RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinians expressed shock and anger yesterday at President Bush’s landmark endorsement of two key Israeli negotiating positions at a summit with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
In Israel, Mr. Bush’s sanction of Jewish West Bank settlements and rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees was hailed as a worthy trade-off for the Gaza Strip disengagement plan proposed by Mr. Sharon.
If Mr. Bush’s lavish praise at a White House press conference on Wednesday wasn’t enough to boost the embattled Israeli prime minister ahead of a critical referendum in his own party, Mr. Sharon could rely on the angry response from the Palestinians as the clincher.
Speaking to reporters in his half-destroyed Ramallah headquarters, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat vowed to continue the struggle for Palestinian statehood.
Waving his hands defiantly, Mr. Arafat said he would never concede the rights of refugees to return to former homes inside Israel — an option the president ruled out in favor of repatriation to the future Palestinian state.
Mr. Bush’s position on the refugees was formalized in a letter endorsing the Israeli prime minister’s Gaza disengagement plan. The letter also stated that a final peace settlement between Israelis and the Palestinians must take into account the “Israeli population centers” in the West Bank, making a return to the 1949 Green Line impossible.
Al-Ayyam, the Palestinian Authority’s official newspaper, dubbed the letter “Balfour II,” hearkening back to the 1917 declaration in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour. His declaration became the basis of international support for the founding of the state of Israel.
While stopping short of ruling out the United States as a future interlocutor, Palestinian officials called on other members of the international Quartet — Russia, the United Nations and the European Union — to limit the damage.
“Bush yesterday was trying to justify keeping part of the occupied territories under the control of Israel, which contradicts the road map,” said Palestinian Labor Minister Ghassan Khatib, referring to the stalled U.S.-sponsored peace initiative.
“The particular position that was expressed yesterday by President Bush is not going to be helpful for any American role in the peace process, so we call on the members of the international community and the members of the Quartet to stick to the road map and not follow the example of President Bush.”
In the streets of Ramallah’s commercial district, Mr. Bush’s letter was described as a stinging affront to their leadership and yet another example of the paralysis of the Palestinian Authority.
Many suggested that Mr. Arafat, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and the rest of the Cabinet should resign in protest.
“Maybe it will shock the world and make them pay attention to our situation,” said one shopkeeper.
Spokesmen for Palestinian militant groups seemed to welcome the Bush statement, saying it confirmed their argument that Palestinians would never regain their lost land through negotiations.
At the same time, Palestinian moderates known as staunch defenders of peace talks predicted that Mr. Bush’s legitimization of settlement activity and disregard of Palestinian refugees would give groups such as Hamas more credence.
“What happened yesterday may have made peace through negotiations impossible,” said Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki. “More and more Palestinians will reach the conclusions that those who commit violence are right because there is no alternative.”
In Israel, there were few who could deny the benefits conferred upon the prime minister by Mr. Bush. A poll sponsored by Israel’s government-run radio station showed 54 percent of Likud members supporting the plan.
“Bush yesterday gave Sharon winning cards in his campaign,” wrote Nahum Barnea, a commentator for Yediot Ahronot, the most widely read daily newspaper. “Bush gave Sharon words, just words, but what words.
“Sharon is right when he says that Israel has not received words like those since the establishment of the State of Israel — and certainly not since 1967.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.