Bush's war against Israel - Chapter 342
Bush's war against Israel - Chapter 342
The White House has now posted the official text of the public remarks made by Bush and Abu Mazen after their meeting on July 25, 2003. For the record, here is an annotated version of what was said and what was not said. Read, and eat your heart out.
Recall, first, that Abu Mazen, the world's only PM who bears a nom de guerre, came to Washington after making it absolutely clear - and publicly - that he represents the terrorist Aratrash and pledged his loyalty to him. Abu Mazen also clarified that he has no intention of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure; and that he comes with a list of extra-Roadmap demands which he expects Bush to impose on Israel. With this in mind, here is what The Right Man said and what he heard with no protest (quotations are in the sequence in which the comments were made):
I recently approved a grant of $20 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. Today, I'm also pleased to announce that the United States and Palestinian Authority will establish a joint Palestine Economic Development Group. This group of American and Palestinian officials will meet regularly and be charged with finding practical ways to bring jobs and growth and investment to the Palestinian economy.
True, I am "quoting out of context", but in any context, what Bush is saying is simply this: Here, Abu Mazen, is your prize for defying me on the issues of Aratrash and "dismantling terrorist infrastructure". The Right Man indeed..
In our talks this morning, Prime Minister Abbas and I covered a range of issues. We discussed the impact on the Palestinian people of the limits on their freedom of movement and the need to reduce the network of checkpoints and barriers. Prime Minister Abbas shared his concerns about Israeli settlements, confiscation of land, and the building of a security fence. He also expressed his strong desire to see the release of many more Palestinian prisoners.
That seems to be the complete agenda. So the issue of sidestepping Aratrash ("leadership not compromised by terror") and dismantling the terrorist infrastructure did not even make it as an agendum item!
Today, the government of Israel announced that it will be taking down more of the checkpoints that are making it difficult for Palestinians to travel to their jobs and schools. In addition, Israel will consider ways to reduce the impact of the security fence on the lives of the Palestinian people.
And Israel has helped -- has also pledged to transfer to the Palestinian Authority security responsibility for two additional cities in the West Bank, and to make further progress in removing settlement outposts. Like Prime Minister Abbas, Prime Minister Sharon is demonstrating that he's a partner committed to reaching a peace settlement.
... All this in addition to releasing funds and allowing Arab workers into Israel. What did Israel get in return? As Churchill discovered in the 1920s, this is an old Arab negotiating technique: demand the moon, give nothing, threaten and invent legends of "Arab street". To say the least, I find that this Arab modus operandi offends one's sense of dignity and fair play - why does The Right Man succumb?
This was the end of Bush's speech. I reiterate: not a single word about Aratrash and not a single word about confronting the Arab terrorists in Yesha. When it comes to Arabs, Bush overlooks his own requirements!
Now comes the "adding insult to injury" part. With Bush by his side (in more senses than one), Abu Mazen stated:
we are implementing our security and reform obligations.
The White House record fails to show that Abu Mazen's pants were on fire at that point, but the blatant lie is more that obvious. And The Right Man just listened. And after the big lie comes the shopping list.
[M]ovement needs to be made in terms of freeing prisoners, lifting the siege on President Arafat, Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian areas, and easing up freedom of movement to Palestinians.
...
The outcome must correspond with your vision, Mr. President, achieving a peace that will end the occupation that started in 1967. The establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just, agreed solution of the refugee question on the basis of the U.N. Resolution 194.
Complete withdrawal, Jerusalem, Right of Return.
They have not changed one iota. The Roadmap should have been declared dead right there. But wait, there is more:
This vision cannot be realized if Israel continues to grab Palestinian land. If the settlement activities in Palestinian land and construction of the so-called separation wall on confiscated Palestinian land continue, we might soon find ourselves at a situation where the foundation of peace, a free Palestine state, living side-by-side in peace and security in Israel is a factual impossibility. Nothing less than a full settlement freeze will do... all settlement activities must be stopped now, and the wall must come down
When the shopping list ended (until Abu Mazen presents the next order), a short Q and A ensued. This gave The Right Man another opportunity to continue his war against Israel:
I've constantly spoken out for the need to end the settlements... Let me talk about the wall. I think the wall is a problem, and I discussed this with Ariel Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israel -- Israel -- with a wall snaking through the West Bank... I've constantly spoken out about the end of settlements. I have done so consistently.
In the course of the Q&A, The Right Man made two references to the Arab terrorists as follows:
It is necessary for this good man [Abu Mazen] to continue to fight off the terrorist activity that creates the conditions of insecurity for not only Israel, but for the peaceful Palestinian people. In order for us to be able to make progress on a lot of difficult issues, there has to be a firm and continued commitment to fight terror.
...
I'm going to tell you point-blank that we must make sure that any terrorist activity is rooted out, in order for us to be able to deal with these big issues
Unlike Bush's comments on the "settlements" and "the Wall", this reference is bland and ambiguous. What is "rooted out"? There are specific requirements such as collecting weapons and outlawing terrorist groups, but Bush prefers such banalities as "rooting out" which may just mean "recruiting in" (i.e., recruiting the terrorists as part of Abu Mazen's armed forces) - on of the plans that are rumoured to be on Abu Mazen's mind.
Little wonder the official "Palestinian" news agencies did not conceal their joy over the Bush - Abu Mazen meeting: in the end, it was another battle in the Bush war against Israel, with the next battle to unfold on Tuesday.
There was one issue about which even Bush toned down his anti-Israel campaign: the prisoner issue. To quote,
I would never ask anybody in any society to let a prisoner out who would then commit terrorist actions. And I think that's logical and clear.
Frankly, I would have expected much, much more.
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at July 27, 2003 10:04 AM
1.
freddie
said:
I think I am less upset by this nonsense that you are, Joseph. I believe Congress will indicate to Bush that they do not go along with the nonsense suggested in what seems a fact, detail-missing blah blah speech. Bush may not likethe wall but I douobt he will demand publicly that it be taken down. I doubt that he will go ahead and support the terror groups' demands for total freeing of terror POWs. And I suspect that after Sharon visits, there will also be some rather bland remarks made. And the real test, then, will be what the terror groups decide to do when three months have passed: tack on three more or begin attacking again?
Posted by: freddie on July 26, 2003 04:46 PM
2.
Carol Herman
said:
Unbelievable. An unelected president moving the 'terrorist' ball like a guy running in the wrong direction ("WRONG WAY, CORRIGAN) to score a goal.
This president is definitely dyslexic.
What is more interesting, however, is the fact that he doesn't seem to mind that he's losing poll numbers. He doesn't seem to mind that Senator Corzine just noticed Bush has no coattails. (In politics it is very important for your top guy to attract votes for other politicians.)Of course, you know that!
Another small puzzle piece will drop into place tomorrow. George Soros (extremely wealthy businessman, up there with Warren Buffet), will place advertisements in major papers calling this Bush a liar. And, pointing out how in business and politics TRANSPARENCY is vital. Lying is a huge error. Even if you mere excuse is that you mangle grammar; you can't mangle context.
Why do I mention this?
This Bush's dad lost an election following a major military achievement (known as Gulf War #1). To lose his re-election bid, and to let a dark horse like the Arkansas governor win, Ross Perot had to come on the scene.
Why do top businessmen hate the Bush Family? Why do they risk their own money and prestige to come out swinging against the presidency? Why, indeed. But notice this, a weak horse can win when the field is triangulated.
When Rehnquist stepped off the Supreme Court bench he was giving this Bush 4 years. In Israel, when Aharon Barak used the Supreme Court bench his intent was to destroy Sharon.
Is Sharon a bulldozer (and I mean this lovingly), or what? Can Sharon save Israel now? I hope so. At least the popularity he enjoys in Israel keeps mounting. While both Bush and Blair have bled by the numbers. Maybe, God is watching out for all of us after all? AMEN
Posted by: Carol Herman on July 26, 2003 07:24 PM
3.
Gabrielle Goldwater
said:
http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/definition.html
Read my article in the above link:
The Definition of Consistency
---------
Or the obvious Contradiction
The word "consistent" has no ambiguous definition.
Defined as "holding together", firm or solid, or in agreement or harmony, compatible, not contradictory, the word is in no way ambivalent as to its meaning.
It is a word that should define a countries foreign policy as well.
Consistency of policy sends clear messages to adversaries and allies alike;
A vacillating or non-consistent foreign policy damages a countries image and interests, as well as sending out mixed signals that are interpreted by adversaries as a policy of weakness or divisiveness within a country's ruling elite.
Now apply the word consistency to the Bush administrations foreign policy regarding the Mideast and its latest efforts to promote peace in the region after the "victory" (??!!??) in Iraq.
Using the "pretext", or what was it really, since he couldn't deliver or at least capture Osama bin Laden, by that matter not even Saddam yet either, looking back at it now, of 9/11 to smash Saddam's clique, the Bush administration, which upon arriving in power two years ago had the definite "hands off" policy on the Mideast, has turned into solid contradiction...... etc.....
Read on the entire article in the link
http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/definition.html
Read as well my article:
The Official Rape of A Sovereign State
Oppression via Intimidation
Who could have dreamed that the United States President would collaborate with Muslim terrorists to deprive the Jewish People of their rightful heritage, their rightful Homeland ?
http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/officialrape.html
Posted by: Gabrielle Goldwater on July 26, 2003 07:47 PM
|
Bush's war against Israel - Chapter 342
The White House has now posted the official text of the public remarks made by Bush and Abu Mazen after their meeting on July 25, 2003. For the record, here is an annotated version of what was said and what was not said. Read, and eat your heart out.
Recall, first, that Abu Mazen, the world's only PM who bears a nom de guerre, came to Washington after making it absolutely clear - and publicly - that he represents the terrorist Aratrash and pledged his loyalty to him. Abu Mazen also clarified that he has no intention of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure; and that he comes with a list of extra-Roadmap demands which he expects Bush to impose on Israel. With this in mind, here is what The Right Man said and what he heard with no protest (quotations are in the sequence in which the comments were made):
True, I am "quoting out of context", but in any context, what Bush is saying is simply this: Here, Abu Mazen, is your prize for defying me on the issues of Aratrash and "dismantling terrorist infrastructure". The Right Man indeed.. That seems to be the complete agenda. So the issue of sidestepping Aratrash ("leadership not compromised by terror") and dismantling the terrorist infrastructure did not even make it as an agendum item! ... All this in addition to releasing funds and allowing Arab workers into Israel. What did Israel get in return? As Churchill discovered in the 1920s, this is an old Arab negotiating technique: demand the moon, give nothing, threaten and invent legends of "Arab street". To say the least, I find that this Arab modus operandi offends one's sense of dignity and fair play - why does The Right Man succumb?This was the end of Bush's speech. I reiterate: not a single word about Aratrash and not a single word about confronting the Arab terrorists in Yesha. When it comes to Arabs, Bush overlooks his own requirements!
Now comes the "adding insult to injury" part. With Bush by his side (in more senses than one), Abu Mazen stated:
The White House record fails to show that Abu Mazen's pants were on fire at that point, but the blatant lie is more that obvious. And The Right Man just listened. And after the big lie comes the shopping list. Complete withdrawal, Jerusalem, Right of Return.
They have not changed one iota. The Roadmap should have been declared dead right there. But wait, there is more:
When the shopping list ended (until Abu Mazen presents the next order), a short Q and A ensued. This gave The Right Man another opportunity to continue his war against Israel: In the course of the Q&A, The Right Man made two references to the Arab terrorists as follows: Unlike Bush's comments on the "settlements" and "the Wall", this reference is bland and ambiguous. What is "rooted out"? There are specific requirements such as collecting weapons and outlawing terrorist groups, but Bush prefers such banalities as "rooting out" which may just mean "recruiting in" (i.e., recruiting the terrorists as part of Abu Mazen's armed forces) - on of the plans that are rumoured to be on Abu Mazen's mind.Little wonder the official "Palestinian" news agencies did not conceal their joy over the Bush - Abu Mazen meeting: in the end, it was another battle in the Bush war against Israel, with the next battle to unfold on Tuesday.
There was one issue about which even Bush toned down his anti-Israel campaign: the prisoner issue. To quote,
Frankly, I would have expected much, much more.Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at July 27, 2003 10:04 AM