In his news conference Bush told the Israelis to stop their military action. He also told them to stop building settlements. He reiterated that the Palestinians need to have a state that is viable politically and economically. Already it seems that Israel might be starting to obey. Earlier it was reported that the Israelis would not allow Envoy Zinni to see Arafat, now MSNBC is saying that this might be allowed. The Israelis have not allowed UN and European diplomats to see Arafat. It must be assumed that the Israelis will allow Powell who is going to the MidEast next week to see Arafat, despite Sharon's desire to deport Arafat. On CNN the Jewish Mayor of Jeruslalem began with the typical "Bush did not say we must withdraw the troops immediately. He did admit that they might withdraw the troops by next week's visit from Powell. According to CNN these moves will anger conservatives, some of whom believe that the Bible demands that Israel occupy much of the West Bank. Do you think that this is the start of peace or will just lead to more of the same posturing? Also are the really a significant number of the Christian Right who really believe that the Bible requires Jews to occupy the West Bank? To a broad range of conservative Christians, support for Israel is virtually ordained by the Bible. Last month, for instance, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a staunch social conservative, declared on the Senate floor that Israel should maintain control of the Palestinian territories "because God said so. . . . Look it up in the book of Genesis." http://www.latimes.com/la-000023864apr03.story
If God wants there to be an Israel on the West Bank, there will be an Israel on the West Bank. The US might be an instrument of God's will, but I don't think we should be formulating foreign policy on what WE think God's will is!!! Glynch - so any positive words for Bush from this?? His words carried some weight...he did the right thing, right??
I think he had too. Israel is screwing up his plans to go after Sadaam. He knows that it would be impossible to deal with Iraq (or Iran or Syria who he also mentioned in his speech) if he doesn't put his thing down on Israel because he'd not only lose support in the Arab world, but he would very likely be escalating a situation that is getting terribly close to all out war in the region. I don't think this was something the administration really wanted to do. I think it was something they HAD to do.
Bush hasn't been engaged in the Middle East since the (s)election. That is one reason why the level of violence on both sides has escalated so much in such a short time. Since 1948, the US has had no choice but to be engaged in the Middle East.
He said a little more that that, however: "Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.... The chairman of the Palestinian Authority has not consistently opposed or confronted terrorists. At Oslo and elsewhere, Chairman Arafat renounced terror as an instrument of his cause, and he agreed to control it. He's not done so. The situation in which he finds himself today is largely of his own making. He's missed his opportunities and thereby betrayed the hopes of the people he's supposed to lead. Given his failure, the Israel government feels it must strike at terrorist networks that are killing its citizens. Yet, Israel must understand that its response to these recent attacks is only a temporary measure. All parties have their own responsibilities, and all parties owe it to their own people to act.... I call on the Palestinian Authority and all governments in the region to do everything in their power to stop terrorist activities, to disrupt terrorist financing, and to stop inciting violence by glorifying terror in state-owned media or telling suicide bombers they are martyrs. They're not martyrs. They're murderers. And they undermine the cause of the Palestinian people. Those governments, like Iraq, that reward parents for the sacrifice of their children are guilty of soliciting murder of the worst kind. All who care about the Palestinian people should join in condemning and acting against groups like Al-Aqsa, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all groups which oppose the peace process and seek the destruction of Israel."
The US can (or have planned) to use this situation to their advantage. The surrounding arab states are all focused on one thing right now, Israel. If the US shows its control over Israel, it could pave the way for a coalition against Iraq with arab participation. Israel knows a lot of support for terrorism is coming from Iraq, so they would rather pull back now and see Iraq taken out than defy US influence. (Of course they both probably planned this all along.)
I'm not sure we'll ever have support for overthrowing Saddam or the theocracy in Iran, and see little reason why we should let the Israeli/Palestinian conflict alter our plans. Here's an interesting article re: possible Arab motives for supporting Saddam: Stop the Dream of an 'Arab Bomb' RANAN R. LURIE Los Angeles Times, April 3, 2002 A good friend of mine, the senior correspondent for a major Arab newspaper, told me a joke: "I have great news for you," said the psychologist to his patient. "You are not suffering from an inferiority complex. You are inferior." We were musing about the military situation in the Middle East. "Can you imagine," my friend said while staring at his martini, "a people 122 million strong who couldn't militarily beat a group less than 4% of its size? All of this repeating itself again and again and again for 54 years?" The drama of Arab military inferiority to Israel is entrenched in the Arab psyche. It was underscored in the June 1982 air battle between Syria and Israel: 94 Syrian fighter jets were shot down; the only Israeli plane lost was downed by ground fire. We in the West are aware of Israel's "might" and its "victories," and we forget the insult these two words present to the proud Arab people. That is why the Arab nations hope that Saddam Hussein will create the long-awaited "Arab bomb." Vice President Dick Cheney is still unpacking his luggage from a tour that was supposed to persuade Arab nations to support the United States in an attack on Iraq--the only Arab nation that has a realistic chance of creating what seems to be the only way to bypass Israel's military superiority. So, because the only way the Arab nations can overcome Israel is to nuke it, and the only person who is close to this capacity is Hussein, our effort to get other Arab leaders to end his potential nuclear capacity is similar to training a camel to fly. Here is the certainty: When Iraqi scientists present their dictator with the bomb on a given morning, it will detonate over Israel that afternoon. For those smart, civilized strategists who say that Hussein would not endanger his Palestinian brethren, I would like to remind them that he already has killed more than 100,000 of his own people in "police actions." In December 1977, I interviewed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for "The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour" on public television. After the interview, Sadat recommended that I meet Field Marshal Mohamed Abdel-Ghani Gamasi, commander of all of Egypt's forces. When I met with the tall, handsome field marshal, he said, "You, people of the West, must understand that until we find an answer to the Israeli bomb, we won't sleep well. When we snore, you won't sleep well either." The U.S. can forget about any cooperation with an Arab country in attacking Iraq. To the contrary: We may anticipate their cooperation with Iraq against us, not necessarily by fighting us on the ground but by aiding Iraq with intelligence, moral support and threats of an oil embargo. Unfortunately, Hussein's Arab bomb will be their ticket to military equality with or even superiority over Israel. No Arab leader would dare dampen that Arab dream. We must get used to the idea that we are alone in this battle--and like it or not, the earlier we attack Iraq, the less the chance of Israel or the United States being nuked. * Ranan R. Lurie, a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, is a syndicated columnist and political cartoonist
Buck: No question he went after a few Arab countries as well and dug on Arafat, but that isn't anything we haven't heard before. Clearly, the harder line he took was against Israel and that is significant in so far as this is the first time the administration has really done that. In other news, CNN reports "U.N. Security Council votes 15-0 to demand Israel's withdrawal from Palestinian towns 'without delay.' "
Why? Because you don't agree? I don't like the PLO either, but it is HIS opinion. He didn't hurl a personal insult at anyone. All he did was post his opinion. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it "has no business here."
Wow...THAT's a shocker! I was a disappointed that Bush didn't take a harder stance against Arafat... BTW, where's the condemnation of Arafat and terrorism in general from the UN and the Arab community? Notably absent... I guess it's hard to condemn something you can't even define... x34
come on RocketMan..you're better than that!! Violence escalated during Clinton's term once the peace talks failed at Camp David...that was really the beginning of this new wave of real violence...admittedly, it has intensified as of late. But EVERY TIME the US gets involved in a "peace process" the violence from the Palestinians picks up. Bush hasn't been engaged in the Mid East because we've kinda been busy with our own war. You might remember, we were attacked. We lost about 3000 or so civilians...kinda keeps the administration busy. In the days prior to that, Bush indicated that it was quite clear to everyone that there was a need for a Palestinian state. That was the position of the administration pre-Sept. 11th. I'm sure Gore would be doing a far better job on this though, right?? He really seems like a foreign policy guru!! And I bet his foreign policy staff would have people far superior to Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney!! yeah...
Yawn.... The one thing the recent political intrigues in Israel, as well as their resposnse on the Clutch City BBS have taught me is that it seems that nearly everyone chooses their side and as a result chooses their opinion, not vice versa. Give me 20 minutes and I could write a thread with responses from everyone on this board for any news story you can think of. The BBS Hangout has become boringly predictable.
are we to assume you're completely unbiased with objective answers on every topic, then?? please enlighten us!!
I personally think that both Israel and Palestine should be handed over to the Phillippines to do with as they please, with no influence from the US. It would solve many problems because: 1. Nobody would resent them because they have been abused for 500 years. 2. They have really happy pop music that would make everyone want to get together and dance. 3. Nobody likes to fight on a full stomach. 4. It would start a veritable gold rush of peaceful landclaims throughout the ME - due to the Filipinos setting a good example.
Madmax, it was good that Bush finally started to come out more evenhanded on this matter. Time will tell if this is just a pr move or if he is really serious that "enough is enough". This is the time for Bush to actually to say that it is time for the two state solution and to push it through. Everyone knows that we can pretty much dictate to the Israelis. Don't forget that 78% of Israelis want to give land for peace and 30% want to go back to the pre 1967 borders, which would really lead to not only to them following international law, but provide them with more security. BTW Madmax, do you believe in international law? It is a curious concept, that seems so political. On the other hand I guess that you could argue that all laws are the result of politics.
