Posted on 05/26/2005 6:13:16 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
Bush Praises Abbas, Says Israel Needs Palestinian Consent to Retain Formerly Arab Territory
Published: May 26, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush embraced Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday as a courageous democratic reformer and bolstered his standing at home with $50 million in assistance to improve the quality of life in Gaza.
Abbas, the first top Palestinian leader to visit the White House during Bush's presidency, said Palestinians were "in dire need to have freedom" from Israeli control and that the need for U.S. help was urgent. He spoke just weeks before scheduled parliamentary elections in which his supporters are vying against the militant group Hamas.
"Time is becoming our greatest enemy," Abbas said toward the end of a three-day visit during which he projected himself as the peaceful successor to Yasser Arafat and depicted the Palestinians as long suffering at the hands of Israel. Arafat, who died last November, was never invited to the White House by Bush.
Laying claim to all the land the Arabs lost to Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, including east Jerusalem, Abbas said, "It is time for our people, after many decades of suffering and dispossessions, to enjoy living in freedom on their own land."
The boundaries of a future Palestinian state should be those that existed before the 1967 war, he said, meaning before Israel captured east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
At a joint news conference in the sunlit Rose Garden, Bush lent a measure of support to the Palestinians' territorial demands. He said Israel needed Palestinian consent to retain land the Arabs lost 38 years ago.
Any changes Israel made in expanding its boundaries since the end of the 1948 war for independence "must be mutually agreed to," Bush said. And he said Israel must remove illegal makeshift outposts from the West Bank and stop expanding Jewish settlements.
Notably, the president did not repeat the support he voiced last year during a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for Israel retaining large settlements on the West Bank near Jerusalem.
Later, a senior administration official who refused to be identified said Bush stood by past statements supporting Israel's claims to the settlements. And while Abbas called for prompt negotiations with Israel on an overall peace accord, the official said the administration believes the parties were not ready and could risk a breakdown if they moved too quickly.
Despite the display of comity, Bush and Abbas differed on the barrier Israel is constructing to screen out terrorists.
Abbas said, "There is no justification for the wall and it is illegitimate."
Bush said the barrier was part of an Israeli security effort and it "must be a security rather than a political barrier."
Israeli officials attribute a sharp decline in terror attacks to the barrier.
Overall, the atmosphere at the White House was warm and in sharp contrast to the Bush administration's appraisal of Arafat as corrupt and a supporter of attacks on Israel.
Asked whether Abbas had moved aggressively to dismantle terror groups in Palestinian-held areas, Bush said he knew he leader was committed to democracy and was elected on a peace platform.
"You cannot have a democracy based upon rule of law if you have armed bands of people who will use their weapons to try to achieve a political outcome," Bush said.
Still, he did not directly call on Abbas to dismantle Palestinian terror groups, though he reaffirmed that Hamas fit that description as far as he was concerned.
Bush said he would send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East to talk to Israeli and Palestinian leaders before the planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza this summer. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said she probably would go in mid-June.
In a show of support, Bush said he would provide $50 million to the Palestinian Authority, which Abbas heads. The money is to be used for new housing in Gaza, which Sharon plans to evacuate this summer.
To get around Arafat, all but $20 million in U.S. aid for the Palestinians over the past decade has been channeled to third parties, not the Palestinian Authority.
"These funds will be used to improve the quality of life of the Palestinians living in Gaza," the president said.
Boucher said the $50 million would come out of $200 million in U.S. aid already approved by Congress for the current year.
Rep. Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., a senior member of the House Appropriations committee, said Abbas was engaged in a struggle with Hamas for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people and needed "to bring real results to his people."
Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator, said in Ramallah the $50 million was a "modest beginning" and she was "sure the United States is capable of giving greater support not only to Gaza but also for the West Bank."
---
On the Net:
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
State Department's Middle East Peace site: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rt/c2829.htm
AP-ES-05-26-05 1949EDT
It was spoken strictly for the consumption of the Palestinians, IMO.
It's called diplomacy and none of us have any idea what he really thinks or what exactly is going on behind the scenes.
Things are no always as they appear.
Ahh, I thought it was the State Departments realm to lie to foriegn countries to make them feel better. Oh well, it is good you can tell when the President is lying versus when he really means what he says. Please post a copy your decoder book online for the rest of us.
Thanks Sara!
If you think Israelis will have more security based on a Judenrein Gaza open to Hamas and Al Queada you are severely kidding yourself. The other factis that most Arabs in Israel, while not openly fighting Israel, pretty freely wish that Israel would fade away or be destroyed and that they would become the rulers of the land. To bring another 100 thousand in is crazy.
While that line of thinking is popular on FR, imo it's falacious.
Attacks will be by terrorist groups operating from the West Bank and Gaza, not the PA police (same people, two jobs).
Israel was attacked by terrorists based in Egypt for years. When Israel responded in 1958, the world, including the US, screamed.
Same thing in Lebanon, terrorists attack, when Israel entered Lebanon, the world screamed. The PA won't be any different.
Thank you for your strong replies. Apparently, LUV W has never met republican kool aid he/she didn't drink.
You said it. There was NO Palestinian State. There is NO such thing as a Palestinian. They are displaced Arabs pure and simple. Palestinian is simply a derivative word from Philistine.
For America's own safety, she NEEDS to support Isreal.!! These statements really ARE absurd as an above poster stated.
"Spoken"? Since when does one "speak" money?
Money is more than just talk. If this was Clinton, you'd be all over him for it.
There is a difference: Egypt and Lebanon were not viewed by the rest of the world as people striving for their independence from their "occupier" - Israel. The Palestinian's terrorism has been "justified" by the world as a fight for independence. Once there is a Palestinian state, that excuse no longer holds.
Those in the world who are anti -Israel will remain so, no matter what happens. But we're chiefly talking about America, and Bush, who have gone out on a limb to implement the roadmap. When the new state of Palestine continues to attack, the roadmap will have been proven a fraud, and Bush, I believe, will turn Israel loose to do whatever they feel they have to do to eradicate terrorism in their midst.
I also believe that's what Sharon has in mind, as well.
Just my opinion, FWIW.
What about the man who does trust man to keep his word, but doesn't turn his heart from Hashem?
Perhaps naively, I still have a certain feeling that Bush
dislikes the Palestinians, and feels the best way to "prove" their insincerity and lies about Israel, is to really test them by giving them their state, and then see what happens. If they then continue to attack Israel, IMO
Bush will turn Israel loose, and allow them to do whatever
they feel is needed to annihilate the Palestinian enemy.
I think Sharon has that in mind too in his strategy, and I feel sure that Sharon and Bush are pretty much in synch in
them both anticipating that scenario.
Besides, in a Democracy like America, you're generally voting for the person who you think will do the least harm, not the most good. And Hashem is not on the ballot.
During the campaign, Kerry proposed doing something similar with Iran - letting them have nuclear technology in order to "test" them - and he was roundly and justly lampooned for it around here. It was foolish for him to suggest such a thing, and foolish for Bush to do it, too.
What does that have to do with anything I posted? We're not
talking about the Palestinians being allowed to acquire or use nuclear weapons or even technology. We're discussing
Bush and Sharon testing the Palestinians by giving them their state, and depriving them of any further excuses that their terrorism was being committed because they weren't being given their own state, and were suffering at the hands of their "Israeli occupiers".
Once they are given that state, there are no more excuses.
And Israel will be given an unfettered free hand in responding to the inevitable attacks which are sure to be launched from the new Palestinian state. Then, Israel can react to these attacks by annihilating the Palestinians once and for all. And it will be clear to all but the most
vile anti Zionists and anti-Semites that the Palestinians
are a terrorist-led people who will have deserved to be wiped out by Israel.
It's about considerably more than giving them a state. Bush wants to give them money. That's money that can be used to train more terrorists and buy more weapons. Like I said, completely foolish.
Once they are given that state, there are no more excuses.
They'll never run out of excuses, and never run out of people who believe those excuses. They can always claim that their new state is nothing but a South Africa-style "bantustan", devoid of resources which the Israelis allegedly hogged to themselves. All you're saying, once you cut through the window-dressing, is that we should reward them for their terrorism. And that's exactly how you'd be characterizing it if a Democrat proposed the same thing.
There was no State of Israel before 1948.
So what ?
Jesus aint going to descend from any cloud any time soon, or any time ever.
Thank G-d, neither you nor Mr. Bush were in Texas at the time of the Alamo and the Republic. Otherwise most or all of it and the rest of the south-west would still be Mexico.
As the saying goes...
"Dolts of a Feather Read Together."
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.