is now ready to terminate that presence.

Is this good or bad news for Israel -- and for the rest of the region? Does it increase the chances of peace - or will it simply make Israel more vulnerable to terrorism? How exactly does it fit with the U.S.-backed "Road Map"? Is this new “Road Map” the ticket to Israeli security and to a genuine Palestinian state? What vital lessons must be taken into account for this “Road Map” to achieve justice and security for all sides?

Frontpage Symposium has invited a panel of experts to deal with these questions. In this two-part series (Part II will run in tomorrow's issue), we have the pleasure to be joined by Norman Spector, former Chief of Staff to former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, former Publisher of the Jerusalem Post and former Ambassador of Canada to Israel. He is currently a columnist for The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir; Bassam Haddad, an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University and Editor of the Arab Studies Journal; Stephen Plaut, a professor at the University of Haifa and the author of The Scout (Gefen Publishing House); and Khalid Turaani, executive director of American Muslims for Jerusalem.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8065

[hisham]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


True. I would like to know too when has he said that there was no occupation.

Sharon redefines 'occupation'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297613&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Yesterday, Sharon told the
Knesset Foreign Affairs and
Defense Committee, "When I used
the term `occupation,' I meant
it is undesirable for us to
rule over a Palestinian
population."

Sharon noted that Attorney
General Elyakim Rubinstein had

rebuked him for using this term, pointing out
that the legal position adopted by all Israeli
governments since 1967 is that the West Bank and
Gaza are "disputed territories" rather than
"occupied territories."

[peptoabysmal]

Drat, I was just about to compliment Sharon on his shrewd political sense, before he started backtracking.

All he would have to do is agree to start pulling out of the "disputed territories" if the Palestinians publicly denounce terrorism in the name of Palestine to the entire Arab community.

Either peace would break out in the Middle East (imagine that!) or the Arab world would reveal it's intentions as evil. Murder could no longer be committed in the name of Palestine.

*Sigh*, maybe Sharon was smoking crack with Whitney (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030527/people_nm/israel_whitney_dc_1) or something when he said "occupation", eh?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by hgc
Note also that Sharon was careful to say that it's the Palestinian people under occupation -- not any particular territory. He's not as likely to give up the over 95% of the West Bank that Barak had on the table.

It looks like you were right.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/28/1053801444576.html



A day after he stunned Israelis and Palestinians by describing his nation's long hold on the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an "occupation", Ariel Sharon backtracked, referring to Israel's "control over disputed lands".

The Israeli Prime Minister's office issued a clarification on Tuesday after he was criticised by furious right-wing MPs for using a term many believe could buttress Palestinian claims to the land seized by Israel in 1967.

The dispute over language came as the fragile new peace process appeared to struggle to make headway. Israeli and Palestinian leaders postponed a meeting planned for yesterday ahead of talks with President George Bush in Jordan next week.

With the US urging the two sides to push forward on the "road map" peace plan, Mr Sharon has faced continued criticism from right-wing politicians for persuading his cabinet to endorse it on Sunday and for his comments defending it.

"You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation," Mr Sharon told angry MPs from his Likud party on Monday. And occupation, he said, repeating the word throughout his comments, "is a terrible thing" for both Israelis and Palestinians.

On Tuesday Mr Sharon said he had been referring to Israel's rule over Palestinians, not the occupied territories themselves.



I think the article does quite clearly say, however, that the word 'occupation' is one that has been quite clearly avoided for a reason.

I do wonder if the IDF has been complaining. An occupation is an unpleasant experience for the occupier as well as for the occupied.