Liars
Sharon goes to Texas and just brings the place down. I mean, he just slays.
You want strategic depth? He's got strategic depth:
US President George W. Bush... strongly reiterated the US position that major Israeli population centers beyond the Green Line will remain in Israeli hands after final-status agreement.
No Right of Return you say? Sure:
Bush also reiterated the US position against the Palestinian demand for return of refugees, saying the US continues to be committed "to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state."
Money? Why not:
Bush said that the US would cooperate with Israel in developing the Negev and Galilee, a clear indication that there will be some US financial aid as a result of the disengagement plan.
An overall tone of affability and general agreement? Done:
While the road map explicitly states that Israel must freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth of settlements, Bush seemed to allow for some wiggle room in saying that he looked forward to working with Israel and "dialoguing with Israel" on this issue.
Or, more to the point (Google cache - JPost keeps deep-sixing useful articles by overwriting different articles on the same url):
[H]ad the meeting taken place in March, shortly after the Sharm summit and the London conference, Sharon would have come under heavy pressure to grant more concessions to Abbas as "confidence-building measures."... since Abbas has not taken any concrete measures to confiscate arms, or in any other way dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, Sharon will not be called upon to make any far-reaching gestures.
Given this, you would expect the international press to start toning down public expectations for Israeli gestures. That way, when Sharon refuses to make more unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, people will have a context for what's going on. Or at the very least, recognize that Sharon is getting something for the Gaza pullout so that annexation of the population blocs east of the Green Line won't come as a surprise.
AFP: Bush backs Gaza pullout, pushes Israel to stop settlement expansion
Rueters: Bush Cautions Sharon Against Settlement Growth
AP: Sharon dismisses Bush warning on settlement expansion
And of course the Los Angeles Times, doing a great job accurately conveying Bush and Sharon's understanding that Israel will annex West Bank settlements: Bush, Sharon to Meet as Tension Brews - Differences over West Bank settlements and pressure from rightist blocs at home may stir discord between allies at today's Texas summit.
This is typical Los Angeles Times anti-Israel coverage. The headline is technically true (there is a single West Bank settlement, Ma'aleh Adumim, which Sharon wants to expand but that Bush opposes) - but it manages to convey exactly the opposite of what is actually significant or correct. For the journalistically responsible way to write this story, see Aluf Benn's approach, which accurately picks out the significant headline PM: Settlement blocs to stay ours in any final deal:
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, speaking at a new conference with President George W. Bush in Texas on Monday, said large West Bank settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands in the framework of any final status agreement with the Palestinians. "The settlement blocs will remain in Israel's hands in any final-status agreement no matter the repercussions entailed," Sharon said...
Bush, concerned about the progress of negotiations toward peace in the Middle East, asked Sharon both publicly and privately Monday not to expand the key West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim.
The problem with fair journalism is that it's often, well, fair. And that mitigates one's ability to whip up public indignation about Israeli "reversals" later on.
You want strategic depth? He's got strategic depth:
US President George W. Bush... strongly reiterated the US position that major Israeli population centers beyond the Green Line will remain in Israeli hands after final-status agreement.
No Right of Return you say? Sure:
Bush also reiterated the US position against the Palestinian demand for return of refugees, saying the US continues to be committed "to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state."
Money? Why not:
Bush said that the US would cooperate with Israel in developing the Negev and Galilee, a clear indication that there will be some US financial aid as a result of the disengagement plan.
An overall tone of affability and general agreement? Done:
While the road map explicitly states that Israel must freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth of settlements, Bush seemed to allow for some wiggle room in saying that he looked forward to working with Israel and "dialoguing with Israel" on this issue.
Or, more to the point (Google cache - JPost keeps deep-sixing useful articles by overwriting different articles on the same url):
[H]ad the meeting taken place in March, shortly after the Sharm summit and the London conference, Sharon would have come under heavy pressure to grant more concessions to Abbas as "confidence-building measures."... since Abbas has not taken any concrete measures to confiscate arms, or in any other way dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, Sharon will not be called upon to make any far-reaching gestures.
Given this, you would expect the international press to start toning down public expectations for Israeli gestures. That way, when Sharon refuses to make more unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, people will have a context for what's going on. Or at the very least, recognize that Sharon is getting something for the Gaza pullout so that annexation of the population blocs east of the Green Line won't come as a surprise.
AFP: Bush backs Gaza pullout, pushes Israel to stop settlement expansion
Rueters: Bush Cautions Sharon Against Settlement Growth
AP: Sharon dismisses Bush warning on settlement expansion
And of course the Los Angeles Times, doing a great job accurately conveying Bush and Sharon's understanding that Israel will annex West Bank settlements: Bush, Sharon to Meet as Tension Brews - Differences over West Bank settlements and pressure from rightist blocs at home may stir discord between allies at today's Texas summit.
This is typical Los Angeles Times anti-Israel coverage. The headline is technically true (there is a single West Bank settlement, Ma'aleh Adumim, which Sharon wants to expand but that Bush opposes) - but it manages to convey exactly the opposite of what is actually significant or correct. For the journalistically responsible way to write this story, see Aluf Benn's approach, which accurately picks out the significant headline PM: Settlement blocs to stay ours in any final deal:
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, speaking at a new conference with President George W. Bush in Texas on Monday, said large West Bank settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands in the framework of any final status agreement with the Palestinians. "The settlement blocs will remain in Israel's hands in any final-status agreement no matter the repercussions entailed," Sharon said...
Bush, concerned about the progress of negotiations toward peace in the Middle East, asked Sharon both publicly and privately Monday not to expand the key West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim.
The problem with fair journalism is that it's often, well, fair. And that mitigates one's ability to whip up public indignation about Israeli "reversals" later on.
