from MS SLATE's "Today's Papers" -- >The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Washington Post all lead with President Bush essentially endorsing Israeli Prime Sharon's unilateral plan to pull out of Gaza and keep some major settlements in the West Bank. Bush also rejected the Palestinians' "right of return." ... >While Bush didn't accede to Sharon's request that he name specific settlements that can remain, Bush's announcement was a reversal for the U.S., which for the past 20 years had formally declared settlements to be "an obstacle to peace." (Clinton had supported a peace plan that entailed keeping some settlements, but only as part of a final negotiated deal.) >The NYT's James Bennet says Sharon got his wish list filled "by promising to trade something Israelis overwhelmingly do not want any more: the Gaza settlements and a handful of settlements in the West Bank. And he got them without having to negotiate with the Palestinians." Bennet continues, "Palestinian officials knew that Israel strongly opposed yielding the whole West Bank or accepting the 'right of return,' and they had explored compromises in the past. But they relied on both demands as formidable negotiating levers. Mr. Bush has now moved to pluck both from their hands." >Asked whether settlements represent an impediment to Mideast peace, Bush said, "The problem is, is that there's terrorists who will kill people in order to stop the process." >Palestinians and Arabs in general were irate. "The message tonight to the Palestinian public is, 'Don't count on negotiations to help you achieve your vital interests,'" one moderate Palestinian analyst told the Post. "I don't recall ever seeing an American position being so one-sided." >In a counter-point to all the complaints, the LAT's quotes a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, taking the long view. "If Sharon is helped to make a full withdrawal from Gaza, he will have done something which no previous Israeli prime minister has done and in the process he will have set precedents--for the full evacuation of Israeli settlements and for full withdrawal--and that is actually far more important than what the president said today." >The Post emphasizes and other note that Bush's announcement could play well with Jewish voters. Perhaps, the WP says, that explains Senator Kerry's response to the proposal. "I think that [it] could be a positive step," said Kerry. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel." <
Why don't they make Sharon the US secretary of state? It would make the process more efficient. Jim Devine
