Posted on 01/10/2008 1:44:39 PM PST by Wiz
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush, hardening his tone towards Israel on Thursday, urged an end to "the occupation" of the West Bank and pushed for a peace treaty to be signed within a year to create a Palestinian state.
ADVERTISEMENT
The United States rarely uses the politically charged word "occupation" to describe Israel's hold on lands captured in a 1967 war. It is a term Palestinians seeking a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip employ frequently to describe their plight.
"The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it," Bush said in a statement he read to reporters in a Jerusalem hotel.
Bush's language, after he traveled to the West Bank city of Ramallah past Israeli checkpoints and settlements, could cause political pain to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose right-wing coalition partners usually bridle at such remarks.
"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967," Bush said. He had earlier met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and visited Bethlehem, also in the West Bank.
Bush pressed the Palestinians to rein in militants. He said any negotiations must also ensure Israel has "secure, recognized and defensible borders" alongside a "viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent" Palestine.
Challenging skeptics of his new push for peace on the first U.S. presidential visit to Ramallah, he told a news conference with Abbas: "I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office."
An Israeli official said Bush's remarks were the basis for moving forward with negotiations.
"We accept them. We see them as consistent with understandings with the Americans and as a positive foundation for moving forward," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Okkk-yoooo-paaayyy-shun!!!!!”
Can we add “I’m getting very unokkkyooopayshunt with all this stupidity. Shut up, sit down and leave Israel alone.”?
When it comes to international relations, I think he’s been dismally inadequate. Perhaps that’s an inappropriate assessment. While there’s been little flash in the pan, he may have been active in the background. I just don’t see much evidence of it.
Russia, that had been drawing closer to the West, has gone bonkers moving towards China. Where was any summit to let them know we valued a relationship? Did we give Putin any pyrrhic victories to give him some international standing? It seems to me we snubbed the guy, and it hasn’t helped international relations or the people of Russia.
Some of the problems with France and Germany could have been avoided IMO. Even our relations with China could have been managed better than Bill Clinton did, but no that wasn’t even on Bush’s radar. And that’s even after the P3 incident.
Well, that’s the view from curmudgeon central. I’m sure there are those who think these thoughts are way off base.
Well I’m not sure about China, but it’s as reasoned as what we’re advocating. It is unrealistic of us not to turn over Washington, D.C. to the indians who have ancient claims to the place. We’re so evil...
Israel is a friend of ours. It is amazing to me how unrealistic our leadership is concerning their situation.
Bush has indeed finally jumped the shark (a phrase I saw another Freeper post yesterday). This is the culmination of his unfortunate performance in international relations. Well, that’s the say I see it.
I just hope he doesn’t set up a situation that will plague us for decades, like Carter did in Iran and a few other places.
Come on January 20th, 2009. It can’t come soon enough.
Ping
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.