Posted on 05/26/2005 6:13:16 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
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.