Posted on 06/12/2003 9:27:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
White House Backs Latest Israeli Attacks
Focus Shifts to Arab Leaders' Commitment to End Support for Militant Groups
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A22
The Bush administration signaled strong support for Israel's crackdown on militant groups yesterday, effectively abandoning its earlier criticism of the government of
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that had sparked an outcry from lawmakers on Capitol Hill and pro-Israel lobbying groups.
In coordinated statements, White House and State Department officials tried to shift the diplomatic focus from Israeli actions to the commitment made by Arab
leaders at a summit last week in Egypt to cut off funding and support for terrorist attacks against Israelis. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made that point in a
round of phone calls to Arab foreign ministers, officials said.
Truncated as per our agreement with the Post.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
An all out war may take place someday, but for now we should support Bushes peace plan.
That's your opinion. I don't agree with the conclusion you've reached, this early in the Bush peace process. The Israeli people and their conservative government don't agree with you either.
Main points of Mideast peace plan
Phase one
Begins with statements by both sides renouncing violence and affirming the right of the other side to a state. Palestinians halt violence, make efforts to disarm violent radicals and stop them from carrying out terror attacks, restructure security services and reform their administration in preparation for statehood. Israel and the Palestinians resume security coordination.
Israel stops operations that harm Palestinian civilians, takes steps to normalize Palestinian life, gradually withdraws forces from Palestinian cities and towns back to pre-violence lines as security and cooperation increases. Israel dismantles settlement outposts established in recent years and freezes all settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza.
Phase two
Begins when the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia agree that both sides have fulfilled the commitments in Phase One.
It includes the option of a Palestinian state with “provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty.” It’s conditional on:
--A new Palestinian constitution and elections.
--An international conference on economic assistance and negotiations to set up a provisional state with “maximum territorial contiguity.”
--Arab nations restoring relations with Israel to pre-fighting level.
Phase three
International conference oversees negotiations on “final status” issues: borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements -- with a treaty by 2005 leading to comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world.
Key disagreements
*Israel does not want to dismantle all of the roughly 100 settlement outposts, saying some of them are legal. The Palestinians -- and the road map -- say all of them must go.
*The Palestinians seek to persuade Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups to stop terror attacks. Israel says they must be disarmed and is demanding arrests. The road map calls for “sustained, targeted and effective operations against all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”
*Israel wants the Palestinians to renounce claims to a “right of return” for refugees, at least by recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish state.” The Palestinians refuse. The road map calls only for a statement on “Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.”
*Israel says other measures expected of it -- such as the politically difficult freeze on settlements -- should come after a crackdown on militants. The Palestinians say all steps should be concurrent. The road map says “the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated.”
Ain't gonna happen. There are numerous terrorist orgs with countless members and supporters 100% dedicated to perpetuating violence against Israel. The only way they can be stopped is by annihilate them. If that isn't obvious to you by now, it never will be.
PresBush and most officials in the US government don't believe thats the way to go. More importantly, neither does the Israeli people and their conservative government.
You speak of the "Israeli people and their conservative gov't" as if they're a single, unified mass. That's about as accurate as saying the American people and their "conservative" gov't speak as one.
Yes, there are naive people on both sides of the Atlantic who cling to the delusion that Hamas and their terrorist brethren can somehow be "persuaded" to halt their avowed goal of the complete destruction of Israel, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
And yes, I'm well aware of President Bush's reluctance to pursue his own doctrine, which is to destroy terrorists wherever they may be.
Much too much was made of a diplomatic, and correct statement that he was grieved at the loss of innocent life. There was never any indication that he had abandoned either principle, or his support for Israel.
God is leading him, and it wasn't sudden prayer that caused a change of position back to the conviction he had all along. I strongly disagree with those who question his spiritual condition, and the leading of the Holy Spirit based on their own interpretation of what is supposed to happen in the last days, and I even more strongly question the theology of those who are worried that if President Bush doesn't do what THEY think needs to be done, that God's will for Israel will somehow be thwarted.
God is Sovereign, He is leading this President, and our prayers for him need to be that he continues to listen and obey, as he has been doing thus far.
You keep repeating the exact same mistake. To repeat: The Israeli people and gov't are NOT all on the same page here. There are still people around who understand that negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea, and expecting them to behaving themselves (especially regarding something they hold so dear -- the destruction of Israel) is naive beyond belief.
Bottom line: The roadmap might look fine on paper and in theory, but in practice just getting past Phase One - "Palestinians halt the violence" - is something that only the hopelessly naive believe has a chance of happening.
You wrote: PresBush and most officials in the US government don't believe thats the way to go.
Or, more accurately, it looks like many congressional Republicans - the vast majority, in fact - see it my way.
You're overreacting and covering the same material, again and again and again. What's the point?
Reagan Man, I am amazed that you can write this to me. You are the one making the statements and asking the questions. Whose fault is it that we're covering the same material over and over. I am writing your comments and questions right in front of my responses. If you don't want to cover the same material, then don't continue to mischaracterize my beliefs or ask the same questions.
I didn’t take your remarks out of context. Just where is it written, that I'm obligated to repost your remarks the way you want me to? LOL
When you take one sentence out of a group of sentences and then try to give the impression that this one sentence is the only material provided on that subject although there was much more material presented on that subject, then it's fair to challenge both your conclusion and your method of reaching it. It is fair to say the one sentence was chopped out of a wealth of information clarifying the issue.
You have a right to come to your own conclusion. You also have a right to respond in the format of your choice. It would be absurd to state otherwise. The problem I have with your conclusions is that you have chosen to ignore my admissions and clarifications regarding all my comments. Ignoring the clarifications so you can come to a conclusion of your own seems futal, if your true objective is to gain understanding about what I truly believe.
Your under some illusion that I must abide by your ground rules.
Not at all Reagan Man. Go by any ground rules you like. I just think that you have to accept that others who are reading our conversations will see that I have responded to your thoughts. I have explained why I think they miss the mark, and that you ignore my detailed responses.
That's not the way it works.
I haven't said that it should. But you shouldn't ignore evidence that reveals your conclusions may not have taken everything presented into accounting. I don't think there's a single soul on the forum that would think that a good idea.
If you don't like my reposting certain remarks you’ve made and then commenting on those remarks, tough. Stop posting.
Isn't this simply an echo of my responses to you? You have said you don't like me posting the same material. I said then stop posting comments I need to respond to. Now you're posting that to me.
Also, most folks find a 1246 word explanation of a two sentence remark, to be a highly excessive reply. Try being pithy.
First of all, I wouldn't bother counting your words, because I support you posting just as much as you think you need to, to express your true beliefs. I support that. You should to.
Here's another flaw in your logic. You grab one sentence out of context, then get upsed if I present the full bountiful commentary I've made on the subject, which you left out. Then instead of admitting that perhaps my opinion regarding the topic might be somewhat different than what you painted, you criticize me for providing the information that points out your misrepresentation and truly reveals my actual thoughts. Once again, don't you think it's at least a little germane what my acutal thoughts are, vs your conclusion in the absense of them?
You failed to comprehend what I said, because you aren’t interested in listening to what other people have to say.
Please think about this comment for a moment. You just spent a whole paragraphs telling me you thought I should limit my responses. Now who is it that isn't interested in listening to what others have to say? Not only that I provided a wealth of commentary on the topic in question, you ignored all but once sentence to come to your own preconcieved conclusion. Now you tell me, I'm the one who isn't interesed in what others have to day.
If I had realized the significance of those two sentences when you originally posted them, it would have saved me the time and effort of dealing with four days of your boring rhetoric and editorializing.
I posted those two sentences on the 10th. I posted references and restatements around the 11th and 12th. I posted a lengthy restatement of all three on the 14th. Today is the 15th. I would think you could have save your time and effort long before now if that were your true thoughts on the subject.
Truth is, take those two sentences, couple them with your remark about the Bush peace process being ‘99.67% doomed to failure’ and you have a definitive pattern of opposition to Bushes overall peace efforts.
Okay that's an extrapolation that you have come up with. I think it's wrong but you don't. Let me ask you this as a test.
Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity. When Newton pondered the apple's detachment from the tree, do you think he thought the apple would fall or do you think he thought the apple would rise into the heavens. In truth, there were probably more apples on the ground, so he had empirical evidence.
It's almost certain that Newton thought the apple would fall. I can't imagine anyone thinking different. Okay. Does Newton's preconception reveal any prejudice on his part, as far as what he hoped would happen? In my opinion that is not an assumption we can make.
I don't think you can make any assumpted about Bush's peace plan based on my consideration that it will most likely fail. We a have both seen the wealth of empirical evidence over 55 years. In addition to that, I have said a number of times that I hope it doesn't fail. Once again, you appear to be using faulty logic based on a preconcieved notion that I don't support Bush's plan, then ignoring a number of comments I've made to the contrary.
That being said, I am perfectly willing to concede that if Bush's peace plan is going to require Israel to absorb terrorist attacks while unable to respond, I can in no way support that. Once again, since you still don't get it, every sovereign state has the right to determine it's own defense policy and carry it out. No state should ever be required to let it's citizens be blown to bits or shot dead with responding or taking preemptive military measures.
You can't have it both ways and you can’t fool this conservative.
Conservatives believe in strong defense. If Mexican insurgents would terrorizing the US, the citizens of this nation would rise up and kick the United Nations off the planet if it objected to our retaliation. Israel has that same right. A true conservative would NEVER challenge this.
I’ve been dealing with malcontents like you too long and known what your game is.
Oh good, then you've finally determined that I am trying to discuss an issue with you in a rational manner. Excellent.
Either you support the general outline and points of Bushes peace plan and allow it some time to work, or you don't.
We've been carrying on this discussion since the 10th, perhaps even before. During that time I have not picked out one other issue to criticize with regard to teh Bush peace plan. Having not read that plan, I don't know what it specificly says on this topic. Perhaps this is part of the peace plan, perhaps it isn't exactly spelled out. Therefore I find it simply amazing that you could tell me I either back the points, or I don't. We have one bone of contention here. Just one. Is Israel a sovereign state or isn't it? Does Israel set it's defense policy, or is that policy dictated to it? Is Ariel Sharon the autonomous leader of Israel or is he some's sock puppet?
You haven’t convinced me in any real sense that you want to support the Bush peace plan.
Well thanks for clearing that up.
This has been my bone of contention with you from the outset.
No, that's not what the bone of contention was from the outset. The bone of contention was whether Israel should absorb countless terrorist attacks without responding or taking preventative measures.
OTOH, with most issues involving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I’d venture a guess, we’re probably in mutual agreement.
Well after spending over five days trying to gain clarity on this issue, and failing, I appreciate this attempt to broading the topics. Nice effort. No sale.
We both support the state of Israel and admire the Israeli people for their courage and strength.
Yep, and one of us admires them enough to grant them the same rights I claim for myself.
However, as an American citizen I place the interests of the US before any other nation and that includes the state of Israel.
I live in the United States. I am a US Citizen. I support our nation against all comers. I will NEVER sign on to a plan that sacrifices a friendly peaceful nation who allows it's citizens self determination, much like our system does. If our nation ever comes to the point that it does, it will have ceased to be the nation of it's forefathers.
We have supported nation's rights to defend themselves around the planet. We're not stopping today, at least not if I have anything to say about it.
A lasting peace in the ME is in America’s interests.
While it could very easily be stated that it is in the US' interest, and that would be true, it is primarily in the state's interests that live in the region.
You give me the distinct impression , Israel comes before the US in your world and I find that troubling.
Well that needn't be exclusionary. I support our best interests when it comes to our sovereignty and homeland defense. Where that stretches out around the world, I support it as reasonable. I will not support our interests over another friendly nation, who has bonified and reasonable national securtiy concerns of it's own, and a sovereign right to exercise them.
In Israel, Israel rules. In the United States, the United States rules. Where possible I think Israel does try to coordinate with the US. I am glad it does. When it can't I can understand why it doesn't.
If you were able to fathom this response, I don't think it would upset you. Where you can't, I still expect you to be troubled. You really needn't be, but it's your right to if that's what you decide.
While its important for the US to maintain support for the only democracy in the ME region, the US does have other interests that stretch way beyond support for Israel alone.
Does this mean that you think Israel should be willing to sacrifice it's citizens without reacting as long as US interests are met?
The ongoing import of oil from the ME, right now is critical to a stable US economic.
I think it's critical too, but I'm not going to sacrifice any friend so I can buy cheap gas. I'll forgoe comfort and choose sacrifice if I have to for a friend. I would expect our friends to do the same for us.
In my opinion, ANWR would be a more preferable source for oil, but so far the GOP doesn't have the votes to get the job done in Congress.
The GOP is the majority in Congress. So why not?
So the US keeps certain relationships front and center, with Arab oil producers. A priority for American interests is in a stable ME region.
Allowing terrorism to penetrate Israel at will is going to broaden that conflict more than you could ever imagine. Two or three bombings a day would be going off if Israel didn't take out terrorists after bombings and destroy bomb making facilities in between.
Even if Israel didn't respond for six months, the utter destruction would soon become so massive that Israel would in essence be under full scale hostile military assult. Stability? Honestly, do you believe this?
In addition, throughout your posts you've exhibited more then just strong support for Israel though.
I will support any nation against unjust attack. EOS
You've displayed arrogance towards US authority, influence and power, as it relates to the Jewish State.
To the contrary, it is arrogance to ask another sovereign state to allow it's citizens to be slaughtered continually in the guise of peace.
You've basically inferred, that Israel is 100% right and the Palestinians are 100% wrong.
Yes that is correct. Terrorism is terrorism and retaliation for terrorism isn't.
That's an irrational political position to take and one that doesn't lend credence to the success of any legitimate peace effort.
There has never been a legitimate peace plan that incorporated active ongoing terrorism as part of the process. To assert one that did was legitimate basterdizes the word to the point of irrelevence.
Btw, even if I reposted the entire paragraph you got so bent out of shape over, I would still view your words as rash.
Which is something I aluded to in the last post to you. Why oh why did you feel compelled to state the same thing. I said I disagree with you, but you could come to the conclusion that my statement was too harsh. I said so, because I gave you so much embelishment, that you couldn't possibly not know what my emphasis was and why I didn't really mean what I said out the peace plan unless it required Israel to submit to terroism unanswered.
>>> 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.
And this from a person who doesn't want to rehash issues. I could characterize this. I'll just leave it up to the reader.
I find nothing comical at all in this issue and find your remarks bogus and juvenile.
Well I do find a lot that is comical in this exchange, but that's okay.
The Palestinians and the terrorist groups they support, have been condemned throughout the last fifty plus years. I’m convinced more then ever, this remains a highly emotional issue for you and one that you can’t seem to look at with open eyes and an open mind.
You continual characterizations regarding my responses are interesting, none-the-less I would find them more interesting if they bore any connection to reality.
Bottom line, PresBushes Road Map For Peace will move forward.
And if it is successful, which we both hope it wil be, that is great.
I didn't get a chance to proofread this. Sorry.
258 posted on 06/15/2003 10:21 AM PDT by Reagan Man
I would only urge that you consider that there are many strong Christian leaders who differ with the more vocal, public ones on this issue.
Interpretations of Scripture about what should be done regarding Israel and Palestine are just that.......interpretations of prophesy....... and not all students of the Word are troubled by the direction he is going.
One thing I am confident of, is the power of prayer, and the Holy Spirit's guidance when one seeks it.
I have no reason to doubt President Bush is telling the truth when he says he seeks wisdom from God every day. I also know that millions of Christians worldwide are praying for him, and have been since before he was elected.
And I believe that we may all see in time that what he is doing IS the leading of the Holy Spirit with regard to the protection of the people of Israel.
At this point, we will agree to disagree.
The one thing I know for certain is that God is Sovereign and is directly involved in what is going on in the Middle East with regard to His chosen people, and no politician, ruler, nor terrorist can thwart what God wills.
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.