bush on palestine

[egb_hibs]

once again, doesn't really fit the cliches:

"US President George W Bush has said Israel must end its occupation of some Arab land to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

He also urged a solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees that would involve paying them compensation.

It is thought to be Mr Bush's strongest public statement pressing Israel to give up land it seized in the 1967 war.

He was speaking in Jerusalem following two days of separate talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

He has been trying to encourage the two sides into peace talks, and says he wants a peace deal signed by the time he leaves office in January 2009.

Mr Bush said in a statement: "It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement."

He said this would require:

* secure recognised and defensible borders for Israel
* a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian state

He added: "Agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7181658.stm

so much for the millenialist trying to achieve biblical prophecies that would bring about armageddon, or whatever he was supposed to be according to some more hysterical commentators.

even among those who should be more responsible, i hope in time that there is some sober reflection. the world would have been better off for this man being presented for what he is: a not terribly impressive, and probably intellectually lightweight politician grappling with some of the most serious geopolitical issues any president has faced with a while.

the truth is more prosaic, but just as serious as the babbling of hysterics, propagandists and fatboy fibbers. instead we've had inflationary hysterics that contribute to polarisation, division and disharmony and an increasingly flighty and irresponsible western intellectual climate.

[HailHail]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

once again, doesn't really fit the cliches:

"US President George W Bush has said Israel must end its occupation of some Arab land to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

He also urged a solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees that would involve paying them compensation.

It is thought to be Mr Bush's strongest public statement pressing Israel to give up land it seized in the 1967 war.

He was speaking in Jerusalem following two days of separate talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

He has been trying to encourage the two sides into peace talks, and says he wants a peace deal signed by the time he leaves office in January 2009.

Mr Bush said in a statement: "It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement."

He said this would require:

* secure recognised and defensible borders for Israel
* a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian state

He added: "Agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7181658.stm

so much for the millenialist trying to achieve biblical prophecies that would bring about armageddon, or whatever he was supposed to be according to some more hysterical commentators.

even among those who should be more responsible, i hope in time that there is some sober reflection. the world would have been better off for this man being presented for what he is: a not terribly impressive, and probably intellectually lightweight politician grappling with some of the most serious geopolitical issues any president has faced with a while.

the truth is more prosaic, but just as serious as the babbling of hysterics, propagandists and fatboy fibbers. instead we've had inflationary hysterics that contribute to polarisation, division and disharmony and an increasingly flighty and irresponsible western intellectual climate.

Foreign Office
2nd November 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild:
I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's
Government the following declaration of our sympathy with Jewish Zionist
aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine
of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should
be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the
Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour


An old one, but a declaration that shows this whole issue needs to be sorted out soon.
One of the chaps I've interviewed recently served in palestine just before the end of the UK mandate, being attacked by jews and arabs alike. You could add this one to the Kosovo/N.I thread to really pickle folk's heads man 90 years on and still not sorted, particularly the "it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

[wee 162]

You missed a couple of bits;

Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank

So no right of return for people expelled from their homes, and "some" land taken off Israel which they have been illegally occupying.

On what is to be done.

On the Israeli side, that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorised outposts.

"On the Palestinian side, that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure," he said.

Ending "expansion" (note the use of the word expansion rather than the actual correct term of "occupation") rather than suggesting rollback suggests that what is there will stay. In conjunction with the term "reflect current realities" above what it is suggesting is that the entire boundary between Palestine & Israel will be re-drawn, and I would have more than a guess that it will follow pretty closely the wall the Israelis have built.

And who will decide on whether what the Palestinians have satisfactorily confronted "terrorists" and dismantled "terrorist infrastructure"? The UN? A new international monitoring body? Or Israel. I'd have a wild guess it would be Israel, or at a push, Israels benefactor the US. And since the US & Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist group, presumably that would mean an end to any democracy in Palestine which could possibly elect them.

Complete spin, and if anyone thinks the Palestinians will go for this they're off their heads. Yasser Arafat was getting offered slightly more than this and the breakdown in negotiation led to the current Intafada ffs! Israel I could see going for it. After all, they get to keep the land they have been occupying for 40 years, they get to re-draw the boundaries to get the most precious resource in the area which is water, and they have to get assurances from everyone that there will never be any "terrorism" directed against it. Can the Palestinians get a similar assurance that Israel will not use their terrorist infrastructure of US built and sunsidised F-15s used against their population and political leaders that Israel doesn't like? Can the Palestinians get assurances that Israel will stop rolling their tanks into Palestinian territory at the drop of a hat?

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

once again, doesn't really fit the cliches:

"US President George W Bush has said Israel must end its occupation of some Arab land to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

He also urged a solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees that would involve paying them compensation.

It is thought to be Mr Bush's strongest public statement pressing Israel to give up land it seized in the 1967 war.

He was speaking in Jerusalem following two days of separate talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

He has been trying to encourage the two sides into peace talks, and says he wants a peace deal signed by the time he leaves office in January 2009.

Mr Bush said in a statement: "It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement."

He said this would require:

* secure recognised and defensible borders for Israel
* a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian state

He added: "Agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7181658.stm

so much for the millenialist trying to achieve biblical prophecies that would bring about armageddon, or whatever he was supposed to be according to some more hysterical commentators.

even among those who should be more responsible, i hope in time that there is some sober reflection. the world would have been better off for this man being presented for what he is: a not terribly impressive, and probably intellectually lightweight politician grappling with some of the most serious geopolitical issues any president has faced with a while.

the truth is more prosaic, but just as serious as the babbling of hysterics, propagandists and fatboy fibbers. instead we've had inflationary hysterics that contribute to polarisation, division and disharmony and an increasingly flighty and irresponsible western intellectual climate.

When President Bush and corporate America stop selling weapons to the Israeli military, stop pumping financial aid into the one country in the Middle East that deserves it least, and abide by UN resolutions that have been passed, then maybe his words might mean something more than political spin/verbal diarrhoea.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Briant]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves

When President Bush and corporate America stop selling weapons to the Israeli military, stop pumping financial aid into the one country in the Middle East that deserves it least, and abide by UN resolutions that have been passed, then maybe his words might mean something more than political spin/verbal diarrhoea.

Actions speak louder than words.

From what Ive read Israel is paying no heed to his new slant on things.

I think Bush and Israel have agreed Bush can say whatever he likes to try and look like a world leader with the greater interests at heart and Israel will do as they please.

[HenryLB]

Does Israel control the US or the US control Israel? Serious question for those inclined to answer it.

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by wee 162

You missed a couple of bits;



So no right of return for people expelled from their homes,

The problem with this - and I speak as someone who generally speaking supports the right of return - is that many Palestinians left of their own accord, mainly because they were advised to by the invading arab governments. This was done essentially so that their armies would be able to slaughter everybody in their path in what they assumed would be such an easy victory it would amount to a massacre.

In a more general sense the neighbouring countries to Israel are roughly 650 times its size, and many are extremely wealthy. I'm cynical of the intentions of the rulers of those countries as I think they have as much to gain by maintaining the "refugee" situation as Israel does. Probably more.

and "some" land taken off Israel which they have been illegally occupying.

I agree that the occupation now looks illegal. But in that sense one could argue that parts of Poland should be returned to Germany. And would Jordan have first claim on the West Bank? I'm not suggesting it would be taken up, but legally speaking wouldn't that be the case?

Ending "expansion" (note the use of the word expansion rather than the actual correct term of "occupation") rather than suggesting rollback suggests that what is there will stay. In conjunction with the term "reflect current realities" above what it is suggesting is that the entire boundary between Palestine & Israel will be re-drawn, and I would have more than a guess that it will follow pretty closely the wall the Israelis have built.

And who will decide on whether what the Palestinians have satisfactorily confronted "terrorists" and dismantled "terrorist infrastructure"? The UN? A new international monitoring body? Or Israel. I'd have a wild guess it would be Israel, or at a push, Israels benefactor the US. And since the US & Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist group, presumably that would mean an end to any democracy in Palestine which could possibly elect them.

Largely agree. Although I think that Hamas will gradually screw up the situation in the occupied territories quite happily by themselves. They're already half way there, and personally I'd prefer it if Israel let them get on with it so they fail democratically. Mind you I don't have to live next door to people who want me dead and consider me genetically evil.

Complete spin, and if anyone thinks the Palestinians will go for this they're off their heads. Yasser Arafat was getting offered slightly more than this and the breakdown in negotiation led to the current Intafada ffs!

I think that had rather a lot to do with Arafat. That was the single big opportunity and he blew it because he understood that politically he couldn't lose by carrying on the violence.

Israel I could see going for it. After all, they get to keep the land they have been occupying for 40 years, they get to re-draw the boundaries to get the most precious resource in the area which is water, and they have to get assurances from everyone that there will never be any "terrorism" directed against it. Can the Palestinians get a similar assurance that Israel will not use their terrorist infrastructure of US built and sunsidised F-15s used against their population and political leaders that Israel doesn't like? Can the Palestinians get assurances that Israel will stop rolling their tanks into Palestinian territory at the drop of a hat?

I hope that would be part of any agreement but I share your pessimism.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

Does Israel control the US or the US control Israel? Serious question for those inclined to answer it.

Depends what you mean by "control" I think. What I would say is that it would be very very difficult for someone who was not pro-Israel to get elected in the US (at least nationally). The Anti Defamation League would be all over them smearing them as anti-semitic, holocaust deniers etc. But that isn't really that different from other lobbying groups, apart from the emotional response that these sorts of things produce in the people who vote.

Israel on the other hand is very reliant on the US. It would still be well off economically in comparison with it's neighbours, but nothing like the most developed country in the region, which it is currently, without the astronomical amounts of aid it's had over decades. Militarilly the US is the elephant in the room with regard to Israels enemies. You can't attack Israel or the US will get involved.

So in answer neither. But the US has the controlling mechanisms in place if it ever wants to use them.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

Mind you I don't have to live next door to people who want me dead and consider me genetically evil.

You've obviously no told them you're a tory

One of the rare (but increasingly frequent disturbingly enough!) occasions where we are in broad agreement I think, so the smart arsed comment will have to suffice

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Depends what you mean by "control" I think. What I would say is that it would be very very difficult for someone who was not pro-Israel to get elected in the US (at least nationally). The Anti Defamation League would be all over them smearing them as anti-semitic, holocaust deniers etc. But that isn't really that different from other lobbying groups, apart from the emotional response that these sorts of things produce in the people who vote.

Israel on the other hand is very reliant on the US. It would still be well off economically in comparison with it's neighbours, but nothing like the most developed country in the region, which it is currently, without the astronomical amounts of aid it's had over decades. Militarilly the US is the elephant in the room with regard to Israels enemies. You can't attack Israel or the US will get involved.

So in answer neither. But the US has the controlling mechanisms in place if it ever wants to use them.

Largely agree, except perhaps wrt the depth of US support and willingness to get involved. That's a question of degree I think, and not as easy to predict post Iraq. Also I'm not sure the history of the US's involvement with Israel necessarily bears out the idea that it would offer unqualified support for, say, an expansionist programme backed by force. In 1967, for example, I believe many US strategists saw Arab-Israeli conflict as part of a larger cold war narrative and subordinate to it; there was therefore some pressure to inhibit Israeli expansion.

The one question I would ask is why you think Israel would be well off in comparison to its neighbours without US support. I can't really see a clear reason for this given the disparaties in natural resources.

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by wee 162

You've obviously no told them you're a tory

Shhhh.... I'm keeping it as quiet as possible!

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

Largely agree, except perhaps wrt the depth of US support and willingness to get involved. That's a question of degree I think, and not as easy to predict post Iraq. Also I'm not sure the history of the US's involvement with Israel necessarily bears out the idea that it would offer unqualified support for, say, an expansionist programme backed by force. In 1967, for example, I believe many US strategists saw Arab-Israeli conflict as part of a larger cold war narrative and subordinate to it; there was therefore some pressure to inhibit Israeli expansion.

The one question I would ask is why you think Israel would be well off in comparison to its neighbours without US support. I can't really see a clear reason for this given the disparaties in natural resources.

Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria do not have huge oil reserves The reason why I would say Israel would be richer or at least comparable with those nations would be that it was settled by a lot of people who had financial backing, plus the Jewish diaspora has continued to fund it over it's entire existence. The Zionists who started the settlement of Israel were funded in their land buying from the international Jewish community.

[am_moroccan]

bush in meadle east !

new scene in old theatre!

people are not blind anymore !

occupation had been done !

a nation was stolen !

palestinians are still suffering, striving , living !

bush is a puppet of Zionist lobby !

the next presedent will be in the same line.

we already know the next scene !

To be continued...

.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by am_moroccan

bush in meadle east !

new scene in old theatre!

people are not blind anymore !

occupation had been done !

a nation was stolen !

palestinians are still suffering, striving , living !

bush is a puppet of Zionist lobby !

the next presedent will be in the same line.

we already know the next scene !

To be continued...

.

I doubt any US president will be able to ignore the Jewish lobby, your right.

Not sure they stand alone in the blame for what was done to the Palestinians (including the UK) but I'm sure they would like to see a solution as well. Its a real sticky one as the Israelis are there now. What do they do, throw them off the land as well?

Not sure I know. Preferred option would be for everyone to get along and share the land irrespective of religion or race.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

Does Israel control the US or the US control Israel? Serious question for those inclined to answer it.

Too simplistic.

[HenryLB]

Just for interest here's the results of a poll carried out by Near East Consulting's Palestinian Peace Pulse in November. It makes interesting reading, I think.



Support or opposition to a peace settlement with Israel

Support 72%
Oppose 25.5%

Support or opposition to the Palestinian participation in the peace conference that will be held at the end of the month.

Support 71%
Oppose 26.5%

Should Hamas maintain its position on the elimination of the state of Israel?

Hamas should maintain its position on Israel 31%
Hamas should change its position regarding Israel 69%

Main issue that makes you feel concerned

The economic hardship 31%
The absence of security 25%
The internal power struggle 29%
The Israeli occupation in general 6%
Family problems 3%

The security situation in the Gaza Strip now is better than before Hamas took over, worse, or it did not change?

Better 14%
Worse 79%
The Same 6%

Trust in Abu Mazen versus trust in Ismael Hanieh

Abu Mazen 78%
Ismael Hanieh 22%

Factional trust

Fatah 46%
Hamas 13%
Others 9%
None 32%

(Hamas trust was 41% in January 2006. Fatah v Hamas trust is 46% v 16% in the Gaza strip)

Support or opposition to early PLC elections

Support: 77%
Oppose: 23%

Voting preference if early PLC elections are held next week

Fateh 69%
Hamas 15%
Others 16%

Attitude about the nature of the state, refugees, and Jerusalem

Two states for two people 53%
A one bi-national state in historic Palestine 15%
A Palestinian state on all historic Palestine 32%

Return to their original place of residence 61%
Return back to the new Palestinian state 24%
Compensation 15%

Jerusalem as an international capital 19%
East Jerusalem for Palestine and West for Israel 29%
A unfiied capital for both states 14%
A capital only for Palestine 38%


It's interesting that my suspicions about Hamas are backed up here. They really are fucking it all up by themselves. I also find it fascinating that the Israeli occupation rates low on the list of pressing concerns.

The most obvious burning issue is the right of return. Picking the bones out of that one, as mentioned earlier on this thread, is not going to be easy.

[alnewhaven]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

The problem with this - and I speak as someone who generally speaking supports the right of return - is that many Palestinians left of their own accord, mainly because they were advised to by the invading arab governments. This was done essentially so that their armies would be able to slaughter everybody in their path in what they assumed would be such an easy victory it would amount to a massacre.

In a more general sense the neighbouring countries to Israel are roughly 650 times its size, and many are extremely wealthy. I'm cynical of the intentions of the rulers of those countries as I think they have as much to gain by maintaining the "refugee" situation as Israel does. Probably more.

I agree that the occupation now looks illegal. But in that sense one could argue that parts of Poland should be returned to Germany. And would Jordan have first claim on the West Bank? I'm not suggesting it would be taken up, but legally speaking wouldn't that be the case?

Agree with your points re Palestinians leaving at the behest of the Arab countries and that their refugee status has been used for political ends.

Re the West Bank, I don't think that was intended to be part of Jordan in the first place but they remained there post 1948. The UN partition had this area as a Palestinian state.

Part of the problem today is too many nutters on both sides who don't want to see an agreement (ie, Rabin's assasination by a Jewish extremist and Arafats increasing isolation after he signed the peace deal) fuelled by Israel's guaranteed over reaction to any incident

[alnewhaven]

Originally Po