 |
 |
 |
The Bush Difference
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/7458
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Bush Difference:
» The Bush Difference from Soccer Dad
In "Who wants a re-voted?" Dov Bear claims that there's loads of evidence that right wingers, like myself, are wrong and that Bush is bad for Israel (or presumably at least worse than any Democrat.) Yes I know that President... [Read More]
Tracked on January 11, 2005 05:42 AM
Comments
1
.
Susan
said:
Talking about how other presidents acted or reacted is mute now. This is the here and now. No other people have been so richly rewarded for the slaughter of Jews as the palestinian people and their terror leaders. This is what we must focus on. People say that Bush shunned Arafat. This is true. However during this time there were negotiations made with the Palestinian interim leaders. They were merely the puppets of Arafat. Every decision they made went through ARAFAT. The continual whitewashing and legitimizing of the Palestinian people and their terrorist leaders only leads to the slaughter of Jews. The pressure on Israel by the Bush administration has been without end. If you go back and read what Bush said on Monday all the pressure was on Israel. What did you hear him say to admonish the Palestinians, nothing. BTW: Last week Abbas stated quite clearly that he would not raise a gun against his own people. Yet, this makes no difference. Reward for terror is wrong and it is a sin. The never ending flow of money is nothing more than Reward for Terror. The Palestinians have had to prove nothing nor will they be made to. Remember, this glorification of the Palestinian people and their Palestinian terrorist leaders is a bold face lie no matter who the president is. Glorification of the Palestinian people and their terrorist leaders while placing horrific pressure on Israel is simply meant to satisfy the appetites of the Arab and European world. We are not a pay-back. We are not the sacrificial lamb for the world.
--------------------------------------------------
As for the American Embassy never making it (and it never will) to it's rightful place, ask yourselves why. Protest like hell. Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish and Christian people. Not the arab world who on a whim would chase us out of Jerusalem on a moments notice. Remember, Israel is the only country in the world to not have an American Embassy in her capitol simply because we do not want to anger the arab world. I truly thought from the bottom of my heart that President Bush would break that ugly wrong, yet nothing changes. Blind belief is dangerous---------------------------------------Blind belief is dangerous. When Jews wrote to every government begging to stop Hitler from slaughtering Jews no one did a thing. No one jumped over party lines and the rest simply acted like nothing was happening. We must face certain truths and stop rationalizing even if it hurts. If we do not the consequences will be grave.
Posted by: Susan on January 11, 2005 09:58 AM
2
.
Tamar
said:
"Last week Abbas stated quite clearly that he would not raise a gun against his own people. "---------------------Leave that sort of thing to our Israeli government!
"The pressure on Israel by the Bush administration has been without end. If you go back and read what Bush said on Monday all the pressure was on Israel."
I am holding my breath until the Bushki Administration suggests "military intervention" or a "Multinational (basically mannned by our sworn enemies..)Force" again!
Posted by: Tamar on January 11, 2005 11:39 AM
3
.
Tamar
said:
"1) Would the Clinton administration have walked out of the Durban conference on principle? Colin Powell did. I doubt that Albright or Christopher would have."
Actually, it was the demands for "slavery" reparations (For all black countries) that made the US lead the Durban Conference.....the agenda was published (at the UN site) at least two years before the conference.
Posted by: Tamar on January 11, 2005 11:45 AM
4
.
Susan
said:
Glad to know you are not blinded. It is more the blindness which scares me than the suicide belts to which the palestinians are being so richly rewarded for. Blindness and silence, both deadly. It is hard to imagine any other people being rewarded for the slaughter of Jews in the way the palestinians are. And they truly are. Here is a ZOA News Release from 2002. http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2002/20020522a.htm as just one example of the how the Palestinian terror organization have gotten away with complete murder. Worse, how they know the deal is set in stone and they have to do nothing at all to get their state and buckets of money. Sure it is the State Department but it is the State Department under Bush. Nothing has changed at all. And for most it is easier to blame Sharon rather than placing blame at the sources who are holding the guns to the head of Israel. It is a known fact that either they will kill us with weapons or kill us with sanctions, boycotts and embargoes if we don't tow the line. Where else in all of history has there been so much pressure placed upon the innocent while at the same time propping up, whitewashing and legitimizing terrorists? Terrorists who slaughter Jews. All in the name of appeasing the Arab and European world.
Posted by: Susan on January 11, 2005 12:11 PM
5
.
dovbear
said:
Quibble time:
1- The piece is named who wants a re-vote. Not "re-voted?"
2 - "Dov Bear claims that there's loads of evidence that right wingers, like myself, are wrong and that Bush is bad for Israel (or presumably at least worse than any Democrat." NO!! I claim that you're wrong because Bush is GOOD for Israel but not in the manner you imagine. Bush is good for Israel in the same way that Clinton was good for Israel: Both know the conflict will only end with a Palestenian state.
3 - "Bush undid that by making Arafat a pariah" Making Arafat a pariah killed Jews. When negotiations were an option, the Palestenian street was quite. After Bush made it clear that there would be no more negotiations with arafat the street erupted. Bush might be too simple to understand this, but sometimes growups need to do things that are distatetful (like meeting Arafat) for the sake of more important objectives.(saving Jews)
4 - "Why is Bush's support for a Palestinian state is disqualifying - faulty as it is?" By my lights is not a disqualifer. But I've been in favor of a Palestenian state since at least the mid-90s
Posted by: dovbear on January 11, 2005 12:59 PM
6
.
Tamar
said:
Yes, I am in favour of a "Palestinian State" also....located in either Texas or the Northwest Territories.
Peace!
Tamar
Posted by: Tamar on January 11, 2005 07:56 PM
The Bush Difference
In "Who wants a re-voted?" Dov Bear claims that there's loads of evidence that right wingers, like myself, are wrong and that Bush is bad for Israel (or presumably at least worse than any Democrat.) Yes I know that President Bush favors a Palestinian state. I am against that. But is there any Democrat who opposes such a state? It was Clinton who saw to it that a Palestinian state would be inevitable. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton would attach no responsibilities to said state. Bush does. (And I doubt that there are more than two or three Democrats who would have.)
Clinton hosted Arafat at the White House more than any other world leader despite Arafat's constant violations of the Oslo Accords. That legitimized the illegitimate. Bush undid that by making Arafat a pariah despite the world opinion that felt otherwise.
The statement isn't perfect but it is one of the most supportive of Israel from a public servant I've seen. (I compared the Bush administration with the Clinton administration here.)If someone would ask me to describe the two Presidential actions of the past 15 years that were most inimical to Israel it would be.
(1) George H. W. Bush's invitation to King Hussein to the White House after the Gulf War. The Jordanian King had supported Saddam in Gulf War I and Yitzchak Shamir had sacrificed Israel's sovereignty to aid American war aims. But the King got the royal invite and Shamir got the back of the President's hand.
(2) President Clinton's betrayal of Israel following the Hebron Accords. In order to get the cabinet to vote for the Hebron Accord, the Clinton administration assured the cabinet explicitly that any Israel would be able to determine the size of further withdrawals. The next month when Netanyahu announced the size of his planned withdrawal, Arafat said it wasn't enough and Clinton/Albright spent the next year and a half until Wye browbeating Netanyahu to make the redeployment larger.
I would argue that 2 is worse than 1 because it subverted Israeli democracy.
But arguing how bad Clinton is not an argument for how good Bush is.
1) Would the Clinton administration have walked out of the Durban conference on principle? Colin Powell did. I doubt that Albright or Christopher would have.
2) Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who would have said what Bush's Ambassador to the UN, John Danforth said when vetoing another anti Israel resolution?
3) How would the Clinton administration have reacted to "Operation Defensive Shield?" It's true that President Bush made some unfortunate comments in April 2002 and in one case the administration didn't veto a UN condemnation of Israel. But Bush didn't do any more than that. The Clinton administration's reaction to the opening of the tunnel on the Temple Mount in September 1996 was more vehement.
4) Is there any Democrat likely to serve in government who publicly thanked Israel for bombing the Iraqi reactor or calling the disputed territories the "so-called occupied territories? Well Donald Rumsfeld said both. I imagine that most Presidents would have publicly contradicted an underling who said that. (Bush pere wouldn't let Jack Kemp meet with Ariel Sharon in his Cabinet office.)
5) I laid out the case for Bush against Kerry over here. There were quite a few positive reasons to support Bush and worry about a Kerry presidency. The fact that some of those were expressed by Martin Peretz, an unabashed liberal whose magazine endorsed Kerry, was particularly surprising.
President Clinton's approach to the Middle East can be summed up by his response to Yasser Arafat. Clinton blamed Arafat for making him a failure. Clinton was simply interested in pieces of paper and photo ops and never demanded compliance from the PA. He gave Arafat a legitimacy that he didn't earn and undermined Israel's democratically elected government.
I have many disagreements with Bush but he's been the most pro-Israel president since Reagan. So no, Dov Bear, I don't want a re-vote.
(PS Why is Bush's support for a Palestinian state is disqualifying - faulty as it is? He can't be more Catholic than the pope. Doesn't Israel's current Prime Minister consider a Palestinian state inevitable?)
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at January 11, 2005 05:39 AM