Bush 'Deeply Troubled' by Israeli Strike

AP ^ | 06/10/03 | SCOTT LINDLAW

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON - President Bush scolded Israel on Tuesday for a helicopter attack on a senior Hamas leader that killed a bystander and a bodyguard, warning that such a strike "does not contribute to the security of Israel."

The strike came less than a week after Bush launched the "road map" toward Middle East peace he helped craft at a summit with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

"The president is deeply troubled by the strike of helicopter gunships that reportedly killed at least two persons and wounded 20 others," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "The president is concerned that this strike will undermine efforts by Palestinian authorities to bring an end to terrorist attacks, and it does not contribute to the security of Israel."

Abbas denounced the helicopter strike as a "criminal and terrorist" Israeli attack, and asked the United States to intervene.

Bush said after the summit in Aqaba, Jordan, last week that he would seek to keep the parties on the path to peace if he saw them straying. The prepared statement issued from Fleischer's lectern seemed to be in keeping with that.

"What's important in this new environment is for Palestinians and Israelis to find ways to work together on the path to peace," Fleischer said. "This is going to require both the Palestinian Authority and Israel to find new ways to protect the road map so it can advance to face terrorism."

"In looking at the progress that must be made for the road map and looking at this attack, the president is deeply troubled by it," Fleischer said.

The White House has often tempered such warnings to Israel by emphasizing that "Israel has a right to defend itself," and Fleischer repeated that language Tuesday.

But, he added: "Israel has to act on that right in a manner that is consistent with larger objectives, and in this case the president views this as deeply troubling."

In the attack Tuesday, Israeli helicopters fired missiles at a car carrying Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the most high-profile political leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas to be targeted by Israel in 32 months of fighting. Rantisi said he jumped out of his car when he heard the choppers overhead. He was injured and underwent surgery.

After the attack, Hamas threatened revenge "that will be like an earthquake."

"We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land," Rantisi told the Arab TV satellite station Al-Jazeera from his hospital bed.

Abbas accused Israel of trying to destroy the "road map" plan to get out of its commitments.

At the same time, Israeli troops dismantled 10 tiny, uninhabited settlement outposts in the West Bank overnight, in line with the first requirements of the peace plan.

But the road map also says Israel must refrain from actions that undermine trust. It does not specifically rule out the targeted killings of Palestinian militants.

Israel said after its acceptance of the plan last month that it would from now on reserve the practice of targeted killings to "ticking bomb" scenarios, as a last means of preventing attacks on Israelis.

[section9]

Now, now, wipe the spittle off your keyboard. Emotionalism is unbecoming.

No, I don't imagine Mossad to be all-knowing and all able. In all probability, however, it was either Mossad or Shin Bet who knew that the boss terrorist was in the convoy in the first place. They would have transmitted the information to the chopper. This isn't fantasy stuff, if you had, but for a moment, stopped slobbering all over the keyboard and considered how the Israelis knew he was in that car, you might have chosen to see it my way.

But, since this has turned into a silly little manhood contest with me, I can't expect you to ask the right questions.

However, in the grand tradition of hitting a fly with a sledgehammer, the IDF missed its target and took out civilians, instead. Not good, for either diplomacy or the mission at hand. The Israelis forgot to consider what would happen if they missed, which was unforgivable. I stand by my assertion that they should have used more covert, but much more certain, methods, no matter what the cost.

Killing off the leadership of Hamas is essential. Doing it with a minimum of "collateral damage" is preferable to forcing your Palestinian negotiating partner to play the nationalist card after a Hamas leader was almost "martyred".

BTW, you get two Batboys for showing up and actually making a stab at some sort of argument, but no more, as you descended into ad hominem once again.

Do try again when you have something to bring to the table, and please, lose the allcaps when you say "YOU". Screaming and banging the table is no substitute for actual argument.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[DoughtyOne]

I believe your comments reflect the only perception an honest thinking person could derive from current events. And like you I gain no particular pleasure disagreeing with the current administration with regard to this issue. Still I can not justify any other action than to do so.

[NittanyLion]

Sharon himself referred to the need to end the occupation of the territories.

That's a reasonable position. What is unreasonable is expecting Israel to sit idly by while its citizens are targeted.

Bush has clearly and repeatedly stated his intention to establish a peaceful, viable Palestinian state. Did you think he was lying?

Not at all - indeed I believe he wants that very much. I simply question his methods.

[cicero's_son]

What is unreasonable is expecting Israel to sit idly by while its citizens are targeted.

Yes. And, in turn, it's unreasonable to expect the radical elements among the Palestinians to sit idly by and accept more civilian casualties as mere collateral damage.

I simply question his methods.

People are always questioning this President's methods. Yet he manages to get a hell of a lot more right than he does wrong.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would transform not only the Middle East, but the world. It would incalculably enhance our own security and prosperity, and it would do the same for Israel. It is a most worthy goal, but it will require tremendous sacrifices on both sides.

[NittanyLion]

Yes. And, in turn, it's unreasonable to expect the radical elements among the Palestinians to sit idly by and accept more civilian casualties as mere collateral damage.

You're confusing cause and effect. The civilian casualties are a direct consequence of Palestinian terrorism. If the terror were to stop, so would the civilian casualties. The reverse is not true.

I might add that equating collateral damage in attacks on Palestinian terrorists to Israeli civilian casualties in homicide bombings is clearly wrong.

People are always questioning this President's methods. Yet he manages to get a hell of a lot more right than he does wrong.

I happen to agree. But on this, he's wrong.

[DoughtyOne]

Look, I am as "pro-Israel" as anyone on this forum, but it is insanity to ignore the context of these attacks (and, for that matter, the context of the attacks against us).

Are you trying to make the claim that there is some contextual vindication for these attacks?  If not, what are you trying to say?

Sharon himself referred to the need to end the occupation of the territories. Bush has clearly and repeatedly stated his intention to establish a peaceful, viable
Palestinian state. Did you think he was lying?

Let's get something on the record here.  What is occupation?  Did Israel or did it not allow the Palestinian authority to develop some sembelence of autonomy, devising it's own laws, ways of enforcing them and self-governance?  The anwer is yes, it did.  Israel itself armed the West Bank's police, then withdrew it's forces from the West Bank and Gaza.  When did that come to an end?  Well it still hasn't completely.  The Palestinians just approved a new Prime Minister.  In other ways, the self-determination has been impacted. So has the withdrawel of Israeli forces. Why?

In the year 2000 an intense peace process saw Barak make many concessions and promises in the interest of peace.  Arafat rejected it on the behalf of the Palestinian people and immediately called for an(other, what is it something like 10 different active) antifada(s).  Since that time Arafat's police force fired on the Israelis and suffered a debilitating strike on it's abilities to conduct business.  What did Arafat expect?

When bombings occurred, the Israelis moved back into the West Bank during excursions.  Once again, what did Arafat expect?  Of course the answer is, he got just what he expected.  But he knew he could blame Israel as the real roadblock to middle east peace and the rest of the world, including the US would buy off on it.  And he was right.

Sharon's comments about the occupation of the territories was one of the worst examples of thoughtless public pronouncements I've seen in my lifetime.  It gave creedence to Arafat's claims regarding occupation.  And that's traggic considering Israeli soldiers wouldn't be in the territories if it weren't for Arafats own flawed decisions.

As for Bush's intention to establish a peaceful viable Palestinian state, he can only establish the Palestinian state.  He cannot make it peaceful or viable if Arafat continues his actions unabated.  As for whether there was a lie involved, I'll leave that up to the reader's own interpretation.

[cicero's_son]

You're confusing cause and effect. The civilian casualties are a direct consequence of Palestinian terrorism. If the terror were to stop, so would the civilian casualties. The reverse is not true.

And the Palestinians will say, "the Isreali deaths are the direct consequence of the illegal occupation." And so it goes on and on, ad infinitum. Every time an Israeli gunship inflicts "collateral damage" on innocent bystanders, more suicide bombers are born. And so the process repeats itself endlessly.

The grievances on both sides are deep. The casualties and costs in both societies are enormous. Yet the fact remains: there are only two solutions to the problem, Peace or Genocide. It's really that simple.

[bvw]

In addition to your bandwidth graphics inanity that YOU (yes, my friend, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU) impose on the rest of us, claptrap that adds nothing to a discussion, and detracts from it ... maybe it was CUTE (or should I say CUTE, CUTE, CUTE, CUTE?) back in the pre-cambrian age of your stay at free republic, but it's just insufferable inanity now ... in addition to that you show that your ability to compare small to big is impared. Let's take a lesson, okay, Chris?

Here, imagine a big ball, I mean really big, A big red, hot ball. You can imagine that, right Chris?

We call it the SUN (or if I may pound the table, the SUN, SUN SUN SUN SUN, etc.). And you need to get out more in it. I suspect it's a BEAUTIFUL day were you live. And the SUN produces a thing we call LIGHT. Light is very good for the complexion, Chris. If you make a habit of getting out in the SUN more, maybe your mom and dad will save money on your ACCUTANE prescription. Your zits will clear up.

So let's review the lesson so far ... the SUN, that's BIG. A BIG, hot, red ball. Don't stare at it, Chris. I know it's new to you, but it might hurt your eyes. Once again, the SUN is BIG.

So let's talk about SMALL. Imagine the ball in the pinball machine. You've seen them, right Chris? That's a SMALL ball.

Now which is bigger, Chris? the SUN, or a pinball? It's not hard ... I know you are unfamiliar with the SUN, but take my word it's pretty big. So which is bigger?

Try Chris, try. .

[churchillbuff]

I'm 'deeply saddened' that Bush is 'deeply troubled.'

Why is American policy to be judged through the perspective of Sharon's political party? I'm an American first, not a Likud member first. I don't judge Bush by whether he agrees with or pleases any other world leader - be it Blair, Chirac, Mugabe, Fox or anybody else - - - so why is he to be judged by whether he agrees with everything Sharon does? That suggests one's primary allegiance is to Sharon, not US interests.

[NittanyLion]

And the Palestinians will say, "the Isreali deaths are the direct consequence of the illegal occupation." And so it goes on and on, ad infinitum. Every time an Israeli gunship inflicts "collateral damage" on innocent bystanders, more suicide bombers are born. And so the process repeats itself endlessly.

By an independent examination of the facts, the Palestinians would be wrong. I don't mean this in an accusatory sense, but there are an overwhelming number of Americans who simply equate Palestinian violence with Israeli violence; I attribute that to intellectual laziness. Don't fall into that trap.

The grievances on both sides are deep. The casualties and costs in both societies are enormous. Yet the fact remains: there are only two solutions to the problem, Peace or Genocide. It's really that simple.

That's a nice soundbyte. Like any rational person, I choose Peace. Now how do we go about attaining it? Will it happen by Israel conceding on 100% of open issues, and the PA demanding an ever-increasing list of concessions? By Israel taking no actions to bring those who murder its citizens to justice? That's the position you're advocating.

[churchillbuff]

You're confusing cause and effect.

Maybe Bush's critics are doing the same thing. The Sharon agressive policy hasn't stopped terrorism --- terrorism has been a perpetual problem while Sharon's been in power, but people don't point their fingers at him and blame his policies every time Israel suffers a terrorist attack. But now that Bush is pushing a new policy, people point their fingers and blame him when there's a new terrorist attack. Why is his policy to blame for a problem that was there just as much under Sharon's policy?

[Jimmyclyde]

Just for the record, I'm sitting back and enjoying the back and forth.

Making popcorn now.....

[NittanyLion]

Maybe Bush's critics are doing the same thing. The Sharon agressive policy hasn't stopped terrorism --- terrorism has been a perpetual problem while Sharon's been in power, but people don't point their fingers at him and blame his policies every time Israel suffers a terrorist attack. But now that Bush is pushing a new policy, people point their fingers and blame him when there's a new terrorist attack.

I point my fingers at the PA and blame them. Where I find fault with the President is in his notion that the PA will be appeased if Israel doesn't respond to terrorist attacks.

Why is his policy to blame for a problem that was there just as much under Sharon's policy?

Honestly, I don't understand what you meant to say.

Bottom line: the "Bush Doctrine" is one of preemption. And rightfully so, IMHO. What Pres. Bush proposes for Israel is the exact opposite of what he proposes for the US. One or the other is right, but it can't be both.

[DoughtyOne]

You're confusing cause and effect. The civilian casualties are a direct consequence of Palestinian terrorism. If the terror were to stop, so would the
civilian casualties. The reverse is not true.

And the Palestinians will say, "the Isreali deaths are the direct consequence of the illegal occupation." And so it goes on and on, ad infinitum. Every time an Israeli
gunship inflicts "collateral damage" on innocent bystanders, more suicide bombers are born. And so the process repeats itself endlessly.

The Palestinians can say whatever they like.  It's up to the intelligent person such as yourself to devine wisdom from this.  Do you think Israel would kill Palestinians for no reason at all?  I don't think you do.  There's your answer my friend.

The grievances on both sides are deep. The casualties and costs in both societies are enormous. Yet the fact remains: there are only two solutions to the problem,
Peace or Genocide. It's really that simple.

Yes, it truly is that simple.  The problem is that some folks still don't understand which side is demanding a genocide of the other.

When you have determined which side does the following, you will have answered your own quest for enlightenment.

1. Teaches their grade school children to think of the other side as animals, specificly monkeys and dogs.
2. Teaches their grade school children to plan to become terrorists against the other side.
3. Teaches their grade school children that the other side must be exterminated.
4. Preaches from holy sites that the other side must be destroyed on the orders of their spiritual diety.
5. Preaches from holy sites that salvation will be obtained instantly if they martyr themselves.
6. Preaches from holy sites that 72 virgins and their spiritual diety himself will greet them immediately upon martyrdom.
7. Publishes in their newspapers and periodicals that the other side must be exterminated.
8. Publishes in their newspapers and periodicals that the other side is made up of animals, specificly monkeys and dogs.
9. Publishes in their newspapers and periodicals graphics that depict the other side as monkeys and dogs, or constantly instill blood libel.

You see, one side does want peace and one side does want genocide.  Too many people don't realize this.

[churchillbuff]

his notion that the PA will be appeased if Israel doesn't respond to terrorist attacks.

My point: Sharon's policy hasn't stopped terrorism. Maybe time to try something else. Unless you're willing to live with perpetual terrorism, on the same level of the last three years. (Hasn't Sharon himself said he foresees a 100 years war? If so, stop complaining about terrorism, because that seems to be what Sharon takes as a given for the next century)

[cicero's_son]

It is a question of goals. If the goal is the defeat of one's enemy (a goal which by definition acknowledges that one is engaged in an ongoing conflict), then one will press forward with retribution at (almost) any cost. This is our approach in the War on Terror.

If, on the other hand, the goal is a sustainable peace agreement with one's neighbors, a different approach is necessary.

[churchillbuff]

What's YOUR answer? It seems to me that when people live in the degraded conditions of the Palestinians, there's always going to be fertile ground for hotheads and violent types.

[DoughtyOne]

Why is American policy to be judged through the perspective of Sharon's political party? I'm an American first, not a Likud member first. I don't judge Bush by
whether he agrees with or pleases any other world leader - be it Blair, Chirac, Mugabe, Fox or anybody else - - - so why is he to be judged by whether he agrees
with everything Sharon does? That suggests one's primary allegiance is to Sharon, not US interests.

I don't judge any world leader by his agreements or disagreements with other world leaders.  I'm sure you don't either.  I judge them on whether I think they are right or wrong.  Faulting Sharon for responding to terrorist acts seems a little silly when you yourself have responded in similar ways to terrorist attacks.

Either Bush is wrong to respond with military force in reaction to terrorism, or Sharon is right to respond with military force in reaction to terrorism.

[cookcounty]

Rantisi demands war and bloodshed. If Mazen won't squash htis enemy of peace, then it's up to the Israelis to do it. Why should Bush be upset that Rantisi is first in line?

[NittanyLion]

Maybe time to try something else.

It sounds as though you suggest trying appeasement. History suggests that is an unwise decision.

I'm leaving for the night and will check back tomorrow. Pleasure discussing this with you both.