Posted on 09/16/2005 8:12:48 PM PDT by hipaatwo
Under Condoleezza Rice, U.S. foreign policy continues to veer in the direction of the "Arabism" of her mentor Brent Scowcroft and James Baker. Diana West points to the latest evidence. First, according to West (who cites worldtribune.com), the Bush adminstration snubbed Israel's efforts to provide aid in the early aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Then, once it finally accepted Israel's aid, the State Department apparently omitted Israel's name from the list of countries participating in the relief effort, a list that touts Arab aid-givers. These affronts may be less the work of Rice than of Karen Hughes, to whom President Bush has assigned the task of "presenting an image of a benign America sensitive to the Arab and Muslim world," in other words sucking up to Arabs at Israel's expense.
But snubbing Israel is never going to be enough to convince Arabs that we're benign and sensitive. We have to back up our gestures with funds that can be used to attack Israel and (until we've sufficiently established our bona fides) the U.S. itself. Thus, West reports, the U.S. will double its payments to the Palestinian Authority, even as the PA's "Voice of Palestine" exhorts the Muslim faithful to attack Americans in Iraq, and the PA's Ministry of Culture releases a collection of poetry honoring a bomber who killed 29 Israeli Jews and Arabs in 2003.
Which brings us to the synagogue burnings in Gaza. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas justifies this horror as his people "expressing their emotions." But if their core emotion is hatred of Jews and their religion, why are we subsidizing their would-be representative? Especially when that representative fuels these murderous emotions at every turn. As Ariel Cohen puts it:
The Palestinian Authority leadership has done nothing to disarm Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or its own terrorist Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. It instead promotes genocidal hatred and then steps aside while synagogues burn or Jews and Christians are attacked. Not much at all has changed since Yasser Arafat failed as the leader of a would-be new state, but the stakes are getting even higher. If a Palestinian state is founded on the lethal mix of Arab chauvinism and radical Islam, it will serve as a base for international terrorism against Israel, Europe and the U.S., with al Qaeda and Hezbollah calling the shots. Burying our heads in the sand will simply not bring peace one step closer.
Nor will subsidizing the terrorists.
I just heard something VERY interesting listening to the actual presser from the State Department for SEPTEMBER 1 which was the Monday after the storm..16 FULL DAYS before Diane West's 'article' claiming that Israel had been slighted, etc. They mention the aid offer from ISRAEL. So this needs to be sent to Powerline. I knew this did not pass the smell test. Go listen for yourself:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2005/
It says Israel offered aid.
The Monday after the storm, yes I said Tuesday because it was Tuesday in Israel.
The aid could have been there the next day.
It wasn't, because the US turned it down.
Israel offered aid, you've established that, the US turned it down.
This is common knowledge. What is your point?
The spokesman for the State Department said in the presser: "The US will accept ALL offers of foreign assisstance". What is it that you don't understand about that? Also my point is that Diane West wrote her article on the 17th claiming that Israel was not mentioned in the briefing the day before. Israel was mentioned a full 16 days prior. I see absolutely NO PROOF that the US turned down aid from Israel. That is my point.
actually my bad..I had the calender turned to the wrong month..lol. the state department briefing that i linked to would have been thursday after the storm (still Israel was mentioned a full 16 days before Diane West article). Going to listen to the other days. I know this is sounding silly, but I want to know the truth at this point and so far we have proven one lie. The US DID mention Israel's offer of assistance, which makes the rest of the article suspect.
seems someone else got to the bottom of this on the other forum discussion:
From the Republican Jewish Coalition E-Newsletter of 9/9/05:
Bush administration thanks Israel for contributing to the hurricane relief effort
An erroneous article released by The World Tribune and circulated in an email campaign, suggests that anti-Israel sentiment by State Department officials led them to refuse Israeli aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
While The World Tribune claims the Bush administration “asked Israel to postpone sending aid,” and that “The United States has avoided any mention of Israeli participation in the international aid effort for the victims of Hurricane Katrina” – this is simply not the case.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and President Bush have welcomed relief support from any country, and have publicly applauded many nations, including Israel for their support. At the swearing-in ceremony for Karen Hughes as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, President Bush thanked those nations that had offered aid to the Gulf region:
Think of this, Afghanistan has pledged a hundred thousand dollars to aid -- in aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Ambassador, thank you. Canada has sent ships with disaster supplies. Air Canada -- Air Canada's planes assisted in the evacuation. Israel sent tents and mineral water and medical supplies. Italy has sent beds and sheets and blankets and inflatable rafts to help with rescue efforts. Kuwait has pledged $400 million in oil and a hundred million dollars in humanitarian aid. Qatar and the UAE has pledged $100 million each. Sri Lanka, one of the world's most impoverished nations that is struggling to overcome the effects of the tsunami, has sent a donation of $25,000.
As the JTA reports, relief not immediately accepted by the United States may have been the result of “bureaucratic difficulties involved in absorbing thousands of foreign first-responder personnel,” in addition to a miscalculation of necessary relief assistance.
The RJC takes issue with this mischaracterization of the Bush administration and reminds the Jewish community – both here and abroad – of the tremendous support President Bush has given to the government and people of Israel."
I would say that this is the end of the whole matter. Have a nice day and be careful in the future what you propagate on the internet. This kind of stuff is not helpful.
Israel has been mentioned in most acknowledgements, excluded in some, which is fine, and on the State Dept list..
The incident has been reported in numerous publications, not just the World Tribune in similar terms.
Like it or not the Israeli government offered aid, trauma teams, divers, supplies and the like.
The US "deferrred" the request.
The trauma teams are reservists and active duty, hard to reflag. They weren't needed, coincidentally.
Zaka, a private organization, was welcome, as the articles have indicated. Private, not governmental.
The unneeded Israeli divers suddenly turned up as volunteers. The delegation is being coordinated by IsraAID (the Israel Forum for International Aid), a non-governmental group funded by donations mainly from American Jews. Gal Lousky, the head of the delegation, said it expects to depart Tuesday and has all the permits necessary. Private, not governmental.
Ironically "Israeli's" physical aid began arriving the day before the RJC article.
Supplied by IsraAid, a private charity, not Israel, and flown on El Al, not the IAF.
Like it or not, the facts fit the report that an Israeli presence was unwelcome, only private, charitable relief. It appears the contension that At one point, the administration signaled that it would accept Israeli help, but preferred that it be as part of a mission organized by the American Jewish community," an official said. "There appeared to a problem with having the Israeli flag in a foreign rescue mission in the United States is supported by the facts.
By the way, while I support the RJC, they're no more a definitive source than the NJDC.
This is something that keeps cropping up here.
Some of us continue to blame the State Department for foreign policy that we do not like or agree with such as this stupid Land for Peace that has, is and will continue to fail .
Some of us blamed Powell and now blame Rice for our policies in the middle East and the way we treat Israel and pour money into the terrorists organization the PLO. Some blame the INS, Immigration and the State department for the mess along our borders.
Whether we like it or not these departments reflect the decisions made by the President of the United States whoever he may be at the time, period.
It is the President through his administration who sets the foreign policy.
If the Secretary of State does not implement the policy decisions of the President then they should be and will be fired.
Now either the President is in charge and these are his decisions and decisions he supports or he is not in control of his own people.
So when it comes to these issues [Israel,PLO, War on Terror,Borders] the President whoever he is at the time, is either right, wrong, or incompetent.
Those who give him credit when things go right but blame those around around him when things go wrong are neither fair or reasoned people, just fans.
You're right, beyond the first six to nine months, State should be responding to White House policy. It's his policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.