Bush tells world prolonged terror pays off

[sianews]

Might as well have put it in those words as well, at least he would have garnered some honesty points from me.

This roadmap is a total sham and will never work. Israel has to let out Palestinian terrorists, dismantle some 100 settlements with 230,000 people living in them, and not respond to future terrorist attacks without risking sanctions from their "ally" the US. All the Palestinians have to do is recognize Israel’s right to exist.

I'm as disappointed with Sharon in this whole mess as I am with Bush. I only hope he realizes he has painted the word "Rabin" on the back of his head by doing this.

I've been trying to ignore this whole situation because I know a year from now, we'll be back at step 1, but today’s press conference just put me over the edge. By moving down this roadmap Bush is telling every terrorist everywhere that if you go at it long enough and kill enough people, we will meet your goals in the en. If al Queda keeps hitting NYC over and over how long will it take Bush to "dismantle" the city in it entirety, relocate the citizens, and offer it as an al Queda homeland? Hell, I'd think he'd be just as set on that as a Palestinian state - al Queda doesn’t have a home, this will be the second for the Palestinians.

The Christian right is going to walk out on Bush in ’04, and I may go with them. They have been sold out by Bush as well as congressional Republicans, many of whom I am astonished are supporting this. For all the force we showed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush is showing vulnerability right now – this rant isn’t so much about Israel as it is about the future of American security. This is a sad day ion the War on Terror.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...dan/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88524,00.html

[oykib]

You can't fight a war everywhere.

Besides which, every Paenstinian is not a terrorist. They can never expect to get a fiar shak in Israel. Not having a seperate Palestinian state is asking every young disenfranchised Palestinian to join HAMAS.

I don't really care for Bush's foreign policy. But this is a situation that no one's got an answer to. What would you have done?

[sianews]

I would have, this time, forced the Palestinians the take the first step. Doesn’t this roadmap look familiar to anyone? We've made this trip multiple times in the past decade.

Israel has emptied its prisons of terrorists on multiple occasions only to see its citizens savagely slaughtered by those same individuals. Israel has continually pledged to not respond to attacks - and they haven't - as part of the first step. But then a week later, they are bombed yet again and have no choice but to respond.

The only difference is this time Bush is forcing the destruction of the settlements, a step which is going to have long and lasting repercussions for the state of Israel. With no security boundary attacks will happen more often and be more deadly. Further, if by some miracle everything works out, a Palestinian state will be a puppet for Hamas, and Hizbulloh, which itself is a puppet of Syria, who is a puppet of Iran – who has money, missiles, and weapons that will be used to kill Israelis. Today we hear from the Palestinians, “we need a state, just a stat.” Tomorrow, it’s “this is not to our liking, comply with our demands or die.” The keep raising the stakes while never coming though on promises.

[CamEdwards]

Hold on a second. One could argue that the Palestinians did take the first step by not allowing Arafat to be a part of the discussions. And you're overlooking the pledge by Abbas to deal with terrorists with physical force. Quoting Abbas... "The armed intefadeh must end and we must use and resort to peaceful means in our quest to end the occupation and suffering of Palestinians and Israelis."

Of course, it's easy to say something, harder to follow through. But again, what's your solution?

[sianews]

I've heard that line before

Abu Mazen does not actually differ from Yasser Arafat on any major issue.

Having watched the Clinton administration's enormous investment in brokering a Palestinian-Israeli settlement collapse in the face of Palestinian intransigence, President George W. Bush has tried to avoid a similar fate by keeping his personal involvement to a minimum and refusing to deal with Yasser Arafat.

By meeting face-to-face with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, better known as Abu Mazen, on June 3 4, Bush has cultivated Abu Mazen as an alternative to Arafat and placed him at the center of his efforts to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Unfortunately, in relying on Abu Mazen, Bush will be repeating his predecessor's missteps.

Abu Mazen was an attractive alternative to Arafat because of his long commitment to pursuing negotiations with Israel. He was in contact with Israeli peace groups as early as the 1970s, and he was an architect of the Oslo process. During the "al-Aksa Intifada" he gained prominence for criticizing the "militarization" of the conflict via terror attacks on Israeli civilians.

So far so good, but there is a catch. Abu Mazen does not actually differ from Arafat on any major position. Abu Mazen insists on the right of millions of Palestinian refugees throughout the Middle East to return to Israel which would swamp Israel demographically and Israel's complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders.

He denies that there was ever a Jewish Temple at the Temple Mount, the holiest site of the Jewish people, although he states that he would guarantee the right of Jews to pray there. Most tellingly, Abu Mazen lauded Arafat's rejection of prime minister Ehud Barak's August 2000 offer at Camp David (considered by most Israelis to be the absolute limit of Israeli concessions), saying it "was a trap by all standards and we managed to get out of it." It would appear that despite his commitment to the peace process, Abu Mazen's idea of peace remains incompatible with conceivable Israeli compromises.

IN FACT, Abu Mazen outlined his vision of peace in a monograph he wrote in the late 1990s entitled Racial and Religious Polarization in Israel. In it, Abu Mazen asks, "What may better increase and escalate the conflicts and racial and religious contrasts in Israeli society: a state of war or a state of peace?"

Reviewing Abu Mazen's book in a July 1999 edition of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Salleh Qallab writes, " whoever follows [Abu Mazen's] thought and research and anyone who is familiar with the mosaic nature of Israeli society will come to the answer All the conflicts within Israeli society were so [sharply] exposed only after the beginning of the peace process

"We do not say that the [disintegration of Israeli society] is the Arab nuclear weapon All that is required from us is to bring the Israelis to the absolute conviction that we Arabs really want peace, because such conviction will deepen the disputes in Israeli society and bring the Israelis down from their tanks and out of their fortresses . [The Arabs] must convince the majority of Israelis that they want a just peace based on what can be referred to as a historic agreement, on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338."

Whether Abu Mazen's means are in proportion to his goal of fostering the disintegration of Israeli society is an open question. But his continuing commitment to maximalist Palestinian conditions is worrisome. To achieve a real settlement with Israel, the Palestinian leadership must accept Israel's existence without reservations and make difficult, pragmatic compromises. There may be Palestinian leaders prepared for these compromises but Abu Mazen, an old Fatah apparatchik, is not one of them.

While Abu Mazen may be able to bring a period of quiet to the present Israeli-Palestinian violence, eventually the gap between what Israel can concede and what the Palestinians demand will reopen, and Palestinian extremists will exploit it to initiate a new round of violence.

The "al-Aksa Intifada" burned an American president who became too intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It would be a sad irony if President Bush, in attempting to not repeat his predecessor's mistakes by building Abu Mazen as a counterweight to Arafat, were actually adding fuel to a fire that would eventually burn him as well.

The writer is the author of Profiles in Terror: The Reference Guide to the Terrorist Organizations of the Middle East and their Affiliated Groups (forthcoming).

[andy m]

Originally posted by sianews
I only hope he realizes he has painted the word "Rabin" on the back of his head by doing this.

i thought that he had got it shaved in, i think it looks pretty cool.

The Christian right is going to walk out on Bush in ’04, and I may go with them. They have been sold out by Bush

bush has pissed off some religious whackos? amazing. i thought the man was utterly incompetent, but this suggests otherwise.

[Happy29]

The Palestineans are arguing for land that they clearly lost in the 1970 6-Days War. It's Israel's right to keep that land, if the Arabs cant learn to live with Jewish and Christian people peacefully then let the Arabs continue to argue for land they claim is theirs, because they won't get it. And I agree with some people, Abu Mazen or "Mahmood Abbas" is a terrorist, how many suicide bombings has Israel suffered ever since his "inauguration". The PLO is a terrorist group, Yasser Arafat is a terrorist and unfortunately for our Ally Israel, Arafat is still in charge of the PLO. Abu Mazen still wants the ultimate destruction of the Jewish State in favor of a religous fundamentalist government of Palestine, so that can only mean one thing.... ever since he came in, nothings changed !

For the Palestineans to have a homeland, America needs to focus on something first. 1. Israel's Security and right to exist, 2. The elimination of Yasser Arafat by exile or by other means, 3. To get someone who is cordial and is actually willing to actually negotiate with the Israelis and 4. The elimination of groups like Hezbollah (which can easily be done by cutting off funding from the Iranians) and Hamas. and 5. The eventual creation of a Palestinean Homeland.

[JonInMiddleGA]

By moving down this roadmap Bush is telling every terrorist everywhere that if you go at it long enough and kill enough people, we will meet your goals

Bingo.

[Dutch]

Israel has continually pledged to not respond to attacks - and they haven't - as part of the first step. But then a week later, they are bombed yet again and have no choice but to respond.

No need to distort the facts. Israel has responded to Palestinian terror attacks on MANY occassions within 24 hours and sometimes before nightfall...

Of course, the Palestinians will argue that they are only responding to the Israeli's who accidentaly shoot palestinian kids who are trying to sneak through roadblocks.

Israel is no longer the victim they were 60 years ago. They are pretty tough and in their neck of the woods, sometimes being tough is playing dirty. It's the way of life in land between the Med and the Dead Sea.

For the Palestineans to have a homeland, America needs to focus on something first. 1. Israel's Security and right to exist, 2. The elimination of Yasser Arafat by exile or by other means, 3. To get someone who is cordial and is actually willing to actually negotiate with the Israelis and 4. The elimination of groups like Hezbollah (which can easily be done by cutting off funding from the Iranians) and Hamas. and 5. The eventual creation of a Palestinean Homeland.

Hmmm, no requirements for the Israeli's? Perhaps if the Palestinians simply demonstrated in the street peacefully they would get there homeland...or would that me mis-communicated as the Palestinians "not being that serious about the issue".?

The Palestineans are arguing for land that they clearly lost in the 1970 6-Days War. It's Israel's right to keep that land, if the Arabs cant learn to live with Jewish and Christian people peacefully then let the Arabs continue to argue for land they claim is theirs, because they won't get it.

Yes, the Arab world got their collective asses kicked in the 1967 war. And yes, they have right to any lands claimed during war. But is it worth it? Do the Palestinians or the Arabs deserve the land? No. They don't. Not in the least, but again, is it worth it?

The biggest problem with the Muslim world is that they have learned to hate Jews. So much in fact, that they cannot bear losing to them. So much that they have no taken to killing Americans for supporting the Jews.

But the biggest problem with the Jewish state is that they hate Muslims just as much and are willing to fight to the death (with 3 to 1 odds, fortunately for them) to keep embarrassing them.

If it's Israel's true right to maintain the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Eastern Jerusalem, then they should claim it as their territory, remove the "occupation of disputed territories" tag, and make all those wonderful people citizens of the Jewish state, with a vote, and representation.

My guess is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it too. My concern is that it's Israel's responsability (as the only sovereign nation in the dispute) to make the decision. Either they keep it and give these people full rights as Israeli citizens, or give it up. It's only dirt, afterall.

[ISiddiqui]

Dutch, very well put. Both sides have blood on their hands, and I support this roadmap. It's a good first step with a new Palestinian leader. Israel has to remove the settlements if it is to be taken seriously that it will allow the creation of a Palestinian state if they stop terrorism. Without that, then those claims are bogus, and the Palestinians know that. Israel is simply expanding into the area they said was for the Palestinians. They must stop, the Palestinians must stop, and then maybe we'll have something to look forward to over there.

[Vince]

I just wanted to say thanks to you guys...I don't know much about the whole situation over there, and reading the arguments you guys have put forth in this and other threads has enlightened me quite a bit. I wish I had something to offer to the conversation, but as I said, my knowledge of the issue is very limited.

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by Happy29
The Palestineans are arguing for land that they clearly lost in the 1970 6-Days War.

I guess I should start out saying that I am an American Jew, member of the JUF, have friends in the Israeli Army, etc etc

First I think the idea that the land is legally Israel's is not one I can get 100% behind. But let's even say that it is Israel's land to do with what they wish. Well what they need is a Palestinian state. Why? Because there are going to be far more Palestinians than Jews in the not so distant future (some claim it is alredy so) and so Israel can either become an apatheid state or it can get the vast majorities of Arabs out of their country. So in my view Israel NEEDS a state of Palestine quite a bit in order to simply survive.

[clintl]

It appears to me that the roadmap actually puts most of the burden for concrete actions on the Palestinians. Certainly, they have to do a lot more than just recognize Israel's right to exist.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

[Airhog]

Give the Palestines a state already, so the usa can conquer them in the name of terrorism

[JonInMiddleGA]

Airhog, that may be one of the few workable solutions to the situation I've heard yet.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by oykib
I don't really care for Bush's foreign policy. But this is a situation that no one's got an answer to. What would you have done?

Bloody Hell, I'm in shock, you mean Bush actually has a foreign policy !!

Could somebody please explain what it is, because unless it is to piss off 90% of the rest of the world, I haven't seen any signs of anything that could actually be called a policy.

[Happy29]

I like your thinking AirHog !

[Dutch]

Could somebody please explain what it is, because unless it is to piss off 90% of the rest of the world, I haven't seen any signs of anything that could actually be called a policy.

Well, the truth hurts.

Are they mad that the US stated that if you harbor terrorists, you will be held responsable (Afghanistan's Taliban regime no longer exists).

Are they mad that we called out Iran and North Korea for being terrorist supporting states instead of some sort of appeasement or super power recognition to reduce their threat on terrorism?

Are they mad because we finally held Iraq to their UN Resolution obligations by ousting the Baath party and Saddam Hussein?

Are they mad because we made it clear to China that Taiwan has a right to exist in their current democratic state?

Are they mad because the US insists on pushing on with the Palestinian/Israeli issue as the only power on the planet who has any shot at it?

Are they mad that we pulling our US forces out of Saudi Arabia which pissed the Arabs off to no end for our "occupation" of the 2 muslim holy cities?

Or are they the ones that are crazy?

[JPhillips]

Dutch:

1) That is unless you are Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

2) North Korea is currnetly making plutonium based nukes, and Iran is recieving nuclear reactor fuel from our soul mate Putin.

3) I supported dealing with Saddam, but now that we can't find any WMD, did we really need to go to war because of the UN resolutions?

4) Bush recently skipped on a resolution condemninng China's human rights actions. The first president to give China a free pass in years. Bush also famously apologized to the Chinese for their downing of our plane.

5) I am thrilled that Bush has finally realized that the US is the only country that can have any chance of solving this mess.

6) This is good, but it also shows the duplicity in the Iraq WMD arguments. I don't think Bush could have convinced the public to go to war to move our troops from Saudi Arabi to Qatar and Iraq.

[Dutch]

Sorry, the Algerian earthquake has knocked Turkey out of about 80% of it's connectivety to the States, and I have been hurting to get anywhere without massive delays from home. But I went and sought this one out to see if anyone posted back.

Dutch:

1) That is unless you are Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Terrorists come from everywhere. While I don't like the system of government in Saudi Arabia and hope we turns the guns in Iraq around on them one day, the Pakistani government has taken huge steps to fight Al Qaeda that risk their leadership, even today, to the threat of being overthrown.

2) North Korea is currnetly making plutonium based nukes, and Iran is recieving nuclear reactor fuel from our soul mate Putin.

I don't doubt it. But it makes thing a lot harder when the world is aware of it and a lot easier for us to take action when things get out of hand.

3) I supported dealing with Saddam, but now that we can't find any WMD, did we really need to go to war because of the UN resolutions?

The UN endorsed the sanctions against Iraq but enjoyed the US/British/Australian's hard work in enforcing it, at a pretty penny by the way while the Euro's sat back and laughed their way to the bank. We told the Euro's to screw off, we took care of business, and now we are pulling out of Saudi Arabia, we have the heart of terrorist states split right down the middle and forces in their 2 strongholds of Iraq and Afghanistan both of which surround Iran and border Syria. Interesting how that all seems to work in our favor in the fight on terrorism.

But beyond all that, the agreements of Saddam Hussein of the 1991 unconditional surrender were to enforce a cease fire, he broke his promise, we didn't break ours. It took 12 years to fulfill our part of the deal, but at least we came through.

According to the leftist/anarchist site Amnesty International, some 500,000 Iraqi babies were dying each year because of sanctions. So if they are right, we are saving lives now. So that should make the anti-war freaks happy, not that they have said so.

4) Bush recently skipped on a resolution condemninng China's human rights actions. The first president to give China a free pass in years. Bush also famously apologized to the Chinese for their downing of our plane.

Well, Clinton gave China favor nation trading status, so who cares, that's why we don't want countries like Iran and North Korea gaining power, they are a lot harder to deal with when they are the bad guys. What would you have done with China if 18 servicemembers were in captivity. Would you be willing to say, "I'm sorry" to save 18 lives or are you too proud? What would Clinton have done?

5) I am thrilled that Bush has finally realized that the US is the only country that can have any chance of solving this mess.

Before 9/11, Colin Powell was the first secretary of state to ever suggest the creation of a Palestinian State. The original foreign concern and the top priority of the Bush administration was to deal with Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

6) This is good, but it also shows the duplicity in the Iraq WMD arguments. I don't think Bush could have convinced the public to go to war to move our troops from Saudi Arabi to Qatar and Iraq.

Frankly, the public is so concerned about NOW, that you couldn't convince us all on anything long term. Most of the public could care less about anything going on in the Middle East, don't care why anybody might be pissed, and as long as they can get to and from work in their car, assumes everything is great.

It's just not that easy.