Bush says Israel has right to defend itself but urges restraint

Haaretz ^ | 7/13/2006 | News Agencies

[Sabramerican]

Bush says Israel has right to defend itself but urges restraint

By Haaretz Service and News Agencies

U.S. President George W. Bush said on Thursday that Israel had a right to defend itself against terrorist acts but it should not weaken the Beirut government.

"Israel has the right to defend herself," Bush told a news conference after a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"Secondly, whatever Israel does should not weaken the...government in Lebanon."

Advertisement

The president's comment came in response to the escalating violence between Israel and Lebanon, on Thursday after IAF warplanes carried out strikes in Lebanon in retalliation to Hezbollah's abduction of two soldiers a day earlier.

On Thursday, a U.S. administration official gave a response on condition of anonymity regarding the crisis.

"We are urging restraint on both sides, recognizing Israel's right to defend itself," the Uofficial said.

The European Union on Thursday called on all sides to halt the renewed violence in the Middle East and take care to avoid more civilian casualties.

"I've always felt that Israel has a right to ensure its security but I've also said that disproportionate attacks are not useful," EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel told reporters.

"I regret the fact that the reaction was disproportionate."

EU spokeswoman Emma Udwin said EU foreign ministers could discuss on Monday whether the IDF attacks on Lebanon were compatible with the bloc's trade and cooperation agreement with Israel, which is conditional on respect for international law.

She stressed, however, that the EU recognized "Israel's right to defend itself." Israel's military action came after a cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerillas in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and several others were killed.

[SJackson]

In case you haven't noticed, we depend greatly on Pakistan, Iraqi muslims, Afghani allies and others to prosecute the war on terror. The President is fully aware Israel will do what it has to do. Why should the President of the USA inflame those on whom we rely, in addition?

This is the White House statement from yesterday.

White House Statement on Condemnation of Hizballah Kidnapping of Two Israeli Soldiers

For Immediate Release
Office of the White House Press Secretary July 12, 2006 Statement on Condemnation of Hizballah Kidnapping of Two Israeli Soldiers

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060712.html

Today Hizballah terrorists operating from Lebanon kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and launched rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel. The United States condemns in the strongest terms this unprovoked act of terrorism, which was timed to exacerbate already high tensions in the region and sow further violence. We also hold Syria and Iran, which have provided long-standing support for Hizballah, responsible for today's violence. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers.

Hizballah's terrorist operations threaten Lebanon's security and are an affront to the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government. Hizballah's actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. We reiterate the international community's insistence that all parties in the region fulfill their obligations under UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680, and cease all support for Hizballah.

It acknowledges the situation, and identifies the responsibe parties.

Please explain to me how that statement inflames our Pakistani (who just attacked our Indian non-ally), Iraqi, and Afghani Muslim allies.

The State Dept. followed your advice and added

All sides must act with restraint to resolve this incident peacefully and to protect innocent life and civilian infrastructure.

to their statement. Apparently the WH followed State advice today.

Do you really believe that our Pakistani Iraqi, and Afghani Muslim allies are now pleased with the US, after being angry yesterday? If so, I'd love to know what you base that on.

Do you think the terrorists are pleased by a call for restraint? I do, based on the fact that world opinion is how they end their conflicts prior to destruction. That implact the US as well as Israel.

[ichabod1]

It's diplo-talk

There ought to be a dictionary of diplospeak for the peanut gallery. I realize that they have a number of words to describe certain things because if they didn't and everybody interpreted everything fresh each time nothing would get done. It's like email -- it's SO easy to insult someone when you had no intention of doing so because you aren't in their frame of reference when you write it and words mean different things to different people.

For example, one of the problems with the Iraq war was that the final resolution warned of "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't come clean. Now, to you and me that sounds pretty bad, and the Admin spins it that way. But really, in diplo, "serious" is pretty mild. "Grave" would be the word one would expect to precede a full scale invasion.

For the record I support the war 100% and I hate diplo, just so we don't get sidetracked. Oh, and I support Israel first to last, right or wrong.

[dinoparty]

Who says we aren't supporting Israel? Since when does support require public approval of annihilation of the entire muslim world, regardless of our fragile interests in the region, as you appear to propose?

[McGavin999]

14 out of 128 seats is nothing. The new government is still in it's infancy. Syria has just been removed as the "power" and the Lebonese people are attempting to gain their freedom. There are still Syrian intelligence behind the scenes.

Yes, you can attack Hizbollah by attacking their strong centers in the south and Beka Valley. You can also send in SF to find the leaders and take them out where ever they are. The smart thing for Israel to do is to say "We do not declare war on the Lebonese people, we declare war on Hizbollah and those who protect them."

[trisham]

It's so easy for armchair generals like you to call BS on this, and WOT my a** on that, when it's quite clear that the WOT has been and continues to be a success--unless you have a suicide bombing in your neighborhood to report. Those who toss the hot rhetioric--which is all you've done in two posts--sit comfortably while our President and the soldiers under him are the targets of backstabbing Dems, and unfair media, and real violence.

***************

Wow. Great post.

[trisham]

Friends and allies don't ask a friend at war, while it's cities are being bombed, to show restraint.

*************

Public statements may be quite different from private statements and promises of support.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Restraint. That means Islael should use only small nukes.

[SJackson]

It's diplo-talk and fairly mild at that. I don't believe we want the Lebanese govt thrown out and that's what the real message was.

I understand diplo-talk, which essentially involves delivering contradictory public and private messages. It's what governments do.

Note the contradictory statements from the White House and State yesterday. They appear to have resolved their disagreement. But that's not diplo-talk, it's public infighting. That demonstrates weakness. Sort out the issues before hand and present a unified public message.

IMO, State should follow the President's lead. They're not a separate branch. A defiant State Dept, contravening the WH and leaking, has been a problem throughout the Bush years.

[McGavin999]

14 out of 128! That is a very small portion of the government and, considering their stronghold is in the south, it's a very very small portion of the government.

Israel should capitalize on the fact that one of the soldiers kidnapped was a Druze! Lebanon is going to be their neighbor for a very long time, it's time to seperate the wheat fromt he chaff.

[Sabramerican]

The enemy hears the public statements and gets nourishment.

[dinoparty]

I'm not sure I understand your point or question. If your question is whether the statement yesterday by state might have angered our muslim allies -- I'm sure it probably did to some extent, but I've never claimed it can be avoided. My only point is that there is no NEED for the USA to use unrestrained hostile language now, as it will accomplish NOTHING but angering our muslim allies MUCH MORE. Israel is perfectly capable of handling this thing, and will.

[ichabod1]

I think it may come to that horror of total war against these countries and the annihilation of the infrastructure, regardless of impact on civilians to finally cow the arab population enough to allow representative governments to take root.

Which is really another way of saying that the governments ARE representative.

[trisham]

Restraint. That means Islael should use only small nukes.

*****************

I guess it helps to know the language.

[trisham]

The enemy hears the public statements and gets nourishment.

**************

You have a point there. However, I'm not going to publicly criticize our President when I have no knowledge of what is happening privately between him and the other parties involved. That gives the enemy nourishment as well.

[SJackson]

Yes, you can attack Hizbollah by attacking their strong centers in the south and Beka Valley. You can also send in SF to find the leaders and take them out where ever they are. The smart thing for Israel to do is to say "We do not declare war on the Lebonese people, we declare war on Hizbollah and those who protect them."

Essentially that's what Israel has said. They've described the attack as an act of war, which it is, but have stopped just short of acknowledging a total war against Lebanon. However Hizbollah is a fundamental part of the government (Muslims, mostly supporters are just under half the assembly). There's no way you can wage war on Hizbollah without damaging Lebanese infrastructure. The supplies needed in the south and the Bekka Valley enter the country openly, through the ports and by air. They cross bridges and traverse roads. And as always in that part of the world, facilities are located in civilian areas. Those are all legitimate targets. You can't attack them without attacking Lebanon or impacting the government.

[ichabod1]

It was necessary to destroy the ville in order to save it.

[dinoparty]

One thing we can all agree on: The French have again shown their wretchedness. Perhaps that alleged statement to the soccer player about him being a terrorist was accurate, based on the country name on his uniform.

[ichabod1]

Israel should capitalize on the fact that one of the soldiers kidnapped was a Druze!

I noticed that. Most of America has probably forgotten, or never knew, that Druze is a moslem sect.