I agree with... Mr Bush (take a deep breath)

The US president, George Bush, today called on Israel to end its 41-year occupation of Palestinian land

Guardian journalist is as bad as NYT, WP,IHT .
Of all the people around the globe BUSH?

Quote:

The US president, George Bush, today called on Israel to end its 41-year occupation of Palestinian land

You know what the Jews in Israel think about that?



Know what those same Jews think about George Bush?

What if Bush is just saying out loud what Israelis have come to the conclusion themselves, in that they want Israel to be all Jewish, and the Palestinian Arabs will be on their own land? That doesn't mean there'll be a right of return to the Jewish Israel. It means, I believe, the Palestinian Arabs can "return" to the Palestinian State. That also solves the concern with refugee camps in other countries.

What happens to the Israeli Arabs? Do their towns become part of the new Palestinian State?

The division of land may not look like two adjacent land masses, but may look more like a jigsaw puzzle, or different ethnic neighborhoods in some cities.

What will the Palestinian economy be based on?

bush will say or do anything to keep the mid east in turmoil and the iraqi cluster f**k outlasting his presidency.....

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

bush will say or do anything to keep the mid east in turmoil and the iraqi cluster f**k outlasting his presidency.....

Read the title of this thread. It's about Zippo's thoughts, not a point that is not backed up with any specifics.

He reiterated America's "steadfast commitment to Israel's security" but said the future Palestine must be "viable", "contiguous" and "sovereign".

Referring to Israel, which has refused to rule out further construction in the West Bank, he said the US has "made our concerns about settlements known". He stressed a Palestinian state had to consist of contiguous territory if it was going to be viable and said "Swiss cheese isn't going to work

JERUSALEM, Jan. 10 -- President Bush said Thursday that Palestinian refugees should receive compensation for the loss of homes they fled or were forced to flee during the establishment of Israel and declared that there should be an end to Israel's "occupation" of lands seized in war four decades ago.

Bush made his comments after becoming the first U.S. president to visit Ramallah, the West Bank city that is the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority, in an effort to invigorate negotiations aimed at securing a peace accord before the end of his presidency.

While Bush has previously used language describing Israel's presence in the West Bank as an "occupation," his words Thursday seemed a pointed prod at the Israeli government, coming on his first trip to the country during his presidency. Palestinians have long seen Bush as a partisan of Israel, but some welcomed parts of his statement.

At the same time, Bush restated his past formulation that Israel cannot be expected to give up all the land captured during the 1967 war, parts of which now have large Israeli settlements, and that the two sides must make territorial compromises that reflect "current realities."

"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967," Bush told reporters, referring to the Middle East war during which Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. The third territory was seized from Syria, but a senior White House official said Thursday that Bush intended to refer only to the Palestinian areas.

"The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people," Bush added. "These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent."

Zippo, put some meat and potatoes into your posts please. You give us a post and then ignore deeper questions that it elicits?

If you agree with President Bush that there should be a final peace settlement, what do you think the "right of return" must reflect? Right of return to the new Palestinian State only, or right of return to Israel? If you don't feel an answer would be wise for you to give, based on strong political views of your compatriots, don't. That alone would be saying a lot.

Foofie wrote:

Zippo, put some meat and potatoes into your posts please. You give us a post and then ignore deeper questions that it elicits?

If you agree with President Bush that there should be a final peace settlement, what do you think the "right of return" must reflect? Right of return to the new Palestinian State only, or right of return to Israel? If you don't feel an answer would be wise for you to give, based on strong political views of your compatriots, don't. That alone would be saying a lot.

Oh sorry, Foofie, thanks for reminding me. I didn't actually understand what Bush meant. If we go by revels post above (and i think he makes sense), then, it's not exactly what i had in mind. Bush is unable to express himself properly, so your guess is as good as mine.

Now, what i'd like to see is a two state solution where Palestinians can return to their own state (not Israel). We've got to split them up as two separate groups. Remove all Palestinian Arabs from Israel and vice versa. Finally, build a huge wall across the center. As for Jerusalem, that should be permanently occupied by U.N. forces, so three main religious groups can share their holy lands. The tricky part is drawing the dotted lines.