Bush is committed to Palestine
President Bush Meets with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority Oval Office
White House News
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thanks for coming. Mr. President, I appreciate a chance to talk about peace. I assured the President that a Palestinian state is a high priority for me and my administration — a viable state, a state that doesn’t look like Swiss cheese, a state that provides hope. It’s in — I believe it’s in Israel’s interest and the Palestinian people’s interest to have leaders willing to work toward the achievement of that state.
The people that can deliver that state, that vision, to the Palestinian people were sitting right here in the Oval Office, led by the President. The President is a man of peace. He’s a man of vision. He rejects the idea of using violence to achieve objectives, which distinguishes him from other people in the region. I’m confident we can achieve the definition of a state. I’m also confident it’s going to require hard work.
To that end, I’m going back to the Middle East. I’m looking forward to meeting you, sir, and thank you for making time. I consider you a friend. I also consider you a courageous person. And I’m also will — believe strongly that when history looks back at this moment and a state is defined, that the Palestinian people will thank you for your leadership.
There are a lot of issues we discussed, issues of importance: the security of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, the economic advancement of the Palestinian people. The thing that I’m focused on, and you are, is how to define a state that is acceptable to both sides. I’m confident it can get done. I want to thank you for coming. I appreciate your time.
PRESIDENT ABBAS: Thank you. (As translated.) Mr. President, thank you very much for receiving us here at the White House these days. And I also would like to thank you very much for the initiative that was launched during the Annapolis Conference.
We believe that you actually are truly seeking a true, genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East. And I am certain that you would like to see an agreement and settlement before the end of your term. And at the same time we are doing everything we can in order to seriously negotiate and reach a peace that will be satisfactory to both the Palestinian side and the Israeli
side, a peace that would be promoted around the world.
There are many parties also that are working very hard to support our efforts and to help us reach that peace. When I talk about your initiative, Mr. President, I also have to praise the Arab peace initiative, an initiative that simply states that peace will be achieved after the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab and Palestinian Territories. As a result of that, I believe strongly that more than 57 Arab and Islamic countries will normalize their relations with Israel.
I believe very strongly that time is of the essence; we are working very hard and hope not to waste any time and continue these efforts to achieve peace.
Mr. President, your efforts, the efforts of your administration, the various visits — your previous one and your upcoming visit to Sharm el-Sheikh and to the region, all of this is a strong indication that you are very keen to continue to work very hard and to achieve your vision.
I cannot say that the road to peace is paved with flowers. It is paved with obstacles. But together we will work very hard in order to eliminate those obstacles and achieve peace.
Ted Belman
All of this makes me very, very angry indeed.
You personally have wasted a lot of time in the campaign against Obama while the main danger to the Jews is in the Bush Office because he is the one who is ruler of the US.
Now are you going to really fight and mobilize your forces, whatever they are against this.
Why should you be having interviews with people like Feith who are at the very centre of this Bush attack ON THE JEWS. FEITH WITH BUSH ARE THE ENEMY!!!
What are the plans of Israpundit to mount a campaign in the working class and ordinary people of America and Canada?
Comment by Felix Quigley — April 25, 2008 @ 6:19 am
There is nothing new in this meeting between Bush and Abbas. Bush’s efforts to bolster Abbas’ legitimacy amongst his own people has thus far come to nought and this meeting will do nothing more in that regard.
Once could say that this was show and the real work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians goes on in secret behind the scenes.
From all the evidence thus far that secret work behind the scenes is not moving the parties any closer to peace, but it does push the parties to continue the charade of peace talks.
Perhaps the hope is that if the Palestinians and Israelis continue the charade of peace talks in ernest, at some point the charade might gain some traction in reality.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 7:11 am
Bill, Mr. Bush is an unregenerate tergiversator. That is a kind way of saying he lies.
Bush: “The President (Mahmoud Abbas) is a man of peace. He’s a man of vision. He rejects the idea of using violence to achieve objectives, which distinguishes him from other people in the region.”
This is an absolute bald-faced lie. This U.S. president is shameful! He is a disgrace. On the one hand, Bush claims we are at war with the jihadists. On the other hand he meets and holds hands with cold-blooded jihadist killers like Abbas. It’s criminal. One day I pray the man will be tried and punished for his crimes against the Jews.
Comment by Steve Klein — April 25, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Bill writes
“Might”. How?
By “Palestinians” I take it you mean Arabs i take it?
“White House Slams Syria, Links it With North Korea
by Hillel Fendel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125970
That is a very strange omission. It suggests to me that the American ruling class, (not the American people though) do not like Jews when they act for themselves.
It could be a slip but I think not!
Comment by Felix Quigley — April 25, 2008 @ 7:49 am
Felix Quigley, George W. Bush and the American ruling class are ashamed of Israel. That they do not want to offend the Europeans and the Arabs demonstates they are ashamed to stand by Israel’s defensive actions too closely or be identified in any way with standing too closely with Israel’s cause, which is a defensive one.
“Let’s not move our ambssador to Israel’s capital because it might irritate the Arabs and the Europeans”
Mr. Bush is ashamed to stand with me. I am ashamed to stand with Bush.
Comment by Steve Klein — April 25, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Narvey can you explain this sentence? and why in hell would we want it to gain traction? Are you really a closet peacenik? a real believer? if only we can find some agreeable formula and then we can all sing together now? and roast marshmallows together? You do surprise me sometimes
Felix: the damage is done and Bush can’t hurt us unless we let him. that means a lame duck president who has a popularity rating of 28% vs 70% Israel with the American electorate, in the middle of election campaign has very little if any power over anybody especially Israel unless our leaders want it, If they do it becomes our internal problem not Bushes. This whole pali stat business is in my opinion a red herring and it won’t happen under Bush. Everybody here in the middle east is waiting to see who the next president will be and that is where all of the poker hands are playing to.
Steve as usual we are on the same page.
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2008 @ 7:59 am
Steve,
I don’t know why you are getting so worked up over Bush’s inept efforts to create the illusion that Abbas is a good guy and a man of peace. Olmert has done the same thing.
Further former Presidents Carter and Clinton tried mightily to foster the illusion that Arafat the terrorist had reformed and was a man of peace. Israeli leaders throughout lent support to trying to create that illusion.
In fact, if you look at past Israeli leaders in their efforts to talk peace, they all pretty much premised their efforts on creating the illusion that the Arabs/Palestinians would at some point come around to talking peace because Israeli leaders like most Western leaders believe, in accord with a Western bias, in the inherent goodness of people and the only differences between people is in how one goes about bringing that goodness out of them.
That false Western premise is one of the factors that America continues to stumble over in its war against Islamofacism, with the rare exception of speaking of Bin Laden, alQaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan as representing evil.
Islamofacists of all stripes and degrees certainly have no compunctions in defining all of the West as evil to them. They have a very clear understanding as to what for them is evil.
We Westerners hestiate to clearly define the Islamofacists and fundmantalist Muslims as amounting to a force of pure evil for the West that the West must reckon with.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 8:14 am
I was also surprised by the quote that Steve highlights.
Why does Bill want traction. Traction will only happen if Israel genuflects more. That’s the last thing I want.
I am really surprised that Bill has hopes for the peace process.
Comment by Ted Belman — April 25, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Ted, your interpretation of what I said is about as twisted as you can get. I just don’t get why you would twist my words as you have.
I was speaking of the efforts to create illusions in the false hope that somehow illusion will become a reality.
I do have hopes in a peace process, but just not the current process. I have made that clear often enough. Some things must change.
One of those changes I have spoken of is for America, the West, the Israelis and the Arabs/Palestinians to finally see and deal with the elephant of Jew hatred in every peace meeting room, which elephant tramples any chance for peace before the parties engaged in peace talks leave the room.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Bill, when I make to Israel and become an Israeli citizen, I will deal with the treasonous Israeli prime ministers. At the moment, I am an American citizen and a thirty seven year registered Republican, former Republican party activist — that is before I publicly took issue with Mr. Bush’s immoral, anti-Israel policies.
I believe our nation is suffering under Bush’s immoral policies, spiritually, culturally, morally, economically, etc. Why shouldn’t we expect better from a self-professed Christian? I expect Democrats to appease our enemies. I expect the Democrats to make vain attempts to make peace with savages. I do not expect this behavior from Republicans. I believe, as a citizen, I am obligated to condemn evil doers, especially those that hold powerful public positions like Bush. We have obligations Bill both as Jews and as citizens. Actually I believe Christians also have obligations, it is just that as Jews our obligations are even more clear by virtue of our tortuous history. Silence in the face of an evil man like Bush is not an option.
Many Christians and Christian leaders (even Jewish leaders) were silent in the face of Hitlerism and Nazi atrocities against the Jews — get yourself a copy of David Wyman’s “The Abandonment of the Jews.” I will not repeat this terrible mistake.
Comment by Steve Klein — April 25, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Bill
I read the quote again and see more clearly that the hope was not yours but you were attempting to explain Bush’s
My error.
But why attack me as you did. Why assume I intentionally twisted your remarks. Many is the time you read things too quickly and subsequently were corrected. It happens to all of us.
Comment by Ted Belman — April 25, 2008 @ 8:47 am
[...] http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=841#comment-9554 [...]
Pingback by IDF HAS STOPPED SYRIAN GENOCIDE AGAINST ISRAEL « 4international — April 25, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Steve, do you actually read what I say or do you just toss everything I say off as disagreeing with you because I refuse to agree with your characterizing Bush as an antisemite and evildoer?
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Ted. Right.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Yes Bill, I was responding directly to your statement:
“I don’t know why you are getting so worked up over Bush’s inept efforts to create the illusion that Abbas is a good guy and a man of peace. Olmert has done the same thing.
“Further former Presidents Carter and Clinton tried mightily to foster the illusion that Arafat the terrorist had reformed and was a man of peace. Israeli leaders throughout lent support to trying to create that illusion.
“In fact, if you look at past Israeli leaders in their efforts to talk peace, they all pretty much premised their efforts on creating the illusion that the Arabs/Palestinians would at some point come around to talking peace because Israeli leaders like most Western leaders believe, in accord with a Western bias, in the inherent goodness of people and the only differences between people is in how one goes about bringing that goodness out of them.”
Comment by Steve Klein — April 25, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Bill, I get worked up over Bush’s efforts to create the illusion that Abbas is a good guy and a man of peace. I believe this is wrong; even evil.
I do not consider this president’s efforts inept by any means. I agree with one of Limbaugh’s undeniable truths. “Words mean things.”
Comment by Steve Klein — April 25, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Ezekiel 16:9-41 says to the Jews of Jerusalem in God’s own Words: “I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you with FINE LINEN
[Rev. 19:8 says - “Fine linen, bright and clean was given her to wear. Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.”]
and, covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry… I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with GOLD and silver; your clothes were of FINE LINEN and costly fabric and embroidered cloth.
[Rev. 17:4 says-“The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with GOLD, PRECIOUS STONES, and pearls.]
Your food was FINE FLOUR and OLIVE OIL
[Rev.18:11-13 says – “The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more – cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and OLIVE OIL, OF FINE FLOUR...]
You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign Lord. But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become A PROSTITUTE. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his. You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, WHERE YOU CARRIED ON YOUR PROSTITUTION. Such things should not happen, nor should they ever occur. You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged IN PROSTITUTION with them.
And you took your embroidered clothes to put on them, and you offered my oil and incense before them. Also the food I provided for you - THE FINE FLOUR, OLIVE OIL, and honey I gave you to eat - you offered as fragrant incense before them. This is what happened, declares the Sovereign Lord….In all your detestable practices and your PROSTITUTION you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were NAKED AND BARE, kicking about in your blood…..You engaged IN PROSTITUTION with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors, and provoked me to anger with your increasing promiscuity…..You engaged IN PROSTITUTION with the Assyrians too…..Then you increased your promiscuity to include BABYLONIA, a land of merchants…..How weak-willed you are, declares the Sovereign Lord, when you do all these things, acting LIKE A BRAZEN PROSTITUTE….YOU ADULTEROUS WIFE!….Therefore, YOU PROSTITUTE…..Because you poured out your wealth and EXPOSED YOUR NAKEDNESS in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood, therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure….I will gather them against you from all around and STRIP YOU IN FRONT OF THEM, AND THEY WILL SEE ALL YOUR NAKEDNESS
[Rev. 17:16 says -- “The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.] I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and shed blood; I will bring upon you the blood vengeance of my wrath and jealous anger. Then I will hand you over to your lovers…..THEY WILL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES and take your fine jewelry and leave you NAKED AND BARE…..They will burn down your lovers and inflict punishment on you in the sight of many women. I will put a stop to YOUR PROSTITUTION.” Every word in Ezekiel 16 that has been highlighted and bolded from these verses has the same terms used to describe the prostitute in Revelation 17.
The two-state solution is part of the Revelation fulfillment of the prostitute sitting on many waters where Israel’s children had been scattered.
Comment by sunstartmf33 — April 25, 2008 @ 10:44 am
“See how the faithful city has become a harlot!” (Isaiah 1:21)
3. “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in PROSTITUTION from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah IS JERUSALEM. Oholah [SAMARIA] ENGAGED IN PROSTITUTION while she was still mine; and she lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians…She gave herself as a prostitute to all the elite of the Assyrians and defiled herself with all the idols of everyone she lusted after. She did not give up THE PROSTITUTION she began in Egypt….Therefore I handed her over to her lovers, the Assyrians, for whom she lusted. THEY STRIPPED HER NAKED, took away her sons and daughters and killed her with the sword. She became a byword among women, and punishment was inflicted on her. Her sister Oholibah [JERUSALEM] saw this, yet in her lust and PROSTITUTION she was more depraved than her sister….but she carried her PROSTITUTION still further……Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After they had defiled her, she turned away from them in disgust. When she carried on HER PROSTITUTION openly and EXPOSED HER NAKEDNESS, I turned away from her in disgust…..Verse 28…For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to hand you over to those you hate, to those you turned away from in disgust. They will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. THEY WILL LEAVE YOU NAKED AND BARE, and THE SHAME OF YOUR PROSTITUTION will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity have brought this upon you, because you lusted after the nations and defiled yourself with their idols. You have gone the way of your sister; so I will put her CUP into your hand…You will drink your sister’s CUP, A CUP LARGE AND DEEP; it will bring scorn and derision, for it holds so much. [Rev. 17:4 says – “She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.] You will be filled with DRUNKENNESS and sorrow, THE CUP OF RUIN AND DESOLATION, the cup of your sister Samaria…you must bear the consequences of your lewdness and prostitution…..” (Ezekiel 23). The words that are capitalized are also used in Revelation 17, 18, and 19. Lamentations 1:1 & 8 says—“How deserted lies the city, once so full of people! How like a widow is she, who once was great among the nations! She who was queen among the provinces has now become a slave. Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean. All who honored her despise her for they have seen her nakedness.”
4. “You have defiled the land with your PROSTITUTION.” (Jeremiah 3:2)
5. “You have the brazen LOOK OF A PROSTITUTE; you refuse to blush with shame. (Jeremiah 3:3)
6. “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has COMMITTED ADULTERY THERE.”
Comment by sunstartmf33 — April 25, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Steve, you have to work with what you have.
In this case what we have is Bush, Olmert (& past GOI leaders) and most other leaders of the free Western world all are participating in trying to create the illusion of Abbas being a peace maker, of the Palestinians as all innocent suffering people led by a few corrupt leaders and that the two state solution at the end of the Road Map will bring peace to the region.
Calling these leaders evil or anti-semites will simply not hit any responsive chord. Doing so, actually undermines the credibility of other good arguments for why the road they try to push the Israelis and Palestinians along is paved with delusional false assumptions.
This road leads not to peace but interminable frustration on all sides because no matter how many steps are taken along that road, the process leads nowhere but to more misery and failures.
In some respects Israel is being seriously compromised by continuing along that road, but Israel remains strong and vibrant while Palestinian society seems to move increasingly into the realm of instability, anarchy and chaos.
There needs to be some very fundamental changes in thinking and perception. To do so, the West must have the courage and stomach to cast off its blinkered willfull blindness and thus gain clear sightedness of realities that it seeks to deny.
The best thing that can be done by pro-Israel advocates is to continue to hammer away at the illusions and delusions with effective advocacy relying on cogent arguments, stong evidence and persistently rubbing the noses of our leaders in the reality of that hard incontrovertible evidence upon which we make our case.
That is a very tall order however because our leaders are frightened of what the truth holds for them.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 10:51 am
Bill,so you are for a peace process but some other peace process under whose conditions according to you, would be different( here you never explain what exactly those conditions should be?) If you are for something then say what exactly you mean, otherwise who can take you seriously.
It seems to me that if you are for any peace process that means that you must believe that peace? is attainable, desirable and preferable to existing status quo or we annexing all of the land and kicking the savages out of here? Here again you always hide behind a concept that is always a hypothetical but never grounded in reality. Sometimes trying to be reasonable results in unreasonable conclusions.Syria is in the News this week re: peace with Israel?
Syria realizes its weakness and clings to Iran as it clung to Egypt before. Egypt abandoned Syria and signed a peace treaty with Israel. Shiite Iran will all the more abandon Syria. Even a nuclear Iran won’t risk Israeli nuclear retaliation by protecting Syria.
In order to have a peace deal with Syria, Israel will have to abandon the Golan Heights. Demilitarized, they won’t be a huge strategic threat for Israel. Early warning stations will have to go, but then Israel has satellites and AWACS aircraft. Honestly, we want to keep the Golan Heights simply because we love them. The place is nice and enjoyable, compared to the moon-like Israeli landscape elsewhere – short of some places in Galilee, which is populated by Arabs so densely as to make the place scarcely useful for the Jews.
Judaism opposes symbols and pushes Jews to comprehend transcendent truths. The Israeli government lusts after symbols. A peace treaty is one such symbol. A peace treaty is no more a peace than a statue is a god. For the price of the lovely Golan Heights, Israel can have a peace treaty with Syria. Possibly, Syria would diminish its support for Hamas – though not for Hezbollah which furthers Syrian interests in Lebanon. But even Egypt under a very reasonable Mubarak spirals up an arms race with Israel and tacitly supports Palestinian terrorists by allowing unhindered cooperation with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Regardless of any peace treaty with Syria, Israel won’t be able to reduce her army; after the peace agreement with Egypt, the IDF has actually grown. Syria is irrelevant for Israel economically. The Syrians are the most ancient Jew-haters and won’t embrace their Israeli neighbors.
There can be no peace with Syria.
The current Middle East is different from the one sixty years ago. The Arabs bullied a new kid on the block, found him tough, and accepted him - without saying so much. A watershed comment was reported recently in Jerusalem Post: a senior Kuwaiti adviser said that Israel’s strike on Iranian nuclear reactor is preferable to the American one. On the surface, he meant that Israel is Kuwait’s enemy, America is a friend and Kuwait would be embarrassed if its friend attacks Iran. But the fellow said, “less embarrassing,” implying that Israeli strike doesn’t differ from the American qualitatively. His point was that Israel is “one of us” and so can exert a sort of brotherly admonition on Iran. Russians exhibit love-and-hate relationship with America which parallels the Arab hate-and-admiration attitude to Israel. So long as Israel acts strongly and avoids pleading for peace, Arabs would respect her and eventually enter into de facto peace.
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Yamit, I have over the last few years written about different peace process scenarios. In my writings I have however written more extensively on addressing what needs to happen in order for any new peace paradigm to be envisioned that establishes and sets a new peace process in motion towards a realistically feasible end goal, whatever that end goal might be.
I am not going to waste my time again writing extensively here only to be later questioned on what I have said before which appears to be routinely forgotten by you and those who question me in that regard.
Simply put, the current peace process is the evolution of the peace paradigm fashioned in 1947, culminating in the UN Partition Resolution which ignored intractable Arab Jew hatred and Arab rejection of any Jewish state under any circumstances. Those same factors are at play today.
The genocidal efforts of the Arabs to rid the region of Israel having failed, the Arabs/Palestinians developed a whole new strategy of destroying Israel in stages.
Written all over the Saudi Peace proposal, combined with the Fatah and Hamas Charters and the searing antisemitism of the Saudis, the Palestinians and much of the Muslim Middle East, the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state is not an end in itself, but rather the stage needed to be reached to then regroup for the final genocidal onslaught to destroy Israel.
I expect that if such last stage were reached and Israel destroyed, the Palestinians would soon find they had outlived their usefulness to the Arab world and they would soon become citizens of the Arab state or states that were able to militarily establish control over the region.
For so long as the factors I referred to remain, the Palestinians will continue to be their own worst enemy as they prove incapable of controlling their Jew hatred long enough to induce Israel to proceed towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. Similarly those same factors make it impossible for Israel to make peace with Syria.
Syrian fear of Israeli reprisals is what has kept the uneasy de facto truce between them from breaking out into armed hostilities.
I disagree with your statement that:
Yes there are many changes in the Middle East, but in my view of the Middle East from 1948 until today, I am reminded of the saying that the more things change, the more they remain the same.
As I said, the core reason for there not being peace in the region, whether one supports the Road Map’s two state solution, the small minority view of expanding Israel and successfully inducing with the consent of the Muslim Middle East, the voluntary transfer of Palestinians from J & S and Gaza or some other variant, is Muslim Middle Eastern intractable Jew hatred and the influences of Islam to regain the land of Israel because it once was Islamic domain, which influence shapes the thinking of even the so called secular Palestinians.
All out war of course has a way of changing the political, economic and geographical landscape.
If Israel were pushed into a new war and an all out one at that, with victory for both Israel and her enemies being defined as the utter defeat of the other, then the new paradigm for peace could well change to the age old principle, to the victor goes the spoils.
Israel’s best hope to not give anything more away and to withstand Western political pressure is to appear to be going with the flow of conventional delusional wisdom, but in fact never doing more then running fast while standing still. Israel can continue to count on the Palestinians who have proven beyond doubt that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
People will die and suffer on both sides as this danse macabre continues.
Until things change so that the West no longer fears to open their eyes to realities and rid themselves of their self delusions, the West will force this danse macabre to continue in order to avoid the alternative they fear most, which is an all out war erupting between Israel and her enemies in the Middle East.
That Western fear is not because many Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs would die, but because such all out war would almost certainly severely hurt their own interests and they dread the prospect of that happening.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Yamit to reduce my view down to its fundamentals, neither the current nor other specific peace proposal scenarios I or others have previously written of are feasible until the two insurmountable obstacles to peace on the Arab/Palestinian side, being intractable Jew hatred and Islamic inspired dreams that all the land of Israel must be returned to Islamic domain, become surmountable.
It is easy to say that the Arabs/Palestinians must rid themselves of their Jew hatred and dream for returning all the land of Israel to Islamic dominion in order for Israel to achieve any kind of secure peace that survive the test of time.
It seems near impossible however to come up with feasible suggestions as to how to bring that about when the West continues to ignore these two hurdles to peace, which for so long as they are ignored will remain insurmountable.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Billthe middle east has changed and up to a point Israel has been accepted as a reality to be dealt with. This does not mean we are liked , loved or accepted as equals but in a way we have been accepted as a fact. That said it does not mean that the Arab world does not want to see a reversal and we exist the scene but they are realists to a point and will bide their time if we allow it and here it is only up to us. You said all the correct things except how you can conclude that there can ever be peace or that it is the most desirous thing if the price of that peace is a beach front on the med coast? We like all nations do need some breathing room and we need at least all the so called territories in our hands plus a lot more. We need to make room for all you Americans and canadians when you are forced to leave your dream world and face a reality you have yet to consider. I think ahead. In the six day war we had less than three million Jews here now we have close to six with a positive birth rate so in 20 years even without you we will have 8 million. We need the space and not the Arabs. If your vision of peace is with and including the Arabs here is is delusional never happen. I know them well take my word for it It will never be.
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Bill another thought we do need another war inorder to set the Arabs back at least 2o years, We can’t compete in a war of attrition for long periods. We can not leve and thrive with our enemies owning or having a nuke capability, they are not the Russians. I would nuke them or at least change our strategic environment by making our nuke capability our main weapon against any enemy invading or attacking force. That would put all the Mil weapons sold to Egypt the Saudis and all else as useless scrap metal as they would never get to use them and they cannot defend against our nuke attacks. This change of policy might just change your concept of changed paradigm. Peace through strength not talk not concessions not retreat but the assertion of ultimate chutzpa power. To that end I would increase our nuke war heads to many thousands as well as adaqute numers and methods of delivery. That would be my response. If 1 airplane costs over a hundred million dollars go totally nike its a lot cheaper and more effective.
Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
Accordingly, President Roosevelt had met with the Saudi King, IBN SAUD, and assured him that the U.S. would protect the Saudi government from attack from within or outside the country. Ever since the meeting, US government officials have considered maintaining access to Saudi oil to be a matter of vital national interest.
In the post-war years, pressure on oil resources continued to increase, to such an extent that there was much speculation that the oil companies were restricting supply deliberately to provoke panic buying and drive prices up.
In fact, demand was being driven up by the consumer boom in 1950s America. Consumption within the US tripled in the 25 years after World War II, rising from 1.8 billion barrels per year in 1946 to 5.4 billion in 1971.
Perhaps because the US had started out with ample oil reserves of its own, cheap oil was seen as part of the “American way of life”. Cutting back would not only be uncomfortable, it would also entail giving up a part of the country’s culture. Once oil became a factor in foreign policy decisions, it was also a source of tension within the US government. While the Justice Department was working to uncover cartels within the oil industry, launching over 20 investigations and eventually exposing the secret Achnacarry Agreement, the State Department was promoting US oil interests abroad.
The State Department also had to reconcile its policy of protecting the new state of Israel, created as a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust, with its need to maintain friendly relations with the oil-producing Arab countries in the Gulf.
The State Department’s solution was, publicly at least, to abnegate responsibility towards the governments of the oil producers. Instead, the oil companies took on a quasi-diplomatic role. Through their contacts with the highest levels of government, and the huge economic power they wielded, they were able to influence policy. They were also responsible for the US dollars channeled into their host countries, which were used for government projects –often arms buying.
Within Saudi Arabia, this meant delegating authority to the ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY (ARAMCO), a consortium of four major US oil companies:
SOCAL
TEXACO
EXXON
MOBIL
The original two companies in Saudi Arabia, SOCAL and TEXACO, had allowed the other two “SISTERS” to join them when it became apparent that the Saudi oil reserves were so vast that alone they could not provide sufficient capital to exploit them.
EXXON and MOBIL were still locked into the Red Line Agreement in Iraq, signed in 1928. Under this agreement, the consortium partners agreed not to develop oil concessions within the red line (comprising most of the former Ottoman Empire, except Kuwait and Egypt) except with the consortium as a whole. The two US members of the consortium, EXXON and MOBIL, had equal shares in a 23.75 percent stake, while ANGLO-PERSIAN (which became British Petroleum), SHELL and COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE PETROLE (CFP) each had a 23.75 percent stake and ARMENIAN entrepreneur Calouste Gulbenkian had the remaining 5 per cent.
In 1946, EXXON and MOBIL representatives arrived in London for negotiations with Shell and Anglo-Persian. The British oil companies’ main fear was of being undercut by cheap Saudi Arabian oil. EXXON and MOBIL managed to allay these fears with promises of long-term supply contracts; EXXON agreed to buy 800 million barrels of crude oil from ANGLO-IRANIAN over the next 20 years, while Mobil made a similar commitment to SHELL….the two American companies had to promise more investment in Iraq (funding two pipelines to the Meditteranean and further expansion of their drilling operations), as well as extra free oil in a concession to Gulbenkian to get out of the deal.
No sooner had the Red Line Agreement been cancelled in November 1948, than IBN SAUD, king of Saudi Arabia, started making demands on the American oil companies. He, like the other Eastern oil producers, had watched with interest as Venezuela’s new leader Perez Alfonso had, in 1943, signed the first “fifty-fifty” agreement with EXXON, under which the Venezuelan government took a 50 per cent share of profits.
Unlike Alfonso, IBN SAUD was not a reformer, but he had a large appetite for luxury and state prestige projects like the ARAMCO-FUNDED railway from Riyadh to the oil city of Dhahran. He too sought a 50 per cent share of the oil profits for his country.
Worried ARAMCO executives met with the US Assistant Secretary of State George McGhee. McGhee was, in fact, a Texas oilman and the son-in-law of the geologist Everett DeGoyler, who had been to investigate the region’s oil reserves in 1943. As well as sympathizing with the oil companies’ concerns, McGhee believed it would be a good idea to provide more money for the Saudis. He hoped to keep them friendly to the US rather than risking a drift towards the USSR, and to allow them to build up their military capacity.
The solution dreamed up by ARAMCO and the State Department became known as the “golden gimmick”. IBN SAUD would receive his 50 per cent. But any money paid to the king by the oil companies would be treated as foreign income tax, deductible in the US under rules preventing double taxation, so the oil companies would end up paying no more than before.
The only loser would be the US Treasury, which lost $50 million in taxes the following year. The “golden gimmick” also fitted in with the State Department’s plans, allowing it to subsidize Saudi Arabia without alienating Israel or needing to ask Congress for approval. In short, the US taxpayer was the loser—the agreement subsidized Saudi Arabia and the oil companies.
From Andy Stern’s book entitled: OIL From Rockefeller To Iraq And Beyond
“No, I hold none of Andy Stern’s leftist ideas, but his book was an outstanding research book on how the oil cartels began and gives us a glimpse into the WHY of the Bush/State Department policy of shaking hands with Saudi Arabia.
Comment by sunstartmf33 — April 25, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Yamit - The Arabs only recognize the existence of Israel for the time being. I am still convinced that the Muslim Middle East still yearns for the day Israel is destroyed and the lands returned to Islamic dominion.
You asked me:
I didn’t express myself in such way that prompts such a question. Please read again what I said.
You state:
I have not stated my vision for peace. I have previously made known my wish for Israel to expand her borders to include Gaza and J & S and the Palestinians being induced to voluntarily emmigrate to neighboring or other countries. I have also laid out a scenario for that to happen, but regardless it really is just wishful thinking, because the two insurmountable hurdles I mentioned before being Arab/Palestinian intractable Jew hatred and dreams for the destruction of Israel and returning the land of Israel to Islam, makes such wish impossible to fulfill just as much as it presents an insurmountable hurdle to fulfillment of the Western dream for peace in accord with the Road Map two state solution.
That was my point Yamit.
You can dream big, dream even brilliantly about the kind of peace Israel needs for her best interests and being able to thrive into the future and what needs to come about to make that happen, but those two insurmountable hurdles stand in the way of any solution that has been dreamt of.
Your further thought about Israel arming to the teeth with nuclear weapons and rendering her enemies a scrap heap of twisted metal and broken homes, is the ultimate peacemaker, for after the bombs have fallen and the people destroyed, the peace of the grave will be established.
You say that might change my concept of a peace paradigm. No it won’t, I have already alluded to that as a dramatic event that could bring about a solution for Israel, unfortunately war can cut both ways and it could go either way.
I do not advocate war Yamit. I also have had it with toothless diplomacy. Stronger measures short of war are needed, which I have before loosely described as gun boat diplomacy which hopefully would make the difference for the better.
That said however, I am all for either the GOI being replaced by those who will persue not only peace, but Israel’s best interests through strength and not weakness. Alternatively, we have seen instances in history where circumstances can turn ordinary people into heroes or cowards. Olmert may yet find himself in the midst of that circumstance and could rise to be a hero. One can hope.
Hope Yamit is what I do have, but hope alone does not cut it. The expression God helps those who help themselves. It is way past time that Israel start helping themselves as regards the various challenges she faces and the pressures she must bear to bend to the will of various Western nations that seek to further their own interests by having same paid for with Israeli coin.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 25, 2008 @ 8:15 pm