Posted on 10/18/2006 5:42:35 AM PDT by SJackson
Spokesman: Bush backs Rice's praise of Palestine
She had told Task Force establishment of Palestinian state great 'legacy' for U.S.
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush "stands absolutely behind" the statements made by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice when she lauded as a great "legacy" the possibility of the United States helping bring into existence a Palestinian state.
In a response to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the president stands behind Rice's recent comments to the American Task Force on Palestine.
The question to Snow was: "In Secretary Condoleezza Rice's speech last week to the American Task Force on Palestine, she said, 'I believe that there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who have been (humiliated too long).' My question, since the Palestinian Authority's President, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke out in Fatah with Arafat and funded the Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic team, and wrote his Ph.D. thesis denying the existence of the Holocaust, how can the president agree with Secretary Rice that it would be a great legacy to have a Palestinian state run by Abbas and Hamas?"
Snow said there wasn't a reference to a Palestinian state being run by Abbas and Hamas. "But on the other hand, Prime Minister Abbas has also demonstrated a willingness to pursue democracy and work directly with Israel."
WND had asked whether the president believes that the American Revolution should be compared to Hamas, which has Article 15 calling for the destruction of Israel, and Article 7, calling for the killing of Jews?
"No," Snow said.
The issue arose when Rice gave a keynote speech at the Task Force on Palestine a week ago. Her remarks were condemned by the Zionist Organization of America as the "most pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel speech in memory by a major U.S. Administration official."
During that speech she compared the Palestinian movement to the American Revolution and implied the comparison of Palestinian Arab leaders to America's Founding Fathers.
"I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable," she said. "I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being."
"By saying this, Secretary Rice is implying a comparison of Yasser Arafat and Hamas leaders to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson," said the Zionist Organization of America's statement.
"We are deeply distressed by Secretary Rice's deeply troubling speech pandering to Arab Americans and other Arabs by making a series of false declarations," said ZOA National President Morton A. Klein. "This speech is surely at odds with an Administration that claims it is 'the best friend Israel ever had.' If President Bush does not support the themes expressed in this speech, we urge him to make that publicly clear by distancing himself from it."
The Zionist organization said Rice praised the Palestinians as being committed to a better future but ignored the "major cause of the problem being the (Palestinian Authority) regime's promotion of hatred and violence against Jews in their media, textbooks and speeches."
"By suggesting that the Palestinians simply seek a state of their own, not the destruction of another people's state which also happens to be a close American ally, Secretary Rice falsely dignifies the Palestinian extremist agenda and suggests its fulfillment would be a sublime event worthy of the American Revolution," the group said.
Rice also referred to the "humiliation of occupation," but ZOA noted that the land in question is not occupied, but disputed territory at a minimum.
"Secretary Rice did not acknowledge that Israel ceded half of Judea and Samaria and all of Gaza, the land on which the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established," ZOA said.
Further, ZOA said, in earlier periods of temporary calm before September 2000, there were no Israeli checkpoints, road-blocks, barriers, curfews and other restrictions of which Palestinians now complain. Those measures exist "solely and as a direct consequence of the Palestinian terrorist campaign since September 2000 that has resulted in the murder of 1,500 Israeli men, women and children and the maiming and injuring of thousands more."
"When asked by President Bush at the Aqaba summit last year to state publicly that he accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, Abbas refused to do so," ZOA noted.
The group also noted that Rice discussed the recent U.S. increase in "direct assistance to the Palestinians to $438 million a year."
"It is simply inappropriate for the Bush Administration to provide financial assistance to them courtesy of the American taxpayer. U.S. funding for Palestinians sends only one message – that the Palestinians need not change, that their goals and terrorist conduct is not a problem. By doing this, the U.S. takes out of the equation the one piece of leverage that it holds over the PA," ZOA said.
"The Zionist Organization of America was founded in 1897 and is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States.
Like Arafat before them the leaders of Fatah and Hamas will be stuffing their Swiss bank accounts with American taxpayer dollars soon enough. ....if they're not aleady doing so.
President Bush "stands absolutely behind" the statements made by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
Does he stand behind Rice's statements last week that Israel is "occupying Palestinian territory?"
The Bush administration's frantic/desperate efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of Islamics worldwide by helping to establish a Palie (terrorist) state is unfathomably naive. U.S. Presidents should look elsewhere for their legacy-building.
I guess someone other that us noticed that insane speech she gave, and in particular that line about legacy, which I picked out immediately, if you recall.
When I wrote here a long time ago that this Bush Administration was HOSTILE to Israel, I was ridiculed by some for doubting Israel's Best Friend Ever®.
Why do Jews vote for Democrats when Republicans believe the greatest legacy for America is a "Palestinian" State?
And they believe it would be America's greatest legacy even when every single minute of ever single day, the "Palestinians" prove that they are degenerate congenital liars and terrorists.
And they believe it post 9/11 when supposedly the US is fighting a war against the exact same measure of barbarians and their allies just miles away.
Bush Administration, doing a heck of a job.
In the past, President Bush has supported the 1949 truce line as a border, SOS Rice has warned Israel about Jerusalem, and both support territorial integrity between the West Bank and Gaza. It's reasonable to assume he'd stand behind that statement.
"Ramandan-a-ding-dong"
:-D
Makes you wonder when it's into the White House. The last guy had Chinamen in there.
In my opinion, this is a misguided policy.
President Bush, and I agree, refused to negotiate with the terrorist Abu Ammar (Yasser Arafat). Legitimized by his father during the Madrid process. The only possible way to grow a peaceful palestinian society is to bar terror from participation. If he was going to negotiate with a terrorist, Arafat was the man, he held the power.
Of course after not negotiating with Abu Ammar, he legitimized the terrorist Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), a founding member of the PLO like Ammar, and a terrorist of long standing. But he wears a suit, and he’s Dr. Mazen, holding a Phd from a Russian university in Zionist conspiracies and Holocaust denial So much for resolve. I’d score 1 for the Palestinians.
Among the diplomatic achievements.
The creation of a palestinian state as American policy. This was never policy before, even under Clinton, though certainly implied in Oslo. As we now see, it’s a high priority. Score 1 for the palestinians.
Seeing the failure of Oslo, the administration created the Road Map, a strange agreement revisiting Oslo, which the parties were already committed to, excluding the requirement of the PLO to amend their Charter to recognize Israel. The agreement after the agreement that didn’t work before. But an accomplishment. Score 1 for the palestinians.
The 1949 Truce Lines as the starting, and ending, point for negotiations. That was new. An accomplishment, even the UN recognized those lines won’t fly. Score 1 for the palestinians.
With us or against us, great sound bite, but terror was accepted and the palestinian obligation to disarm terror groups was ignored. The US pressured Israel to allow Hamas, described by the administration as businessmen. Control of the government was OK. This was new, and a violation of Oslo and the Road Map. Score 1 for the palestinians.
The withdrawl from Gaza, unilateral, was referred to as a good first step. There was no suggestion of reciprocity. Score 1 for the palestinians.
Israel was pressured to cede control of the borders to the Palestinians, to ease the pressure of the occupation and facilitate smuggling of weapons. Score 1 for the palestinians.
Aid, in return for their refusal to honor their commitments under Oslo and the Road Map, has tripled, and looks like it will double next year from this years $240 million. Under a Presidential waiver. While we pretend we don’t provide aid. Score 1 for the palestinians.
Legitimization of the concept of occupation. As we know the occupied territory is Israel. The PLO was founded, Abu Mazen among the founders, by the Arab League, not “palestinians”, to liberate the occupied territory. In 1963, while Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt Gaza. Occupation, Score 1 for the Palestinians.
From a political perspective a Democrat would fairly point out that Israel faces aggressive, well armed enemies on three fronts today, unlike 2000. And that Israeli deaths in terror attacks are triple those during the Clinton years. The fault of Bush policies, no, but the terrorists have been encouraged.
At this point in time I think the Republican party is far less tolerant of bigotry, including antisemitism, than the Democrats who embrace hate. I think Republicans are generally supportive of Israel, Kerry or Gore would likely have been worse. But GWB has been in the White House, the accomplishments are his, and I wouldn’t use policy toward Israel as a Republican selling point. Of course that leave out the fact that Israel isn’t the primary issue Jew vote on to begin with.
In anticipation, yes, I know Hillary kissed Suha. And Arafat visited the Clinton White House multiple times. While the Bush White House only invited Abbas once. And Hillary said Jew *astard, but Baker said *uck the Jews. And Bush holds hands with Saudis. But Carter said *uck the Jews too. Rudy cross dresses, and Allen doesn’t like monkeys. None of those things matter.
It won't happen if terror is tolerated. And you're correct that a peaceful state will be many decades off, or one serious war. By accepting terror, we're doing no favors to peaceful palestinians.
They've lost their ever lovin' minds...and I don't mean the Palis. Giving the Palestinians (there are NO such people) a state is a crappy legacy.
As you yourself write, Abbas was Arafat's deputy. He is/was just as much a terrorist (and he leads terrorist organizations today). He just wears a suit. Therefore I don't see a distinction.
I will never argue that from my perspective Republicans are not better then Democrats. I despise most Democrats and what they stand for and push.
But the question is always asked in the context of Israel ("Why if Republicans are so supportive of Israel do Jews vote for Democrats?").
Bush is hostile to Israel. Jimmy Carter given the opportunity, would have been at least as hostile if not more. But I don't believe one can say with any proof that Clinton was as hostile.
Israel, certainly with heavy Israeli contribution, has been damaged tremendously during this Administration. I believed much of the damage can be blamed on Israel naively accepting that Bush was in fact Israel's best friend ever and acting on that false belief. I blame Israel first for her troubles.
This Administration also stands out for its hypocrisy. Fighting terror with American casualties on the one hand while simultaneously supporting identically minded terrorists vis a vis Israel.
Returning to Republicans support of Israel. Lets look at FreeRepublic. Support for Israel is generally high. BUT, when it comes to criticizing the Administration for siding almost always with Israel's (and in truth the US's) enemies the loneliness of these threads is disappointing. Just the same few, very few, people with guts. Many are missing.
Bottom line. The "Why if Republicans are so supportive of Israel do Jews vote for Democrats?" question should be dead and buried.
If the question is why would any American vote Democrat when they will raise your taxes, appoint a**hole judges, push insane Liberal policies, et al, it is a different matter entirely.
But still if some see Israel as a moral measure of a politician, it is an issue to consider. And Bush fails as a hypocrite and liar (where is the American Embassy?).
You're right, it's not an issue I'd bring up. I forgot the Embassy promise.
I have been deeply concerned and dubious of Bush's positions ever since the "Roadmap" was outlined. I don't know if its a sincerity gap, or more a huge gaping ignorance and intelligence deficit that overwhelms him. Allowing the Islamists to misinform and manipulate his sense of "fairness."
Vectors for the influence are of course the Brits (clearly Tony Blair) and the other world leaders, but internally, other players influence over him should not be discounted. I tend to believe that behind the scenes of all this is Grover Norquist, Richard Armitage, and the Clinton's themselves. Note how similar is the general direction that Bush adopted.
I think the point made is simply incontestable that:
“The United States recently increased our direct assistance to the Palestinians to $468 million a year”: As the PA and Palestinians in general approve of terrorism, it is simply inappropriate for the Bush Administration to provide financial assistance to them courtesy of the American taxpayer. US funding for Palestinians sends only one message -- that the Palestinians need not change, that their goals and terrorist conduct is not a problem. By doing this, the US takes out of the equation the one piece of leverage that it holds over the PA.
Now that President Bush has stated what his true feelings about Israel are, we can expect to watch America fall. We turned our back on Israel, and God said any nation who did that would be destroyed! Don't expect Him to change His mind just because it's America!
Regards, Ivan
Bump!
Sigh. One can only shake one's head in disbelief at this. One would have thought that W's helicopter ride with Sharon would have made a lasting difference. Down the memory hole evidently. And we can see how little weight that W apparently accords God's word.
Rarely discussed, palestinian aid pales next to the cost of an agreement. Had Camp David been successful, the price tag was estimated to be well above $20 billion. There are millions of "refugees" in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria that have to be resettled. My guess, the US will foot most of the bill.
Bears repeating. Notice how there is never ever any discussion of re-compense by the Islamo-States for the forced diaspora of their own jewish citizens...with explicit revocation of their Dhimmi status ... back in '48. Not to mention the expropriation of all their worldy goods and possessions.
Why is there never accountability by the Muslim countries for this "refugee" problem...of their own creation? One which they strangely enough seem to keep trying to "cure" by their periodic efforts at annhilation of Israel.
The surreal nature of this is increased, by the unusual characteristic that such sentiments are also often accompanied by heated disavowals of the reality of the Holocaust...as does Iran's wack-job Adhmanejad.
I haven't been on FR much since I started my new job on October 9 - I'm a lot busier at my new job, so I can only get on once in a while.
I saw this and I can only say what a Buddy's sister used to say when the BS meter pegged...."oh honey, puleeeeeeze!" Good night nurse!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.