Road map for peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deadlock. In November 2003, the linked Nations trade protection Council endorsed the Roadmap in United Nations Security Council steadiness 1515 which c on the wholeed for an end to all violence including terrorism, provocation, incitation and destruction. By the end of 2003, the Palestinian trust had non prevented Palestinian terrorism, and Israel had neither withdrawn from Palestinian areas occupied since 28 September 2000, nor rigid liquidation expansion. consequently the requirements of Phase I of the Roadmap were non fulfilled, and the Roadmap has not continued further. It in conclusion reached deadlock. \nDevelopments in 2004. In 2004, the mollification emergence was still overshadowed by the Second intifadah . characterized by mutual Palestinian and Israeli violence. Reportedly, well-nigh one hundred ten Israelis and 820 Palestinians were killed in the appointment: 40 Israeli military and 67 civilians were killed; some 350 Palestinian militants, 452 civilians a nd 18 occult were killed. While a number of the Palestinian militants were killed when carrying off an attack, m either another(prenominal) were killed in IDF raids on Palestinian neighbourhoods or at hinderance attempts. \nSharons announcement of the insulation programme. On 14 April 2004, Prime attend Ariel Sharon wrote a letter to US chairman George W. Bush, in which he reconfirmed his commitment to the Roadmap. He also accuse the Palestinian Authority of not carrying out its part of the responsibilities downstairs(a) the Roadmap. Stating that there exists no Palestinian supply with whom to advance peace full moony toward a colonisation . Sharon announced his biased disengagement plan (Israeli withdrawal from Gaza), which meant the remotion of all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip and quadruple settlements in the air jacket Bank. The plan was already suggested by him on 18 declination 2003 at the quartern Herzliya Conference.\nAlthough not undertaken under the Roadmap, Sharon declared this colored step not inconsistent with it. professorship Bush gave his attendant to the plan, calling it a bold and historic initiative that post make an fundamental contribution to peace. Shifting U.S. position. Until 2004, the positive U.S. position had been that Israel, in principle, should drive away to the 1949 cease-fire lines (the Green Line) and that changes to these lines essential be mutually hold to in final- posture negotiations. Israels ongoing settlement activities were criticised, because they prejudiced final- billet negotiations. \nIn his answer on the 14 April letter from Ariel Sharon, Bush took some distance from this principle. He said In light of raw realities on the ground, including already existing major(ip) Israeli state centers, it is un lifelike that the takings of final status negotiations go away be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreem ent will only be achieved on the land of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities . \n