Peace process over: Bush folds like expected

[CyberGnu]

Washington Post:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/926080.asp?0cv=CB10

White House backs Israel’s response

Officials insist they aren’t backing off earlier criticisms

By Glenn Kessler
THE WASHINGTON POST

June 13 — The Bush administration signaled strong support for Israel’s crackdown on militant groups yesterday, effectively abandoning its earlier criticism of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that had sparked an outcry from lawmakers on Capitol Hill and pro-Israel lobbying groups.
IN COORDINATED STATEMENTS, White House and State Department officials tried to shift the diplomatic focus from Israeli actions to the commitment made by Arab leaders at a summit last week in Egypt to cut off funding and support for terrorist attacks against Israelis. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made that point in a round of phone calls to Arab foreign ministers, officials said.
“The issue is not Israel. The issue is not the Palestinian Authority,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. The issue is “terrorists who are killing in an attempt to stop a hopeful process from moving forward.”
Arab officials placed the blame for the renewed violence on Israeli’s botched assassination attempt Tuesday of a senior leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas. “We were very close to an agreement with the Palestinians to end the suicide bombings,” said a senior Arab diplomat who spoke to Powell yesterday. “But every time we come close to an agreement, the Israelis launch a disproportionate attack.”
Adel Jubeir, chief foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, said the kingdom “condemned terrorism in all its forms.” But he also faulted Israeli actions. “When you engage in assassination attempts in the midst of efforts to try to broker an agreement that I would think would be beneficial to the Israelis, that’s not wise leadership,” he said.
The Israeli attack dismayed U.S. officials, and President Bush said Tuesday he was “troubled” by it. But his comments infuriated Israel’s supporters, especially after a suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday killed 16 Israelis.
Administration officials insisted yesterday they were not backing off their earlier criticism of the Israeli attack. But they refused to repeat it, even as Israel launched several more strikes against Hamas militants.
“I’m just not saying anything new here today on that particular subject,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said after repeated questioning by reporters.
In signs of stepped-up diplomatic activity, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice also contacted Israeli and Palestinian officials yesterday and John Wolf, a senior State Department official assigned to oversee the new peace initiative — known as the “road map” — prepared to head to the region. Powell also called Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. The State Department said Powell would meet with U.N., European and Russian diplomats in Jordan on June 22 to discuss the road map, while sources said Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, was contemplating a visit to Washington next week.
Bush was not planning on calling Sharon or Abbas to try to revive the peace plan, Fleischer said. “It’s not as if a phone call will get Hamas to stop being terrorists,” he said.
One administration official said the White House wants to get past the controversy over the Israeli military strikes to press Sharon to restrain settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories. He said that was the surest way to demonstrate progress to the Palestinians, while action against terrorist groups by the Arabs and Palestinians would show progress to the Israelis.
“What we really could use is focused comments from the Arab world denouncing these terrorist attacks,” the official said. He added that U.S. officials also were looking for some sort of symbolic step that Abbas could take on security, before he builds up his forces, that would be akin to the Israelis dismantling settlement outposts.
One pro-Israeli source in touch with administration officials attributed the initial White House criticism of Israel to a “human reaction” after administration officials awoke to discover that the glow of last week’s Middle East summits attended by Bush had been shattered by the Israeli strike against Hamas official Abdel Aziz Rantisi. “But by Wednesday they realized it was not the natural place of the United States to rush to the defense of Rantisi,” he said.
The Arab official said the Israeli attacks this week have dramatically undercut Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen. “There is no question he has been weakened by this. This gives ammunition to his critics,” who had charged he was too accommodating to the Israelis last week, the official said. “It is very serious. If Abu Mazen fails, no other Palestinian will step up to the plate.”
Edward S. Walker Jr., president of the Middle East Institute and a former State Department official, said, “Two people have been weakened by this — Abu Mazen and the president of the United States.”
The president “makes a statement and it rolls off Sharon’s back,” Walker said. “He has a credibility problem.”
Walker, who just returned from the Middle East, said Arabs were “just in a very black mood” after the euphoria of last week. “People in the region see Bush as backing away and not standing up for the road map,” he said. “The question is whether the president is serious or not.”


*sigh*

I'm not exactly suprised... My opinion of Bush was low to start with, the odds of him standing up for what is right were slim to none... Yet I feel disapppointed... I was hoping that just this once Bush's pigheadedness would actually generate somthing good...

Oh well. What was peace in the middle east against a few million dollars from special interest groups. Obviously not much.

[Cruddy]

Maybe he should have actually talked to some of those "Axis of Evil" people before signing them up for a peace process they had no part in drafting.

Negotiation without dialogue is just ultimatum.

[Urban Ranger]

W is just too expectable. You can always tell which side he will be on.

[Whaleboy]

Too bad, its his own credibility on the pop. Just when I was actually beginning to respect him and hope the peace process might actually work.

I think we British should sort it out, we have experience with the analogous Northern Ireland situation, and perhaps a little more dexterity than the Americans.

[Giancarlo]

Hey anti-Bush folk here.. this means nothing.. the peace process will continue...

But you people are too blind by your own biases it is ridiculous.

[DinoDoc]

Why is the US expected to champion these things anyway? Are they too ignorant to negotiate among themselves?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez
Hey anti-Bush folk here.. this means nothing.. the peace process will continue...

But you people are too blind by your own biases it is ridiculous.

You mean, it continues with the same pace as it did since Sharon was elected Prime Minister of Israel?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
But you people are too blind by your own biases it is ridiculous.

Says the guy whose nose is parked so far up Bush's butt he can smell his colon.











Okay, that grossed me out. Ick.

[Az]

Great. now the Zionist machine of dominating the middle east and killing palestinians can move on.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Says the guy whose nose is parked so far up Bush's butt he can smell his colon.

Okay, that grossed me out. Ick.

Nice troll. You are doing pretty good Zylka trolls.

Anyways Boris.. I am not interested in you... at least you aren't talking about my ass.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by elijah
Too bad, its his own credibility on the pop. Just when I was actually beginning to respect him and hope the peace process might actually work.

I think we British should sort it out, we have experience with the analogous Northern Ireland situation, and perhaps a little more dexterity than the Americans.

Yeah, that one only took you guys 800 years to solve.

Given Europe's atrocious treatment of the Jews and the latent anti-Semitism that still exists today, I doubt you'd be welcomed to the process as a neutral party.

Clinton was the only foreign leader in recent memory to assist Israel and Palestine towards real peace. Too bad it didn't last.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some new player is needed to work through the impasse.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez


Nice troll. You are doing pretty good Zylka trolls.

Anyways Boris.. I am not interested in you... at least you aren't talking about my ass.

You accusing others of bias is laughable. Do you think anyone here doesn't know how you will defend any rightwinger to the limits of absurdity?

You're among the most biased person around, so flinging out accusations of others being biased only makes you look more ridiculous.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by elijah
I think we British should sort it out, we have experience with the analogous Northern Ireland situation

I don't think we've exactly covered ourselves with glory in that one.

Besides, just as the NI troubles are (although not over) calming down a little bit why would we want to get involved in yet another shitstorm?

[Ming]

Would you two stop your personal little cat fight...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
Would you two stop your personal little cat fight...

But my claws are oh so sharp this morning!

-------------

Bush doesn't want ME peace, IMO. Well, Wolfowitz doesn't, at least. His whole worldview is based on the violence triggering expanded U.S. military action and occupations in the region.

[The diplomat]

Bush should never had done that Aqaba Summit last week. It was overly premature announce a peace process when they knew that serious obstacles to the road map like terrorism had not been solved.

I fully suppport this "change" of position. I hope that Bush continues to support Israel's right to target Hamas. If the US has the right to target Al Queda, then Israel should have the right to target Hamas.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by elijah

I think we British should sort it out, we have experience with the analogous Northern Ireland situation, and perhaps a little more dexterity than the Americans.

Northern Ireland is hardly cut and dried yet. Any side could take the offensive again at any moment - and how many Unionist weapons have been decommissioned?

Maybe a dozen SMGs?

How many Provo weapons have been decommissioned?

None confirmd (although many alledged).

Hardly a recipe for peace.

Anyway, considering the balls up that was the UK in Israel in 1947 (look up King David Hotel bombing) I'm surprised you want to send UK people to go and get slaughtered - AGAIN.

Did you ever serve in NI? I doubt it. Neither did I - but at least I've had a chance to converse and LISTEN to those that did.

They dislike those COIN jobs.

[GePap]

This admin. is inherently pro-Israel, and feelings that Israels 'fight" and "our fight" are the same run high.

The inhrent porblem is that Israel can't crack down on Hamas effectively. if Israel can't shut down Hamas on the West Bank, where they have tens of thousands of troops, how the hell will they crack down on Hamas in Gaza, were Israel is highly unlikely to attempt the same level of total control becuase of the bloodbath it would first entail? At best, israel can force them to duck for a while, but while that keeps the number of Israeli dead down, it does not stop the violence and does not end up with peace.

It makes why wonder why, for 2.5 years, Israel spent most of its time bombing the PLA and destroying their facilities, and left Hamas, the organization doing most of the killing, relatively alone. And now the PLA is supposed to take out Hamas.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why is the US expected to champion these things anyway?

Because you got your nose firmly digged into all stuff middle eastern.

[DinoDoc]

That was a 2 part question Roland.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

It makes why wonder why, for 2.5 years, Israel spent most of its time bombing the PLA and destroying their facilities, and left Hamas, the organization doing most of the killing, relatively alone. And now the PLA is supposed to take out Hamas.

Exept that the PA has been just as connected to terrorism and the killing as Hamas has been. Are we forgetting the Korine A? And Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Fatah - both directly linked to and aided by Arafat - have killed more Israelis than Hamas has, IIRC.

[Edan]

"We must fight terrorism as if there are no negotiations and we must negotiate as if there is no terrorism."

[Velociryx]

Let's just pave over a one square mile area, have each side hand-pick 250 people. Arm them with clubs, and let them in.

Winner take all.

That way, both sides could get their rocks off with another round of bloodshed, and it'd be decided once and for all.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

think we British should sort it out

Like you did back in the late 40s?

“We were very close to an agreement with the Palestinians to end the suicide bombings,” said a senior Arab diplomat who spoke to Powell yesterday. “But every time we come close to an agreement, the Israelis launch a disproportionate attack.”

And the Israelis can say the same type of stuff. "We were about to stop incursions, but then there was a big suicide attack."

Having said that, I am disappointed. I was hoping that Bush would be a stubborn SOB and force the parties down this "road map" in spite of whatever violence was going on.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
"We must fight terrorism as if there are no negotiations and we must negotiate as if there is no terrorism."

Fine sentiment, if it could be true. But it can;t, since negotations take two sides.

Exept that the PA has been just as connected to terrorism and the killing as Hamas has been. Are we forgetting the Korine A? And Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Fatah - both directly linked to and aided by Arafat - have killed more Israelis than Hamas has, IIRC.

Hamas was always the leader of violence. And it also depends what type of violence: suicide bombins in Israel? Hamas and Islamic Jihad have done the most of those. Attacks on israelis in the territories, and on the IDF? There certainly there Al Aksa might lead.

And Israel still gave far more attention to Arafat and Fatah than Hamas. Hmm, why go after Hamas at all? I though it was all alway's Arafat's fault? He is the single great Pal. Mastermind, no?

[Velociryx]

What I'm wondering is: What would either/both sides DO in the absence of the violence. From this side of the pond, it would seem that both sides are so enmeshed in the conflict....so wrapped up in the "you get him, he gets you" game that it has become a part of the national and cultural identity of those living there.

I'm sorry to say it, but when someone says "Jeruselem," the first thing that comes to mind is Terrorist bombings and reprisal attacks, not "oh! You mean the heart and soul of two large, important religions? A city with enormous historic and cultural value?"

Nope....doesn't even come to mind.

And I'm not sure what either side would do without the conflict. At this point, it seems like all they have left.

-=Vel=-

[Shi Huangdi]

to Bush. Israel has every right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists.

[GePap]

Both sides define themselves as "the victim". That classification is key to enough of them to keep this going. You can;t really be a victim without conflict, now can you?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
to Bush. Israel has every right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists.

So, do the pals have _every_ right to defend theirselves against oppression and occupation in other words against terror from the illegal settlers and IDF?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Attacks on israelis in the territories, and on the IDF? There certainly there Al Aksa might lead.

Incorrect. Al Aqsa and Fatah have done attacks within Israel. In March '02, the majority of the suicide bombings were commited by Fatah and Al Aqsa, and Al Aqsa claimed credit for the deadliest bombing - the one during the Passover Seder. That is one of the reasons why the IDF targeted Al Aqsa and Arafat. Another reason is that cracking down on the militants was Arafat's responsibility. And, frankly, Arafat with his diplomatic "legitimacy", with his ability to divert funds from aid to the Palestinian, smuggle weapons and, as the PA, be the one responsible for terrorists being harbored in the territories - all made him a bigger threat and a dangerous party to continue to negotiate with. Unless you are stil under some illusion that Arafat isn't connected to terrorism.