Posted on 05/02/2002 12:06:33 AM PDT by Texasforever
Dear Mr. Prime Minister
There is a raging debate going on in our little Web community concerning the level of support or lack thereof being exhibited by the President of the United States for your country. Many on here are incensed that President Bush has not labeled Yasser Arafat as a terrorist and that he sent his Secretary of State to Israel to “negotiate” with him.
No sane person would argue that Arafat is not a terrorist. From the 1972 Olympics forward he has shown himself to be exactly that. He is the model on which the term “terrorist” is based. However, it seems that the government of Israel is also unwilling to place that label on him. I know you have, but like any elected leader, you share power with those that feel that it is unhelpful to do so, That being the case, Arafat has achieved a certain “legitimacy” that started with his repulsive standing ovation reception at the UN complete with his side arm on conspicuous display. The same UN that is now advocating worldwide disarmament then celebrated a known killer of innocents in their presence fully “dressed”. The same UN that is poised to bring you up on charges in their newly created kangaroo court.
On Sept 11 this country received a cold and sobering wake-up call of what it is like to be attacked by cowards that use civilian targets to further their cause. The result is a nation’s righteous wrath on those that perpetrated and supported that attack. President Bush made it clear to the world that we were going to fight back and negotiation was NOT an option. Osama Bin Laden was NOT in a position to make deals or air his grievances. Osama Bin Laden was a mass murderer and he and his supporters were to be tracked down and dealt with as such. Mr. Bush asked no other nation to give its blessing. He simply stated that this country would unilaterally, if required, embark on a war on terrorism. He has done that and I would be calling for his impeachment if he had acted in any other manner.
That brings me to my consternation with the nation of Israel and its most ardent supporters in the US. You sir, are leader of a people that have suffered persecution for thousands of years culminating in the Holocaust; A people that vowed on the souls of millions to “never again” wait for others to rescue them. Yasser Arafat is simply the latest threat to your existence. However; the fact remains that Israel has allowed this threat to outlast every Prime Minister since Golda Maier . The United States has found itself in the impossible position of being a never ending “peace mediator” between your nation and this vile scab on humanity and his odious organization. That uneasy position is due, in large part, because of you, your predecessors and various Israeli parliaments’ inability or unwillingness to finally take a stand and eliminate both Arafat and his organization from the equation.
I am assuming that you are fearful of losing the last true friend you have in the world by exercising your sacred responsibility to do whatever is required to protect the people that elected you and the nation you serve. There is an old saying that “it is better to be tried by 12 of your peers than to be carried to your grave by 6 of them”. If you allow Yasser Arafat and his band of thugs to exist then it is not unreasonable to assume that any 3rd party mediator MUST recognize him as the person that represents the interests of the Palestinians. Even if you lost our support, which you would never do, it is your responsibility to make the final determination. Is Arafat a danger to the nation that you lead? If so then the answer is obvious, eliminate the danger. If not, then don’t be dismayed that those that are tasked to mediate the problem consider him as a person that must be a part of any “peace process”. In Texas we like people that have the “sand” to defy people if their cause is just and they follow that defiance with effective action. You showed the world that “sand” when you stood up to President Bush and kept your troops in place. However, that defiance produced nothing except the world deriding our president’s lack of influence. If your defiance had led to the elimination of Arafat and his organization then I, and I would bet President Bush, would have cheered your resolve
.
Mr. Prime Minister, I am just an old Texas boy that has, in the past, admired the will of a small nation to defend itself but sir; if you and your government cannot agree that Arafat is a terrorist threat that must be eliminated and then follow through, come what may, then you need to tell those that support you and Israel that you and your government have dealt the cards that the United States must play in this never ending quest for “peace” between you and the Palestinians. Your lack of national resolve to act decisively in taking Arafat out of the process is, by definition, your tacit recognition of him as a person that must be a part of that process. The ball and the fate of your country are in your court.
Yeah and Bin Laden is a humanitarian. The Palestinians have chosen their "leader" and they will, I hope, pay for that choice.
Should we meet with Bin Ladden as well and talk with him? How about a heart to heart with old Saddam. Oh yea we had our chance there and we did what? The very same thing contained in your letter. We or rather the POTUS's of that time chose to let them {Bush SR let Saddam & Clinton let Bin Ladden} live to fight another day. Will we do that same mistake again? Some how I think we will if we even try to stop Saddam at all it won't be with deadly force against him persoanally. Bin Ladden though will be shot on sight if he's spotted and a good soldier can get an aim on him.
You do not talk to terrorist and you do not make deals with terrorist. You do not even treat them as legitimate leaders. This includes not inviting them to the White House or sending a state department offical to talk to them. Dealing with the likes of these persons is a military matter not a state department matter. It was a mistake to talk to Arafat in such a manner reserved for more civilized leaders. If we refuse to handle our own terrorist and enemies as such and refuse to take them out then what right do we have to tell Israel to do the same or not do it?
Sure you are. Why was Arafat alive when Powell got there? Hell I have never seen a slower response to a "crisis" than Powells slow boat to Israel tour. Look, you don't like this administration so therefore this is a convenient whipping boy issue. I am asking why Israel will not act like every other sovereign nation in the world and do what it takes to survive. I am sick of blaming the United States for "negotiating" with a person that due to Sharon's lack of will, is still around. If Sharon was content with keeping Arafat in his room then why waste any more time on this pain in the ass situation. This country has more important things to do.
Well actually I think we have been in need of a Man Of Word POTUS for 12 years. Yes on Foreign Policy Ronnie was the last one who meant what he said and the world knew it. Bush is still thanks largely to his dad's wrong is going to have a rough road ahead to get that word and standing restored. Dealing with a terrorist via the state department is not helping matters. We are too caught up in entanglements with other nations dictating what we will and will not do in our own conflicts. Saudi Arabia is top on that list.
My point was the United States does not have to negotiate with this mad man. We have caved to Arabic and U.N. pressure once again. Arafat is not a leader he is a terrorist. He BTW is a sponsor of terrorism against our nation as well who is to stop us from taking him out? Will it make Israel mad? No I doubt that. What about Saudi Arabia though? You bet it would. That is why we go running each time OLD UGLY starts his stuff with Israel and talk to him.
What part of this is so hard for those in Washington to understand? Good grief we have let a Mad Man of Bagdad keep us at bay since the Gulf War. Don't you think it's time to end that? It think it was a huge mistake to leave him in power. Powell thought it was a mistake to go there at all. Israel is dealing with several factions of the PLO. Arafat is one of many.
The fact is, that we have to deal with him because Isreal will not "deal" with him. Ronald Reagan had to deal with him also. So get off the Reagan "myth".
After the Beirut debacle, the U.S. tried to lower its public profile in the Middle East, even going so far as to support opening a dialogue with PLO leader Yasir Arafat. In return, the Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism.
Elsewhere in the Middle East the U.S. confronted Libya. This radical Islamic state ruled by strongman Muammar Qaddafi had used its oil revenues to bankroll terrorists in Europe and the Middle East. On April 15, 1986, having concluded that Libya had supported and financed the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin frequented by GIs, Reagan ordered the bombing of five targets in Libya, including the presidential palace. Although Qaddafi survived the raid, his daughter was killed in the bombing along with thirty-seven other civilians. For several years thereafter Qaddafi desisted from terrorist acts against the United States.
No we don't. Tell me please tell me who says we must jump in and deal with Arafat on his behalf each time he acts up? No it was not a Reagan a myth. Reagan aimed for Momar. The world knew not to push the man. Bush Sr did not aim for Saddam. He had no intention of taking him out what so ever. Nor did Clinton. Does Junior?
You are grasping at straws.
No as far as seriously dealing with terrorist {taking them out} our own leaders for years have been grasping at straws thats the problem. You BTW have not answered why we jump in to rescue Arafat each time. Who says we must? Are we not supposed to be a soverign nation and self ruled? We seem to take a lot of ques from the UN and others seems to me.
WE don't! The Israelis themselves do. There has been NO resolution from ANY Israeli government branding Arafat a terrorist much less a danger to their national survival. That cowardice is why this nation is the ONLY nation left that supports Israel. The government of Israel is just a reflection of the Jewish voters in this country. The voters here have voted 95% against every Republican president we have ever had. 95% of the Jewish voters here back every liberal government program in existence and 95% of the Jewish voters here want absolute gun control. They have learned absolutely nothing from their own history and are still waiting for others to rescue them from their own folly. I don't respect that attitude at all.
Well Duh at least they did fight back when attacked. BTW just what is the source of those numbers? The Grand Dragon Gazzette? Exagurating a bit aren't we? I bet 95 % of some other races vote Dem too huh? You are way off base.
We as a nation prospered from the Jews if you would care to do the research. It was Jews who funded Washingtons troops and turned the tide of the war. But that's a whole other matter. Oh and as for backing gun laws when did Bush Jr. become Jewish? Personally I take literal the Second Ammendment as Noah Webster was not a word twister. It was written to mean ejust what it says. You have brought up some old southern bigotry that has been in the south for years. The three most hated in the south were blacks, jews, and Catholics. My wife was raised in the deep south and remembers it well. She was percituted in school because the teachers thought she was Catholic. The Jews were treated no better.
Though I am from the south myself I do not support this way of thinking that most got over years ago. But I will tell you this when we turn against Israel we have sealed the fate of our nation. Saying all Jews are Dems is like saying all northerners are Dems or all Southerners are Southern Democrats. I see no reason to reply to your post any furhter. I put you in the catagory with another person who blamed the Jews on our problems when he couldn't blame the Navy. His threads were way out there just as this one is.
Exactly what are you implying? Where did I blame Jews for any of our problems other than point out their voting patterns. I used that as an example of how they are afraid of self-responsibility and self-defense. We gave Israel the gun, hell we even cocked it for them and they were content to keep Arafat in a dark room. You have not ONCE addressed to questions I asked of Mr. Sharon on this thread. The closest you have come in rebuttal is a not so subtle hint that I may be a closet anti-Semite.
Final answer to you. Who asked Israel to ignore the shots taken at her in the Gulf War? Israel in fact stood down yes they stood down from rightfull self defense when asked to do so by who? George H.W. Bush Sr. that's who! Israel would have taken care of Saddam if not told we were going to do so. We didn't do it though. Is that Israels fault we didn't take out Saddam as well?
What Middle East nation in 1968 I think it was took on it's enemies and sent them packing? The U.N. and the Arabic nations and yes even some Americans are still complaining about it. But a Texas POTUS who likely during that time was working against Israel sent our ship into the very area in question. You won't get a straight answer on that incident from anyone. But LBJ had a nasty habit of unnecessarilly endangering ships especially unarmed ones. Israel in many cases has restrained at the request of our leadership. If Bush said don't you do it and Israel killed Arafat would you be posting threads on Israel enemy of Bush? You are writting your letter to the wrong persons. Our Congress and POTUS needs the letters.
Israel did not and was NOT asked to "stand-down". They were not asked to join in the Iraqi fighting but that is a long shot from being told to take scuds in the eye. You are so blinded by your hatred of all things Bush you jump around like a canary on a hot stove. Look around on this thread. There are a dozen threads with people like you holding Bush's feet to the fire over your pet issue, one thread that dares asked what Sharon's responsibility to his own damned country is and no one even attempts to answer. Why? Because to do so would partially shift the blame back to those that vowed "never again". The fact seems to be "never again" IF the United States does it for us.
It's not realistic to bash Sharon considering the real threat posed by the UN if the US can't or wont veto sanctions against Israel or a trial for "war crimes". And it isn't realistic to deny that Israel was asked to stand down during the gulf war.
Draw your conclusions from the facts, not from defensiveness. You are too smart to let those who get off on bashing Bush for everything determine your position.
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.