Report: Bush to deliver MidEast speech

UPI ^ | Monday, June 24, 2002

[JohnHuang2]

WASHINGTON, June 23 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush is tentatively scheduled to deliver a speech Monday unveiling his administration's new Middle East policy, Ha'aretz reported, citing White House officials.

Bush was scheduled to deliver the speech last week, but decided to postpone following the two suicide bombings in Jerusalem, in which 26 people were killed and the subsequent Israeli reaction.

The president spent the weekend conferring with advisers on the timing and details of the much-anticipated speech, which will outline new American proposals to end the Middle East conflict.

The newspaper reported in its Monday edition that aides want Bush to make the speech before heading to Canada on Tuesday for a three-day summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations.

Palestinian Authority minister Nabil Sha'ath called on President Bush to declare his support for a Palestinian state that would be created within two years.

Sha'ath told "Fox News Sunday" he hoped Bush "will set a timeline of not more than two years" in his call for the establishment of Palestinian state.

"Of course we would like to declare a state that would be in effect legally bound with the borders of 1967," he said. In practice, however, "the borders will be negotiated... We don't mind some minor modifications on the '67 borders on a swap basis."

Bush is expected Monday to call for formation of a state of Palestine with permanent borders within three years. The new U.S. policy is expected to call for the early creation, perhaps within a year, pf a Palestinian state with temporary, or provisional, borders.

Once a state is established, Israel would be asked to halt incursions into Palestinian areas, freeze settlement building and be willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, the newspaper said.

The president's proposal for a temporary Palestinian state was met with caution Sunday by lawmakers who realize that achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians will not come easy.

"The quite frank fact is there has been such a deterioration in the Middle East that there is no ground on which the Palestinians and the Israelis can talk to one another," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"I think he's right now the only man with a plan. I hope it will work," said Lott, of Bush's controversial proposal. "But one of the things you have to understand about Israel today, Israel will have freedom and it will have peace in that order and on their own terms."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told CNN the president "has to be careful that we don't get a signal that violence and suicide bombings or homicide bombings as I call them, are going to be rewarded."

Copyright © 2002 United Press International

[Jeremiah Jr]

You know a bad moon is rising, when even Gephardt catches on to 'Voodoo Foreign Policy'.

...And dividing Jerusalem is the ultimate in 'Voodoo Foreign Policy!'

Zechariah 12:3   And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

[Stultis]

Sha'ath told "Fox News Sunday" he hoped Bush "will set a timeline of not more than two years" in his call for the establishment of Palestinian state.

Whatever! It doesn't matter if the timeline is two months, the Pallies will drag it out decades by failing to comply with their responsibilities under the plan.

Real peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by changing attitudes, and this can only be acheived by changing regional conditions. Which is why those who claim we must deal with Palestine before toppling Saddam have the cart before the horse; indeed they have the horse pushing the cart backwards.

[Trust but Verify]

I agree. Why am I always worried about bringing one upon myself when there are so many other, more deserving candidates? I should relax.

[hchutch]

He got most of the tax cut he wanted.

He'd be doing better if it weren't for the craven switch that Jeffords made, IMHO.

As a conservative, I'd tell Bush: "[Y]ou will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you will interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy[.]"

Those are not my words. Those are the words from an operations order given to an American naval commander before a crucial battle that occured in a past war. In the political sense, this same mindset must be applied by conservatives.

[Whilom]

Once a state is established, Israel would be asked to halt incursions into Palestinian areas, freeze settlement building and be willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, the newspaper said.

This is the State Department's plan. Once they can get a Palestinian state declared, even under the guise of "provisional," the Palestinians will have no reason to "negotiate," and at the first "incursion" by the Israelis the U.S. will find it convenient to shift toward the anti-Israel bloc in the UN and support sanctions. This will open the attack on U.S. assistance to Israel and signal the Arabs that the U.S. is now willing to stand and watch as they destroy Israel. When the nukes start raining, the folks at the State Department will issue a white paper titled "It's Not Our Fault" and CNN will agree. If Bush goes for this sophomoric, Liberal offensive, Republicans will pay with losses in the mid-term election in November and the chance for a second Bush administration will be in great peril. The war on terrorism will become just another spinfest. This speech (Monday) will be the president's most important. Listen carefully.

[carton253]

I absolutely agree with you. The road to peace for the area goes through Baghdad.

The only thing that bothers me about the administration is that the coalition is defining the mission. I like Benjamin Netanyahu's approach better... let the mission define the coalition.

[chachacha]

You are correct!

We are not dealing with folks who obey the rules. We need to understand these terrorists will not go away just because we gave them a State or border.

We need to understand they indeed do want to destroy Israel. We also need to understand the bible has more to say about the events in the Middle east than some of us care to believe. In fact it's like reading the daily news papers. Verified daily.

Oh! well. I guess the good book was right. Some will be blinded to the truth because of their un-belief.

Sure we should keep trying regardless of what the bible says is the end results.

Rewarding terror is one move I don't think the last KING has in mind. He will direct the war in quite a different fashion. And, he will have no problem identifying the enemy. "GEORGE"

[tabsternager]

Yes, of course when someone tries to kill you, you have the right to kill or expel him. That's what should happen to the terrorists. But do you think that all 3 million Palestinians are terrorists? Many of them are not muslim extremists and a number of them are Christians, but they don't make the news headlines. I'm not for committing genocide on all 3 million people.

Separating them is the only way, and then the new Palestinian State can crack down on their own terrorists in their own land, and Israel can warn the new State that if anyone crosses the border and kills Israelis, it would be considered an act of war by the entire State.

Bush is no coward. He's a smart man, and it's about time we had someone with good sense in the White House.

[Amelia]

Do we know what time this speech is scheduled?

[over3Owithabrain]

No matter how it is spun, terror is being rewarded. The more the Pallies bombed civilian Israelis, the more Israel had to retaliate, the more people around the world called for "peace".

Bush is a simpleton if he thinks this will eliminate the desire of Arab Muslims to hate and kill the Jews.

Arafat and his murderous comrades are getting what they want - and "God's Man" George is helping them get it.

Spin away, Bush lovers, but tell me if you supported Hillary years ago when she called for a Palestinian state. Please be honest.

[MeekOneGOP]

[Blennos]

I too have been even more disenchanted with Mr Bush of late. I was a 2000 suppporter: giving his campaign money and marching against the attempted democratic election theft; but was always worried about his commitment to conservative principles.

His moral obtuseness concerning the middle east and its ultimate ramifications regarding the US make me realize that he either a self-serving politico or simply an historical and strategic dunce.

[over3Owithabrain]

Riddle me this - Arafat and his Pallie cronies executed a long-term plan to kill Jews. For that they are being given what they wanted - their own state.

And you think making these folks into a sovereign nation is a good idea?

Why are Bush's poll numbers so important, but the polls showing that 80 percent of Pallies want the Jews exterminated not?

The side that is genocidal is not Israel.

[uncbob]

administration's new Middle East policy,

Can't wait for the NEW Super size one to follow that

[hchutch]

I did not support Hillary's call, and I personally, would oppose a Palestinian state unless there was a warning that any attack on Israelis afetr the creation of said Palestinian state would be considered an act of war.

However, Bush-basers here need to be honest as well. We do not have the numbers in the Senate we need to foce elgislation we'd like through, and we have to deal with a hostile media. My personal advice to Bush, if I were in a position to give it, would be: "[Y]ou will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you will interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy."

These were orders issued by one American naval commander to another on the eve of a decisive naval engagement. Points to anyone who can tell me who the commanders were, and what battle it was.

[over3Owithabrain]

Uh - Bush hasn't even formally delcared war against our terrorist enemies, why would he tell Israel they should do so.

Unless he is being inconsistent?

Nahhh...

[hchutch]

I don't think you understand what I am getting at.

I want him to fight, but to only do so when there is a prospect of inflicting much greater damage on our opposition than would be inflicted on us. Our principles go nowhere if we lose elections.

[over3Owithabrain]

If creating a terrorist state somehow helps the GOP and Bush win the next election, we're all screwed.

I'm not on this thread to discuss the latest "strategery", find someone else to play those games with.

I'm more concerned right now with rewarding terror, which Bush, like Hillary, seems ready to do.

Sorry, can't go along with that

[KC_Conspirator]

Bush should begin his speech by immitating Reagan - "We have just outlawed terrorism. Bombing of Mecca and Jenin begins in 5 minutes".

I am for a Palestinian state, but with conditions like the ending of terrorism and making some sort of efforts to create a government that is'nt a joke.