No one hits every hot button in existance, all at once, by accident.
White House Rejects Jordan's Request for Statement on Palestinians
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, May 3 - The Bush administration has rebuffed Jordan, turning down a request by King Abdullah II for a written statement this week that Palestinians deprived of land and homes would be compensated in a future peace accord with Israel, administration officials said on Monday.
The officials said that discussions over the possibility of a letter from President Bush on future Palestinian compensation had intensified over the last few days in preparation for King Abdullah's visit to the White House, scheduled for Thursday.
They said the visit was not in doubt as of Monday but that the king had made clear that he wanted a letter from Mr. Bush to be issued at the time of his White House meeting.
"There may be a letter, but not until after the visit," an administration official said. But he added that any letter would probably not contain the promises sought by the Jordanians. The matter would be negotiated in coming weeks, he said.
The king's visit, originally scheduled for last month, was postponed after the furor in the Arab world over President Bush's promise to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to support Israel's ultimate retention of some settlements in the West Bank and rejection of the longtime Palestinian demand for a right of return to family homes abandoned in 1948 in what is now Israel.
Mr. Bush, seeking to encourage Israel's plan to withdraw forces and settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, made the declaration in a letter and in public comments. Israeli officials said Mr. Sharon wanted the letter to get support for his plan among members of his governing Likud Party.
Posted by P6 at May 4, 2004 06:50 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1646
Comments
Why should the US compensate Palestinians?
That wasn't the request. It was a request for a letter of support for recognition of the property rights of Palestinians...that they should be compensated when their property is taken.
Of course it would be better if their property rights were recognized and their land not confiscated, wouldn't you say?
Posted by P6 at May 4, 2004 03:44 PM
Ideally, people should be compensated, I agree.
In reality, compensation will be one of the factors of a comprehensive peace plan, and a peace plan will reflect that what is possible, not that what is just.
I will point you no further than the proposed Cyprus peace plan by the Holy Koffi Anan, wherein is suggested that compensation to those Cypriots who lost or can no longer have access to their property should be payed by the new government.
Given that a majority of the Cypriots displaced are Greek-Cypriot, and the Greek-Cypriot provide the majority of the island's GDP, this effectively means that they should compensate themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1183104,00.html
Posted by dof at May 5, 2004 03:40 AMIn reality, compensation will be one of the factors of a comprehensive peace plan, and a peace plan will reflect that what is possible, not that what is just.Sort of like the Republican economic plan, I guess.
Which relates as much as the Greek-Cypriot plan does to the Gaza Strip plan.
Posted by P6 at May 5, 2004 11:07 AM
The israeli-arab conflict differs from the Cyprus civil war, so much is true.
But if you actually lambast the current US administration for not taking a position on compensation of displaced palestinians, wat should your position be on the UN-endorsed Cyprus peace plan that actually does take a position, to the effect that the displaced Greek Cypriots should compensate themselves?
You can't have it both ways. Either every person displaced in a conflict that can't return home should be compensated, in which case the UN deserves a lot more criticism than the US. Or you take the position that every conflict is unique, and by consequence must have a unique resolution.
Posted by dof at May 6, 2004 04:08 AM
You can't have it both ways. Either every person displaced in a conflict that can't return home should be compensated…Or you take the position that every conflict is unique, and by consequence must have a unique resolution.I elided the UN reference because it doesn't matter.
Your options are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I hold both positions. Perhaps my libertarian streak runs deeper than you thought.
But note the small "l".
Since you put the possibilities into opposition, you must disagree with one or the other. Which one do you feel is wrong?
Posted by P6 at May 6, 2004 09:21 AM
> Which one do you feel is wrong?
I think it would be wrong to prolong hostilities just because the parties can't agree on a compensation package.
Posted by dof at May 6, 2004 11:11 AMHm. Expediency over Libertarian principle. And no answer as to which of the two ways one cannot have both of you hold to.
Posted by P6 at May 6, 2004 07:31 PM> Expediency over Libertarian principle
I don't think there is a libertarian doctrine on how nationstates should resolve their conflicts.
> And no answer
Sorry if that was not clear. Clearly it should be "Every conflict is unique and has a unique resolution". Compensate people if possible. If not, end the conflict without doing so.
I don't think there is a libertarian doctrine on how nationstates should resolve their conflicts.My understanding is that Libertarians pride themselves on all their positions proceeding from their single principle. Posted by P6 at May 6, 2004 09:30 PM