Skip to comments.Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread
Posted on 06/24/2002 12:48:28 PM PDT by RCW2001
click here to read article
Now....this logic reminds me of the gun grabbers stating that the mention of the militia in the First Amendment clearly modifies the entire document, despite the fact that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" clearly stands on its own.
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.In the first place, the first paragraph feels the need to specify that "forcible" transfers are forbidden, meaning that not all transfers are forcible. The final paragraph, which not only stands on its own but refers to the precise opposite activity as the first, merely says "transfers".
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
There was a meeting of the Geneva Convention signatories in 1999. Only Israel and the US did not attend. The vote on the interpretation of Article 49 was unanimous: it applies to the settlements. The Mitchell Report also stated that opinion, and Bush re-endorsed it yesterday. So in effect, all the nations of the Convention interpret Article 49 in that manner, except Israel.
Actually, the President made it very clear that terrorism has to stop, and I doubt that anyone on these boards disagrees with him there. But he specifically invoked Mitchell on your anschluss lobby. A subtle message, but a clear one.From "Dutch" (the authorized Reagan biography), first hardcover edition, page 465:
Only an unsubtle pig uses nazi jargon twice on one thread to describe Jews. Sieg Heil, moron.
(William) Clark further believes that Reagan suffered, in his quiet way, from moral guilt. "I've always felt that he overreacted to the Holocaust - its horrors left such a mark on him that he let his emotions flow into almost any issue involving Israel. As if he were compensating." This did not mean that the President forgave Begin and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Defense Minister, for encouraging the carnage there (in Lebanon). Revealingly, at the height of Israel's bombardment of Beirut, he invoked race memory in a furious telephone call to Begin:Sometimes when someone is being completely intrasingent, confronting them with what they hate most works. Especially if the shoe fits.I told him that it had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately and said the symbol of his [sic] was becoming a picture of a 7 month old baby with its arms blown off.Robert McFarlane, listening, was astonished at the vehemence and rapidity of his speech. So, apparently, was Begin, who called back within minutes to say the attack was being stopped.
I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's bio on Reagan, it is ethically written, respectful, and accurate.
Did you have a cite a completely contemptable biography of the great Ronald Reagan? I detest Edmund Morris' way of writing this biography. I stopped reading Dutch as soon as I figured out that Morris was making up completely imaginary characters in order to describe Reagan to the audience. I consider that to be an unethical tactic and a sorry way to write a biography about a truly great man.I knew that Morris had done it before I read the book. Once I finally read it I felt it was a better book than I expected it to be, but less than it could have been.
Regardless, it was the official authorized biography, and Morris had better access to records and recollections than any other biographer. Since neither Clark nor McFarlane was a made up character, and since it's a matter of historical fact that the Reagan Administration pushed for Sharon's removal in the wake of the Beriut invasion, there's no reason to think the incident is inaccurately depicted.
I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's bio on Reagan, it is ethically written, respectful, and accurate.I also prefer D'Souza's book. At times it borders on hagiography (side note: will Hellary's memoirs be considered "autohagiography"?), but considering the subject this is entirely understandable. >:)
Unfortunately, nowhere in D'Souza's book does he discuss our relations with Israel.
Nonetheless, I am still apalled by the way Morris wrote his authorized biography of Reagan. I do not believe that Reagan would have been happy with this book, had he the ability to read it. That's the main reason why I won't even bother to read Morris' Theadore Rex biography.
Eternity is just too damned long to think about.
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.