Posted on 01/09/2006 7:46:28 PM PST by strategofr
Sunday night Jan 8, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice discussed the forthcoming Palestinian elections to the legislative council on the telephone with Palestinian Authority chairman Abu Mazen.
Jerusalem was not briefed, DEBKAfile’s political sources report.
Twelve hours later, the US consul in Jerusalem Jacob Walles visited Abu Mazen’s office in Ramallah with an oral message from President George W. Bush. According to our sources, it was a presidential guarantee that all the Palestinian parties running for election on Jan 25 would be allowed to campaign openly in East Jerusalem, eligible voters in the city would be permitted to cast their votes through local post offices, and the voter slips of all Palestinian parties without exception would be available in the balloting booths.
The Israeli government was not informed of the extraordinary step taken by Bush over its head and in respect of Israeli sovereign territory.
The step has some disturbing implications:
1. The Bush administration took advantage of Ehud Olmert’s having been less than a week in the job of acting prime minister and treated his reluctance to undertake firm decisions - as long as prime minister Ariel Sharon’s condition was uncertain -as a leadership vacuum in Jerusalem. Without a word, administration officials marked down the goings-on around Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem and Olmert’s slowness to rise to the challenge.
3. Olmert’s failure to come down decisively on the Jerusalem issue has a serious consequence: Washington’s intercession enables the terrorist Hamas group to fly its green flags and hold rallies on Temple Mount with its standard calls for jihad against Israel, as well as piling its voter slips at Israeli government post offices as an option for the Palestinian voter. By this device, the backhanded recognition of a Palestinian terrorist organization sworn to destroy the Jewish state has been thrust down the interim government’s throat.
4. The Bush administration showed no consideration for Olmert’s efforts to find his feet as head of government, bid for the leadership of Kadima party and fight a tough election.
Governing circles in Jerusalem were stunned by the White House action. They asked if Bush wanted Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud to win the March election having awarded him the edge on the Jerusalem issue. Part of the shock derived from the Israeli ministers’ mistaken conviction that Abu Mazen would postpone the election to prevent the Hamas beating his ruling Fatah. DEBKAfile’s sources repeatedly reported that the White House would insist on the Palestinian vote taking place on schedule – even at the price of a Hamas win and regardless of Sharon’s indisposition and a transitional administration very much at sea in Jerusalem.
There are still hopes in Israeli government circles that the two US officials David
Welch and Elliot Abrams due this week will help moderate some of the particulars of the Bush pledge to the Palestinian leader. But the chances of this are slim.
It became a cold war issue post 67, and particularly into the 70s. And of course after "peace" with Egypt, an obligation to maintain Israeli military superiority in recognition of the tactical disadvantage of returning the Sinai. For the second time. The first time around Eisenhower pledged to maintain Israel's free access to the Red Sea through the Straits of Tiran. LBJ reniged on that pledge when Egypt expelled the UN force from the Sinai, began moving in troops, and blockaded the Straits in May, 1967, leading to the 1967 war. One can only speculate what would have happened had LBJ and the UN stood up to Egypt.
The quote is mine. And it comes from basic research. The term "Palestinian" was not in wide-spread use until after '48. Palestine is frequently referenced throughout history but I believe some of the earliest inhabitants of Palestine were the Hebrew/Jewish people.
Bush is wrong, have the stones to say so. That doesn't qualify as "Bush-bashing" or "anti-American".
---Bush may be wrong, but he is not an appeaser of terrorists, and
that is the undercurrent I sense in many of the Middle East threads on FR..it is Bush-bashing to consider him such and it is anti-American to imply that the US doesn't care about the security of an ally.
Late in the nineteenth century when Zionist Jews started returning to what the Romans had named Palestine (rather as an insult to the Jews in that it is based on Philistine), it was still populated with many Christians and Muslims who are the Semitic descendants of Jews, Canaanites, Philistines, Turks and various others who had passed through.
Neither have I seen anyone indicate that we don't care about the securtity of an ally. I HAVE seen that many people are upset that we are not supporting our ally. And I would agree with that. Equating that with un-Americanism is convenient, but silly.
"My biggest problem is that I am an angry white male who has a tendency to shoot my mouth off. I'm Archie Bunkers long lost son.:P"
LOL! That's cool.
"The story in #19."
If you read carefully between the lines, I think you can see that the article is probably a "government sanitized" version of the DEbKa-described events. The Israeli government is not going to announce that the US just bitch-slapped them.
Debka: Washington’s intercession enables the terrorist Hamas group to fly its green flags and hold rallies on Temple Mount with its standard calls for jihad against Israel, as well as piling its voter slips at Israeli government post offices as an option for the Palestinian voter. By this device, the backhanded recognition of a Palestinian terrorist organization sworn to destroy the Jewish state has been thrust down the interim government’s throat.
The Truth: "Extremist organizations working against peace will not be permitted to campaign. Fatah will be allowed to campaign, but not Hamas."
Egypt and Jordan recognize Israels right to exist.
Both micro manage continued *Badal [Revenge] on Israel.
Egypt..[Cough]....over 100 tunnels...weapons are pouring into Gaza.
West Bank is not Gaza....different clans and ties.
Their goodies come in thru Jordanian intrigues.
Not a chance Saudi's are anywhere in all of this [rolling eye's]
The dinner bell rings for Jersualem...the salivating contuinues.
Bush Senior said openly...."New world order"
Of course.....Jerusalem has nothing to do with new world order.[sarcasm]
Order up....
"Jerusalem,Jerusalem,.....cheeseburger.....Pepsi,Pepsi" : )
LOL Debka is sometimes inaccurate/ they get feeds from intelligence buddies of theirs who have an agenda/ but this one has the ring of truth
Happy nuevo Christopher Isherwood new year
The president is right.
Remember he's the president.
Mythology and fairy tales.
And people still fall for this nonsense and then they ask: "What happened?" "Why did it happen?"
Well were going to find out how mythological the Bible is in a relatively short time...where does it put you if this turns out to be the truth?
As is your ability to throw out liberal cliches.
The Palis of every flavor, Hamas, Fatah, Yomama, etcetera have not renounced their goal of Israel's destruction but annealed in it thanks to our leaders' tacit approval.
Saudis use our leaders as dogs to clean scraps under their table.
Surely if Netanyahu looks like a serious contender some U.S. shill a la Carville will be dispatched to smear him with a typically tawdry scandal--or a convenient stroke.
Let us not talk falsely now; the hour is getting late.
"No not quite. The Debka story made a big point that Hamas would be able to campaign. That is/was a blatant lie!"
Not necessarily a lie. I see what you mean: the stories are different. But the Debka story had more accuracy than inaccuracy. And it may be that the original US formulation included a right for Hamas to campaign---something the Israelis were able to modify through negotiation.
Either you lack an understanding of how breaking news stories can have inaccuracies or change (and thus you display a curious mix of intelligence and stupidity) or you are being deliberately provacative.
"they get feeds from intelligence buddies of theirs who have an agenda"
I realize this would be bound to happen. They must be dependent on the Mossad for much of their material. But I figure: 1) they analyze to counter that as best they can, 2)lying too much would be counterproductive for the Mossad here, and 3)you can sort of tell which stories come from the Mossad anyway. If category (3)has some inaccuracy, it is nonetheless entertaining.
Besides, do we think the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times never get fed anything by the CIA?
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.