Received this email from Lee Caplan of Atlanta, Ga. who has been one of the real activists trying to bring some galvanization among Americans regarding both the Gush Katif Resettlement and Compensation issue and fighting the Olmert Regime attempts to expell 50,000 to 100,000 Jews from Yehuda and the Shomron.
From: Lee Caplan
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Three extremely important and enlightening pieces which must be read, and a call to action
Shalom everyone. Please read the following three pieces, all of which are extremely important. If anyone has any suggestions or thoughts, especially with regards to Arlene Kushner’s call to action (which is underlined), please share them, as we are all in this together! Tizku L’mitzvos.
Lee
******************************************************
Arlene Kushner
What to make of the meeting yesterday between President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert? There were press reports that focused on various aspects of what was said in their press conference or shared by diplomatic staff. The emphasis within these press reports varied, but tended to be upbeat. Bush, while hesitating to fully endorse Olmert’s plan, seemed surprisingly positive, calling it “bold,” and saying, it “could be an important step toward the peace we both support. I’m encouraged by his constructive efforts to find ways to move the peace process forward.”
I read that, and I had one of my “HUH?” moments, which tend to come frequently these days. Bush has been advised by several sources — including Jordan’s King Hussein — that Olmert’s plan will destabilize the region and give terrorists a larger area within which to operate. This advances the peace process?
Of course, Bush qualified his statements by saying that a negotiated final status agreement would best serve the cause of peace. But, he conceded, it’s difficult to negotiate such a settlement with Hamas in charge of the PA. And, if it turns out that negotiations are not possible (because Hamas won’t abandon terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and accept all previous agreements), Olmert’s “ideas could lead to a two-state solution.”
Another “HUH?” Pulling back and giving land to Palestinians who won’t abandon terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist or accept all previous agreements leads to a two-state solution?
Well, it turns out, unsurprisingly, that there’s a lot of diplomatic double talk in all of this. There was a desire to make things positive and smooth and upbeat during Olmert’s first visit. Certainly there could be no overt public tough talk.
However, what is clear — which we knew going into this meeting — is that Bush is signaling Olmert to try to negotiate seriously with Abbas. No one realistically thinks a full settlement will come tomorrow, if Olmert meets with Abbas, but, as a State Department spokesman said, “We think it’s very useful to keep those channels of communication open.”
I would guess that as long as there are “channels of communication” open then the U.S. is going to say hope isn’t dead, there is a chance of negotiated settlement, and so the time for unilateral action is not yet.
Bush says that he will want to learn more about this plan in the months ahead before signing off on it. And, say diplomatic sources, Bush will be looking for an international consensus on this. According to the Jerusalem Post, “The U.S….does not want Olmert to push forward with his plan before it has a chance to gain support from European countries and from Israel’s Arab neighbors [Jordan and Egypt].” Need I tell you what the chances are of the international community and Arab nations signing off on an Israeli plan that the Palestinians object to, and that Jordan and Egypt fear?
This may be Bush’s out. Having gone it alone on Iraq and fared badly, he is unlikely to buck international consensus on this to support Olmert.
And there is yet more. President Bush, in his press conference with Olmert, said, “…any final status agreement will be only achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes, and no party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final status agreement…”
Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, explains this: “The United States won’t stop Israel from bulldozing Jewish communities – but warns that just because Mr. Olmert bulldozes some communities doesn’t mean Israel can keep the ones it doesn’t bulldoze. That’s up to the deal Israel ultimately strikes with the Palestinians.”
Olmert originally said that Israel would unilaterally set borders if the Palestinians won’t negotiate, and then hedged a bit, saying the lines would be very close to final borders.
Bush is saying, “No way.”
Olmert has been saying that Jewish settlements that will be retained will be annexed and made part of Israel proper.
Bush is saying that this would “prejudice” later final status negotiations. The Palestinians aren’t going to agree to Israel keeping anything over the pre-67 lines, and State Department policy supports this.
At the press conference Bush was asked by a journalist about major settlement blocs being annexed to Israel and whether he would support this.
His answer: “…refer to my April 14th, 2004 letter. I believed it when I wrote it, and I still believe it.”
This is an extremely instructive answer. He is referring to the letter that PM Sharon returned with when the “disengagement” was being discussed. “You see!” he [Sharon] crowed then, “President Bush has given us the right to keep major settlement blocs. We have gained his support.” It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now. A simple reading of that letter made it clear that (even though it would seem that demographic changes should influence the situation) the U.S. supports the right of the two parties to determine borders and will not interfere. But who read it? People believed Sharon.
The task that now falls to those of us on both sides of the Atlantic who understand the folly and the dangers of Olmert’s plan is to make sure people are not taken in a second time. Olmert must not be given the opportunity to hype this visit and make it seem as if the president of the U.S. supports his intentions. Who is going to read the press conference text? Everyone must know Bush’s real position. Everyone must be made to realize that even if Israel pulls back, further pullbacks will be demanded by the international community down the road. There will be NO Israeli unilateral setting of borders with the Palestinians and NO international recognition of Israeli annexation of any settlements. Giving up land now simply weakens us.
Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams and Assistance Secretary of State David Welch will be coming here next month to discuss the plan, and reportedly Secretary of State Rice, who has already done us damage with the Rafah agreement, is scheduled to be here in the fall.
For the record, the plan is apparently being renamed “realignment,” because it sounds better. That’s the key for Olmert, isn’t it? Packaging what he intends to do so it is palatable for the people.
***********************************************************
I contacted her and asked her what we need to do to make sure that people are not taken in a second time, to which she responded with the following:
**********************************************************
Arlene Kushner
That is the key question, isn’t it, Lee? For starters, we who write must make these matters clear. Communication on lists helps as well.
Exposure, focus on the facts, as much as possible. What I wish for, here in Israel, is the small fortune that would be required to place ads in Hebrew in all the major papers responding on a regular basis to the lying claims Olmert is going to make. Know anyone there who has that small fortune and might be interested in investing it this way? Short of this, there are ways of getting information into the news without cost via press conferences by people important enough to make the news, and other techniques. We have to think creatively and dynamically. We cannot lose this time. Arlene
Excerpts;
This week, Bush surprised the pundits, the experts and the officials with his enthusiastic support for the prime minister’s convergence plan. The professionals in the administration warned that a unilateral Israeli move in the territories – of the type that will lead to determining a border without asking the Palestinians – will anger the Europeans, enrage the Arabs and humiliate what is left of the Palestinian Authority. But Bush, as stubborn as Truman, as well as a great admirer of his, preferred to embrace his Israeli friends and to absorb possible criticism of his declarations.
Olmert came to Washington this week for two reasons. He wanted to strengthen his official image – which was damaged by the far from overwhelming victory of Kadima in the elections and by coalition problems and to convince everyone, Americans as well as Israelis, that he is in fact the legitimate, authentic heir of Ariel Sharon. And he wanted a political achievement as well: to tempt Bush. On Truman’s porch, he apparently succeeded in doing so. What American president would not want to boast of getting Israel out of the territories. Bush’s father, as well as the president’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, invested tremendous efforts in this task, but did not succeed in carrying it out. It is Bush Jr., considered the least talented of the three, who is coming closer to solving the problem than did his predecessors. During his term, Sharon restrained construction in the settlements and evacuated the Gaza Strip, and Olmert is planning to evacuate the West Bank settlers living beyond the separation fence. “What you have already done during your presidency to lay the foundations for a final status solution,” said Olmert to the president, “seven presidents, since 1967, didn’t do.”