Posted on 06/10/2003 7:37:43 AM PDT by 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.
History of the past decade suggests that the policy of the past decade didn't work - - - terrorism continued.
I happen to believe that if the Palestinians would stop their terrorism, they would see their economy take off almost immediately. Europe would love to conduct trade with them and I happen to believe both Europe and the US would be quite willing to supply the investment capital that would see the area flourish. Israel itself would expand on the commerce it already facilitates between the two entities.
I guess the only real question is, do the Palestinians truly want a state and prosperity more than they want the total extermination of the Jews?
Very telling that you say you don't judge any "world" leader, but I'm talking about the president of the U.S. You judge American policy on whether or not it coincides with Likud policy.
The Arabs argue this all the time---if only we could resolve the "Middle East Conflict".......then all the other problems would find their solution.
This is just silly. If a full Israeli-Palestinian settlement was reached tomorrow, and both sides were completely happy, it would have virtually no effect on the Arab enslaving and murdering of the Southern Sudanese (now between 1 and 2 million dead) or the conflicts in Algeria, Western Sahara, Mauritanian slavery, Saudi human rights abuses, the murder of Pakistani christians, the practice of "honor killing" (10.000+ women butchered every year), the murder of thousands of christians in Sulawesi and Ambon, the burning of churches etc., etc,. ad nauseum.
Would someone please explain how Peace in Judea translates into peace in these areas? I've never heard anyone actually try to explain it, step by step.
To: churchillbuff
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.
118 posted on 06/10/2003 2:18 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
This was your response:
To: DoughtyOne
I don't judge any world leader by his agreements or disagreements with other world leaders
Very telling that you say you don't judge any "world" leader, but I'm talking about the president of the U.S. You judge American policy on whether or not it coincides with Likud policy.
129 posted on 06/10/2003 2:36 PM PDT by churchillbuff
First of all, why did you truncate my comment regarding world leaders? This is what I said and it leaves no room for misunderstanding.
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.
How does this gel with your contention that I judge American policy through the perspective of Sharon's political party? In short it doesn't. Like leaders, I judge their policy by whether it's right or not.
Sharon seems poised to dismantle all West Bank settlements. I vehemently disagree with that plan. Sharon seem poised to sign onto the idea that a Palestinian state should be recognized by 2005. Once again I stridently disagree. Why?
I disagree with taking any tangible action until the other side promises to take actions of their own. Then and only then, as both sides comply with their promises at the same time, would I agree to begin tangible actions.
At the present we have Sharon making promises. We have Abass not making any promises, although he seems to approve of a cease fire for a limited time, up to a year. Then we have Hezbalah and the other terrorist factions stating that they won't recognize a ceasefire at all and will instead seek to destroy Israel.
Hell I wouldn't budge one inch until the other side gave some ground in good faith. The Likud policy to sign on to such loonacy is perposterous. So much for your insight into my thoughts on the Likud.
I judge an American president's policy by whether it's in American interest, not whether it's in Likud's interest.
And I happen to think Bush is right that it's in America's interest to get the fighting to stop between the Israelis and Palestinians -- and doing so means being evenhanded. Bush thinks this is in America's interest, and I think he may be right. If one takes either the Palestinian or the Likud party's side as the starting point, obviously an evenhanded policy doesn't look good --- you'd want instead automatic support for whatever your side does. But from the point of view of American interests, that's not necessarily the way to go.
If that's the way you felt, then you should have just moved on and left well enough alone. I get very tired of your arrogant, self righteous attitude and your "tit for tat" juvenile responses. You don't know everything, my friend and I hate to burst your bubble, your're quite boring most of the time.
My responses were based on PresBushes recent attempts to bring a halt to hostilities in the ME through his "RoadMap For Peace". You've ridiculed the President's efforts and basically have twisted my words to suit your agenda. So be it. You say, Israel is without any responsibility and the Pali's are 100% to blame for everything thats gone wrong over the last three years. That's the biggest crock I've heard in a long time. The Israeli people don't even believe that. The Israeli leadership doesn't believe that. I know of no rational person who supports such poppycock. That's empty headed rhetoric.
You ask me, how Israel is wrong. That's simple. Every once in a while they pull a real boner. The missile attacks today were their most recent boners. The attacks did nothing to advance the peace process and have only jeapordize the efforts of PresBush. Ari Flecisher speaking for PresBush today, summed it up well. He basically said, a cessation of hostiltiies by both sides, is the only way to truly start on the road to peace. The killing isn't going to stop, unless both sides engage in a real cease fire.
>>>Here's a question for you. When you understand the answer you may understand why your comments are so offensive.
Once again, your condescenting behavior is uncalled for. I will blow over this rude remark and answer you resepctfully. Oh that's right, you answered your own question. How nice.
>>>Once again, how many Palestinians would have died if Israel weren't being attacked? The answer is zero, therefore Israel is not the guilty party.
Israel may not be the main aggressor in that regard, but that isn't the entire issue here. I already told you that Israel has every right to defend itself, under normal circumstances. However, we are talking about trying to bring a peace process into play. A peace process btw, that you continually show absolutely no desire to respect or accept. Which indicates to me, there is no desire on your part for peace at all.
Remember Mister-Know-It-All, PresBush was asked by the Arab nations, specifically Saudi Arabia and Jordon, that once Operation Iraqi Freedom was finished and Saddam was removed from power, the US would become seriously involved in a new round of peace negotiations. Israel also wanted PresBush to get involved in a serious peace process. What's the alternative? Wipe out the Pali's? We both know that won't work. Relocate the Pali's? Sorry, that isn't a viable or doable alternative. You really think if somehow the Pali's were relocated, the attacks on Israel would stop. The hard facts are these. There are 300 million Arab's in the ME and at least 150 million are waiting to be turned loose on Israel. Believe it.
If some form of peace isn't brought to the ME and soon, the only option left is all out war. If you don't see that, your very delusional. Under that set of circumstances, the US would be embroiled in that war and we would have to stand by our friend and ally, Israel. But the US also has a substantive economic interest in the ME. That being oil. Right now, US efforts in the area of political diplomacy are more acceptable then a war against the Arab world.
>>>I happen to have a higher opinion of the Palestinians than you do. I know they are capable of intelligent forethought. You don't. You think they are stupid idiots that can't help stop the terrorism. I know they can.
What!!! LMAO That is real funny. You have nothing but contempt for the Palestinian people. You consider them, sub-human. I look at the Pali's, much as I look at the entire Arab world and see a struggling backward people, still living in a culture mostly stuck in the distant past. And lets not forget, this is still conflict based on religious differences, but won't be solved through endless fighting. Unless you want to wipe out an entire group of people.
I'm willing to give PresBush his opportunity to bring a peaceful resolution to the ME conflict. Its better then anything you've offered. In fact, you've offered no serious plan or alternative method to resolving the Israeli-Pali conflict. None at all. All you've said is, Israel is right. That will not solve anything!
Then you make one of the most ridiculous and outrageous remarks I've ever heard on FreeRepublic.
>>>The US is a qualified ally of Israel at best.
We don't agree on much D1. Political matters, or domestic/foreign policy issues. Honest differences are okay. But let me tell you, this remark was off the wall. You should be ashamed of yourself.
PS- I overlooked the many conflicting remarks you made, but I must post this one from your last rant. Its a whopper! LOL Here goes.
>>>You are offended by my suggestion they should be moved off the West Bank.
>>>As a matter of fact I don't want them removed from the West Bank.
Which is it, bucko? To move or not to move. LOL
Your approaching the ME conflict from the wrong prospective. You've allowed your emotions to speak for you and thats not the act of a conservative. Relax and stop taking everything personally. I would rather PresBush reach a peace settlement with both sides, then have the US get itself involved in a regional war that would throw most of the industrialized world into chaos. I agree, most of the changes have to come from the Pali's, but if the Israeli people truly want peace and I believe they do, then they must realize that firing missiles into a crowded residential area and killing/injuring innocent people, will not further the cause of peace anymore then Pali homicide/suicide bombers will further the cause of peace.
That's not what Bush is advocating, but rather a more restrained Israeli position at this sensitive time. Again, you start from the perspective that everything the Israeli government does, in a military vein, must be supported automatically. My starting point is that American interests must be the first factor to be consulted.
That's for sure. If this kind of tactic buys peace, then where's the evidence? Retaliation and proactive executions have been happening for several years, and I don't see any peace.
... my mind is closed to nonsense and open to scripture.
I respect your religious beliefs, but US policy in the ME isn't based on rhetoric from the Holy Bible.
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.