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.

[kesg]

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."

I agree. Next time please hit the actual target. :) In all seriousness, what is Israel supposed to do instead? Hamas has made crystal clear for years its views that nothing less than the total destruction of Israel will satisfy it. Abbas is obviously powerless to control Hamas or the other terrorist organizations even if he really wanted to. So that leaves the IDF as the only viable alternative.

[DoughtyOne]

I find it rather difficult to discuss this issue with someone who is so far off base on just about every tenet related to it, but here I go again.

To: DoughtyOne

What we seem to disagree on is why they should be willing sacrifice to make it happen while the other side continues to blow their loved ones to oblivion.

Both sides are wrong. Israel to a lesser degree of course.

Please tell me how Israel is wrong.  I'd like to know.  They have terrorists bombing their citizens.  Palestinians are facilitating that effort at every level of their society.  As such Israel has had no choice but to attack known terrorist camps, destroy bomb making facilities, limit border crossings and try to disrupt the terrorists efforts by any means possible.

The Palis have had three times the amount of citizens killed in the last three years, then the Israeli's have.

Here's a question for you.  When you understand the answer you may understand why your comments are so offensive.

How many Palestinians would have died at the Israeli military's hands if it wasn't for the terrorism that was and still is advocated at every level of Palestinian society?

So both sides continue to sacrifice and suffer.

Yes, but one side continues to suffer due to their own treachery.  The other side still suffers from the treachery of others.

If Palestinians weren't facilitating the terrorist attacks on Israel, Israelis wouldn't be dying and Palestinians and terrorists wouldn't be dying.  You tell me who is the real problem here.  I'll be damned if I can see how Israel is the guilty party here.

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.

The problem you have is you don't view the Palis as people, but rather as cattle.

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.  You are offended by my suggestion they should be moved off the West Bank.  My friend, when intelligent people make a concious decision to destroy their neighbors, and the Palestinian society is permeated with this ideological conquest, then they must live by the weight of those decisions, whether the outcome is good or bad.  We're talking about responsibility for one's own actions, a steadfast tenet of conservatism.

You want them physically removed from Israeli territory. Such an action, would start the bigger regional conflict I mentioned. And once again, most Israeli's don't want the Pali's moved out. They want the conflict settled and they want lasting peace.

As a matter of fact I don't want them removed from the West Bank.  I stated as much in my last post to you.  The problem is, if they wish to remain on the West Bank they MUST renounce their conquest to destroy Israel.  They must quit teaching their children to become terrorists.  They must quit indoctrinating their children that Israelis are dogs or monkeys.  They must quite publishing calls for a second holocaust in their papers.  They must quit refering to Israelis as dogs or monkeys in their press.  They must quit facilitating terrorist activities.  Has our fearless leader addressed ANY OF THIS in public?  In a word, no.  We don't ask a thing of the Palestinians, in earnest.  With a nod and a wink we watch as they change nothing, then demand Israel hurry up.

Yes I would agree most Israelis don't want Palestinians removed from the West Bank.  In the best of all worlds I agree with them.  But this isn't the best of all worlds and I do not accept your premise that in light of the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, Israelis would rather they remain on the West Bank and terrorist attacks continue in perpetuity.  And no, peace is not on the table.  You don't conduct a society that is saturated with the premise your enemy is an animal and should be inhialated, then seek true peace.

...we make demands on Israel. That is perposterous and you know it.

What actual demands have we made on Israel that they probably already gave the green light to? Come on D1, you know better then that. Sharon even realzies this can't go on forever and most Israeli's beleive some rational conclusion must be reached and soon.

We have demanded that Israel dismantle the settlements and stop all incursions and military activity on the West Bank and Gaza.  We have demanded that Israel recognize a Palestinian state by 2005, disregarding all other considerations.  You didn't know this, yet you wish to continue this discussion?

Some settlements are already being dismantled.  The other side has reacted by attacking Israel yet again.  Tell me what rational conclusion you have in mind that doesn't entail Israel giving in on every issue while the Palestinians and their proxys continue to blow Israelis to bits?

Could you please tell me why Bush must remain impartial on the subject of Israel? France, Germany, the EU, the UN, all middle east leaders and just about every other nation's leadership on the planet openly condemns Israel at every opportunity. In the face of this YOU think we should remain impartial. Please grace us with the reasoning behind betraying Israel in the quest for peace. I'd love to hear it.

I don't need your condescending tone D1...

This is rich.  You seem to think Israel is at fault in this conflict, then tell me I'm out of line in objecting to that premise.

...and I don't give a rats arse about what other nations of the world may think about Israel.

That's rather obvious.  No other nation on the planet is timid about it's true motives with regard to the middle east conflict, but we should be?  LOL

Other nations of the world have not been engaged in any real peace process before. I doubt Kofi Annan and the UN have designs on securing a peace in this Isareli/Pali conflict. Bush has presented what is being called a "Road Map to Peace", so he would look pretty foolish, if he didn't try and appear to be the honest broker, he says he is.

This is downright comical.  Israel responds to the terrorism that nobody has condemned, then Israel is the one jeopardizing peace.  Bush's roadmap doesn't show how to reach peace.  It simply shows the shortest route to the ash-heap of history.

What demands does the road map to peace make on the Palestinians?  Please tell me.

Anyone with half a brain knows that our leadership remains silent regarding terrorism perpetrated against Israel until Israel responds. Then we damn Israel for jeopardizing prospects for peace. With assitance like this, who needs enemies?

Pure horsecrap! I've heard Bush, Powell, Rice, even Rumsfeld condemn the Pali's. Our media and especially the world media has a tendency not to print such remarks from "our leaders", so as to diminish any right Isarel may have to respond with their military and protect their interests.

I have not seen even a single instance where any of these people have addressed terrorism against Israel without a condemnation of Israeli reactions to that terrorism mixed in.  I will qualify that by including the cases where massive terrorist attacks have taken place, which sees our leaders condemning such actions, but include demands that Israel refrain from reacting.  This is not only immoral (it allows terrorism to fluorish without efforts to stop it or exact a cost), it is simply nothing better than what Israel's most ardent enemies would call  for.

If you think killing all the Palis is the answer, you're wrong.

Along with the rest of your misguided comments, this one takes the cake.

My remarks haven't been misguided. They've been right on the money. You need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word "if". Such is the meaning of rhetorical phrasing.

Well I guess your remarks could be interpreted as right on the money depending on which side you back in the middle east.  Frankly I think they stink from an Israel point of view.

I don't care if you did insert the word "if" in front of this premise, and your spin on my reaction is tantamount to the "what 'is' is" nonsense.  I didn't advocate killing Palestinians and your mention of that premise couldn't be interpreted any other way than to instill an impression that I had here, or that I had somewhere else.

If you think Israel should engage in another war with the Arab world, you're wrong.

What exactly do you call mass casualty bombings and daily military style incursions into Israeli territory, peace?

The current three year old conflict is nothing compared to the all out wars of 1967 and 1973. And again, I used that word "if".

I'm sorry, I pefer to address reality.  If you are going to continue to insert hypotheticals into this issue, I'm going to respond as if you knew what you were talking about.

So anotherwords Israel should just sit there and allow continued attacks on it's citizens? B.S., and you know it.

I never said that or even infered such a scenario.

What do you mean you didn't?  Did you or did you not say Israel is partly at fault here?  The only way they could be at fault is by reacting to terrorism.  So again I ask, what do you expect Israel to do, allow it's citizens to be attacked at will without response?

You did!

Nope, I advocate Israel strike back hard for every instance of terrorism.  I condemn our leaders for suggesting otherwise.

I do think Israel has every right to protect and defend itself and have thought that since I was old enough to understand what was happening with Israel and their ME neighbors. Growing up in NYCity, half my good friends were Jewish. Many would spend summers in Israel and returned to share their stories with their friends and schoolmates. It was a first hand account of real life.

Then please explain why you think Israel is partly at fault in the middle east.  Please explain how it the thought exists in your mind that Israelis would be killing Palestinians if terrorism didn't against them didn't take place.

Your problem D1, as with most American's, is you don't understand the Israeli people and their strong desire for lasting peace.

Oh Barbara Streisand.  We all "wish" for middle east peace.  The problem is some people have a hard time differentiating reality from a wish.

All out war may yet come some day in the ME.

Yes, and maybe it should sooner than later.  If nations like Syria continue to harbor Hezbalah, then it's time to take them out.

The US remains a strong friend and ally to the Israeli people. We will stand with them, as we always have.

The US is a qualified ally of Israel at best.  Yes we help her in some ways while we undermine her long term security in others.  Carping on Israel for reacting to terroism not only kills Israeli support around the world ("why should we support Israel if even their best ally condemns them"), it emboldens their enemies who think their attacks are achieving sympathy in the west ("see, even the United States came out against Israel for reacting to our terrorism").  Good Lord, can't you see this?

Try and see past your own nose once in a while and understand the nature of the politics involved here.

I have.  But what you don't understand is that you are advocating a political policy of self-defeatism for us and more importantly our ally who is under constant attack.

Peace doesn't come without a price.

Exactly!  And please tell us what price the Palestinians have demonstrated that they are willing to pay?

If I could snap my fingers and end the conflict, I would, but this is the real world. PresBush has offered an option to both sides. There may not be many opportunities left.

Once again a US President has demanded that Israel jump through hoops to end the middle east conflict, with every intention that Israel comply.  Once again very few demands have been placed on the Palestinains, with every understanding that none of them will be complied with.

66 posted on 06/10/2003 10:13 AM PDT by Reagan Man

[Zack Nguyen]

Isreal is justified in their attack because hamas rejected the call for peace and end to violence. If you neighbor down the street is plotting to kill you, and building bombs and acquiring weapons and actually sending people to your house to do it, what do you do? sit there? \

Apparently Bush thinks so. I find that I disagree with him on few things, but his attitude toward Israel is one of them. Israel is apparently not allowed to defend itself.

[bvw]

It's a accurate call as far as I can tell. Fantasy and comix are fine. Imagination, visualization, those are skills. Yet at some point fantasy is no longer fine -- it hampers, it keeps you in pampers.

Grow up.

[berserker]

Palestinians grab some kid, with no serious visible injury, and for their propaganda purposes put him on a gurney, hastily arrange some bandages and some real or faked blood, and evoke misplaced sympathy from the clueless

More propaganda:

Palestinians wheel in a wounded girl to the treatment room at Shifa hospital following the air stike on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi's car in Gaza city, Tuesday June 10, 2003. Israeli Apache helicopters fired six missiles at the Hamas leader's car Tuesday, injuring him in the right leg and killing two bystanders, doctors said. (AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

[Courier]

Their propaganda is so pathetic except to the most moronic.

In a real situation, where there is injury from shrapnel, they would tear off every stitch of clothing from her upper body to check for entry wounds.

Here we have another cute bandage with the obligatory blood stain. And look, I do declare, from her expression the girl does seem to have the vapors.

[section9]

Uh, so far you have dabbled in ad homimen as your line of argument. So far, you haven't addressed the subject of my argument, which tells me in no uncertain terms, that you have no argument to speak of.

On the Jack Getz Batboy Argument Skills Scale, out of five Batboys, you get one Batboy.

One batboy is usually awarded for just showing up. Ad hominem is sort of like just showing up and mooning downtown traffic from a skyscraper, or better yet, it's sort of like skywriting at night.

Tell you what. Try coming back with substantive argument instead of personal insult, and you might win more Batboys.

You realize, of course, that I'm having great fun with this. Care to try again?

Chris

[rintense]

Not this Bushbot. I am getting more and more angered by all this placating crap. I had hoped that trip to Poland and the concentration camps would have given Bush the needed perspective for his trip to the Mideast. Apparently, it didn't.

I do not like Bush's stance on this one bit. It makes me sick and is nothing short of hypocrisy. Yeah, maybe behind the scenes it’s all part of strategery. But up front, it’s a load of crap.

[DoughtyOne]

Isn't it amazing that Moslem women in our nation can't uncover their heads, but this woman on a Palestinain gurney can?

[bvw]

You imagine that "Mossad" is magically all-knowing and all-able. You seem to have no friggin idea of the risk and mortal danger -- not to mention difficulty, and by being difficult the time factor involved -- in carrying out your anime-like secret agent fantasies. That is not ad hominem --for it is YOU with the fantasic idea of what the Mossad can do, and YOU with the incessant "secret agent Jack Kimosabi of the Internal Secret Police in the anime flick 'The Mind-addled Boso in the Machine'" graphic affixed to every one of your posts.

[NittanyLion]

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."

Try turning it around: Prime Minister Sharon scolded the US on Tuesday for a helicopter attack on a senior Al Qaeda leader that killed a bystander and a bodyguard, warning that such a strike "does not contribute to the security of The United States.

What the heck is the White House thinking?

[NittanyLion]

Great reply. That's the most articulate, thorough post I've seen in awhile.

[DoughtyOne]

I found it interesting that the target of the helicopter attack who escaped with his life said, "I will make sure the Israelis pay heavily for this attempt on my life." (Paraphrased)

How would he exact that heavy price if he wasn't exactly what the IDF determined he was in advance?

Still our leaders damn Israel and give this parasite on the hind end of society a free pass.

[cicero's_son]

My, my, my. It's amazing how many Bush-bashers come out of the woodwork the moment he says something they disagree with on the Middle East.

If this President is able to liberate Iraq, rein in the ayatollahs in Iran, rout al-Qaeda AND take meaningful steps toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, isn't that worth asking Sharon to show some restraint?

[NittanyLion]

"Peace in the Middle East" presents such an incredible legacy for US presidents that I fear they will do anything to attain it - including selling Israel down the river. Bush's actions are little different from Clinton's, and his supporters (I'm one on many issues) seem to be unconcerned with the particulars so long as GWB is credited with attaining peace.

Peace cannot be achieved by forcing one side to consistently appease the other while they have tremendous losses inflicted upon them. Our own policy suggests the administration understands this; hence the reason their Israeli policy is so perplexing.

[NittanyLion]

If this President is able to liberate Iraq, rein in the ayatollahs in Iran, rout al-Qaeda AND take meaningful steps toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, isn't that worth asking Sharon to show some restraint?

The same restraint we are (rightfully) unwilling to show ourselves?

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I appreciate your comment.

[cicero's_son]

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).

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?