Either your with US or aginst US.
Posted on 06/07/2003 11:08:40 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
U.S. President George W. Bush's resolve to move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward surprised many Israelis, who believed that the current administration in Washington fears stepping into the Middle East quagmire and will make do with diplomatic lip service only.
But Bush has undergone a change, as discovered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at their meeting in Aqaba last Wednesday. Bush had spoken of his desire for an Israeli-Palestinian accord in the past too, but not with much enthusiasm. This time, Sharon discerned a messianic passion he hadn't seen before.
The practical expressions of U.S. involvement have been the multitude of trips to the region made by high-ranking U.S. officials since the war in Iraq, the Israeli government's forced acceptance of the road map, the meticulous staging of the Aqaba summit, and the decision to place the handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of the agendas of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The American moves raise questions: Did the White House surprise Israel? What did Sharon know about the goings-on in Washington? What did the assessments in Jerusalem say?
An analysis of the American statements and talks with sources in the know with regard to Israel-U.S. relations reveal that Bush and his aides made their intentions very clear to Israel, but that Jerusalem mistakenly assessed the power of the presidential resolve and its timing.
According to one senior political source, "There were no surprises between ourselves and the Americans. We haven't been caught unawares by any move, and we were always given the opportunity to express our position. It was clear that after Iraq, they were going to devote their attention to this; but the timing was surprising because no one expected the war in Iraq to be so brief."
The source said no one in Israel, Washington or the Palestinian Authority had attributed much significance to the road map. On two occasions, however, the U.S. administration decided to move the plan forward - once due to intervention on the part of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who ran into political trouble on the eve of the war in Iraq; and again because of a move made by the Palestinians, who believed that Sharon would be unable to get the road map through the cabinet and tried to push him into a corner.
Sharon's biggest concern was that after the war in Iraq, Israel would be asked to pay in concessions and that the pressure on the Palestinians would diminish. The high-ranking political source said that the success of the Aqaba summit lies in the fact that the major portion of the discussions were devoted to the immediate need for the Palestinians to combat terror and contribute to security, while there was little talk of the political price Israel will have to pay thereafter.
There have been three turning points in the involvement of the U.S. administration - the appointment in March of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister; the U.S. victory in Iraq in April; and Bush's decision from last month to force the road map on Israel and convene a summit in the region.
Bush made his intentions clear on several occasions: On the eve of the war in Iraq, the director-general of the Prime Minister's Office, Dov Weisglass, and National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy visited Washington. They were told that Bush was about to deliver a statement in which he would announce his personal commitment to implementation of the road map. In the background was pressure from Blair for Bush to step up his involvement, and the appointment of Abbas as prime minister.
According to U.S. sources, Bush met with Weisglass and Halevy for 30 minutes on March 13. During the meeting, the president explained the backdrop to his statements, speaking of the need to move forward and the appointment of Abbas. He also denounced PA Chairman Yasser Arafat and voiced his determination and moral justification for going to war in Iraq.
The next day, Bush announced that the road map would be submitted to the sides with the swearing-in of Abbas. The U.S. administration also promised to listen to Israel's remarks on the plan.
At the height of the war, toward the end of March, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom traveled to Washington, where Bush made it clear to him that it was important for Israel to help Abbas succeed, and also spoke of his vision to bring freedom and liberty to the Palestinians. Shalom returned to Israel and said to Sharon: "The man is determined. He has much appreciation for the relations between you, but he is determined to lead the Israelis and Palestinians to an accord."
In early May, Bush met with a delegation of U.S. Jewish leaders, one of whom said afterward that Bush had made the following statement about Sharon: "I saved his ass in Iraq. He owes me, and I intend to collect the debt."
The administration's central message was that the victory in Iraq and Abbas's appointment as prime minister create a not-to-be-missed opportunity to move the political process forward. Sharon responded with similar messages in his holiday interviews in April.
Since then, there have been numerous meetings, contacts and talks, culminating in the Aqaba summit.
Political sources said yesterday that it was still early to predict how the U.S. involvement would develop in the wake of the Aqaba meet. The prevailing view in Jerusalem is that more than anything, Bush wants to be re-elected in 2004, and is not after the Nobel Peace Prize.
His personal involvement, the sources say, stems from the criticism - domestic and international - he came under for stepping back from the conflict. An achievement in the Israeli-Palestinian arena will reduce the pressure on the White House; but if Bush runs into difficulties, he will immediately suspend his involvement, they say.
Charming Mr. President. You lost my vote a long time ago anways.
Too bad, AraFat ... You could have been a modern day Pharaoh .. Instead, you have been flung onto the dung pile of failed leaders.
By Nathan Guttman
The official announcement yesterday from the White House about U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to the Middle East symbolizes the fall of the last fortress of the "old Bush," the Bush of the 2000 election campaign who derided "nation building" and presidential efforts to resolve foreign conflicts.
The old Bush would never have gone on a mission to mediate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a mission that even the most diehard optimists in the American capital believe has slim chances of success. The old Bush regarded the energy and time his predecessor Bill Clinton invested in the issue as a tactical and strategic mistake that eroded his stature and turned out to be hopeless. Only a year ago, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer derided Clinton's peacemaking efforts as an attempt to "shoot the moon," leaving the administration with zero results.
But as the third year of his presidency nears completion, Bush has found himself forced to gradually adopt more elements of Clinton's policy, that very policy of active American involvement in foreign conflicts. After attacking Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign for his intention to involve the United States in nation building efforts on distant continents, Bush is now involved over his head in nation building in Iraq and considering a regime change in Iran.
Now a new stage has arrived with Bush marching straight into the quagmire of the Middle East, just like Clinton did. He is even going back to the scene of a key way-station on Clinton's path - Sharm el Sheikh - where the former American president convened pro-American Arab leaders with Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat after a wave of Hamas bombings in 1996 in a failed last-ditch effort to help the Labor Party leader beat a surging Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israeli elections later that year.
The president's advisers explain that Bush has not changed his approach, but he has understood that the circumstances are now ripe for an opportunity that should not be missed. They say that so far, the president has refrained from becoming personally involved, because he didn't think there was much point as long as Arafat was representing the Palestinians. Now, with a new Palestinian government, Bush believes that even if the chances are slim, his active involvement could move something. Regional circumstances have changed with the Iraq war, and Bush believes that by getting involved, he can create a momentum that will get the Israelis and Palestinians back on the dialogue track, even if they don't touch on problematic issues like refugees, Jerusalem and the permanent borders.
The president emphasizes in every conversation he has with Israeli representatives and others that he is getting involved, and that he plans to make sure his road map does not find itself in the same pile with all the plans from Mitchell to Zinni, which were never implemented. His advisers and senior administration officials say all the time now that the president is determined to do something about the matter.
The White House delayed announcing the trip and the summits. The president and his officials know very well that the minute the announcement was made, the seeds were planted for someone to try to sabotage the move, via a terror attack and reactions to the attack. All the president's envoys have been through that experience when they arrived in the country. Fleischer yesterday warned that the summit would take place only if "all the parties meet their commitments," leaving a small opening for a change in plans in case violence flares up.
From the minute Bush begins to mediate personally in the Middle East, there will be no return. He is aware that the fate of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will become part of his political fate as soon as the images of the three-way handshake in Aqaba are released to the world. Success will be his, but he won't be able to blame failure on his secretary of state.
But Bush has undergone a change, as discovered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at their meeting in Aqaba last Wednesday. Bush had spoken of his desire for an Israeli-Palestinian accord in the past too, but not with much enthusiasm. This time, Sharon discerned a messianic passion he hadn't seen before.
Why? Do you vote in Israel now?
Let's keep firmly in mind that whatever America does to promote peace in the Middle East is an act of charity. The federal government of these United States is not obligated to anyone but American citizens. So, when the Administration heads into a swamp like the Israeli / Palestinian mess, it's risking a great deal politically for the sake of being a nice guy to a bunch of non-Americans.
A completely uncharitable approach to Middle Eastern peace would be to reduce the entire region to radioactive slag. No combatants; no combat. Therefore, peace. Simple. But America doesn't do that, and wouldn't allow anyone else to do it -- including Israel, which has had the means (and plenty of motive) for more than twenty years.
I disagree with the Bush Administration's plans. I don't think the culture of Jew-hatred the Palestinians and their Muslim enablers have nurtured can be undone by such modest means. I think it would take the establishment of an American military protectorate over the Palestinian territories, followed by the re-education of two or three generations of young Palestinians, while the unredeemable adults aged and died away. We won't have to do a tenth as much in Iraq! But give the president this much: we can trust him to say what he'll do and do what he's said. Moreover, if he turns out to be wrong, I think he'll admit it. Not many of his predecessors have deserved that assumption.
Dubya is a President with whom one can disagree on policy, yet still admire as a statesman and a man.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
I hope you are being sarcastic. How is causing Israel to negotiate with terrorists follow that motto? The US and us are against terrorism. The PLO-PA and its brother terrorist groups are not, yet we choose to negotiate with the PLO-PA and treat it as some "friend of freedom." It is not, and all it wants to do is destroy Israel not create a "Palestine" in the "occupied" territories, why? The PLO, which heads the PA, was created in 1964, 3 years before the "occupation" began.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
--Albert Einstein
People frequently dismiss what Bush says, much to their later chagrin.
And as for "negotiating" with terrorists, notice that Bush permitted no negotiations from the Palestinians or Israelis over his Road Map. Moreover, Bush first convinced the Palestinians to install Abbas, whom GWB has met with.
Arafat has been left out in the cold, snubbed even by European leaders like Berlusconi.
Abbas can either bring the Palestinians in to a world of peace, or be ousted along with all other Palestinians from Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and the rest of this mortal world.
I didn't read that far in the article because up to a certain point all I saw was "According to one senior political source..." and "According to U.S. sources..." and I don't believe in "playing telephone" as an adult although I did enjoy it as a child.
When I finally did read the quote you posted with your comment that Dubya had lost your vote long ago, I see where that "fact" is another third-hand, non-specific quote: "Bush met with a delegation of U.S. Jewish leaders, one of whom said afterward.... Now I don't know Mr./Ms. One of Whom, but I'd rather hear it straight from him or her. There is too much editorializing done in supposed journalism and this is one sneaky little method to advance an agenda.
Great catch, thanks!
Look, cretin, the article is not a source unto itself. Who made the quote in the article? To whom is it attributed? No one in particular, right?
"Ever seeing, but never perceiving" -- Jesus Christ
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.