Thursday, June 01, 2006

Coverage of Iran/Olmert/Disengagement

In another Washington Jewish Week article there is a set of quotes from a young DCite you may know:

On his inaugural visit to Washington, D.C., Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met at length with President George W. Bush and other top administration officials. The premier also addressed a joint session of Congress (see excerpts in accompanying story) on Wednesday of last week.

WJW interviewed several area residents to gauge their response to the Olmert visit, his convergence plan for partial withdrawal from the West Bank and the concerns he voiced about Iranian threats against Israel. Most seemed not to have formed opinions about the new premier himself, but many held strong views on the urgent issues facing the Jewish state, as set forth by the Israeli leader in his remarks on Capitol Hill.


In the District, Z...Teutsch raised concerns about some aspects of Olmert's West Bank plans.

"I still think it would preferable to see a negotiated, bilateral solution," said Teutsch, 23.

A lot of the proposals floated recently fail to meet the test of offering continguous territory to a future Palestine, "including the dismantling of Ma'ale Adumim, which is set to bisect the West Bank," Teutsch argued.

He also noted that Israel's controversial separation fence does not exactly match the Green Line of the 1967 Armistice.

"Without negotiation and mutual agreement, it's not clear how one would draw such lines," Teutsch said.

Like Margulies, he voiced worry that tensions with Iran could lead to war.

"The situation with regard to Israel is very scary, but perhaps the scariest part is that the U.S. might be drawn into unilateral military action, which could polarize the Arab world," the District man said.

Teutsch expressed a desire for a nonviolent resolution to the current standoff over potential nuclear arms flagged by Olmert in his speech and called for "diplomatic and economic approaches" to working with Iran.

The reporter/news editor was very careful to make sure she got the quotes exactly right, and i really appreciate her precision.


At 6/01/2006 , Anonymous rdl said...

well said! though a "bilateral agreement" isnt actually what we want, since this is only going to happen with sustained involved of the US, the Quartet, and the Arab League, and any agreement will probably involve those parties as well. what we want is a "negotiated, two-state solution."

At 6/01/2006 , Anonymous alan said...

You're a "District man". sounds fancy.

At 6/01/2006 , Blogger ZT said...

an agreement would still be between israel and the PA right. are you suggesting that the quartet, eu, us, jordan, or anyone else would actually be a party in the agreement?
your phrasing is certainly more clear but i don't necesaily think that a negotiated, bi-lateral agreement precludes US/UN/Quartet/Whomever invovlment. a bilateral agreement need not imply a bilateral negotiation. right?

At 6/05/2006 , Anonymous rdl said...

interesting, so there are two issues here: one is would the agreement be entirely bilateral? It may be, but it certainly shouldnt HAVE to be. I wouldnt want to preclude a large agreement that involves the US, EU, Quarter, and/or Arab League.

That said, I actually think the larger is the focus on negotiations rather than the agreement - as the details of such an agreement (bilateral or no) have mostly been worked out in such places as the Taba Accords and the Geneva Accords. The pressing question in my mind is how do we return to negotiations, whether bilateral or multilateral, rather than focusing on unilateral politices such as convergence.

At 6/08/2006 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very best site. Keep working. Will return in the near future.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home