Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 6/25/2002 9:44:46 AM EST
National Post (Canada) Tuesday, June 25, 2002 Bush is rewarding terrorism by Daniel Pipes http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=%7b808DBCAB-01B6-4DDD-839A-A517D8EEE1EF%7d U.S. President George W. Bush has been adamant since Sept. 11 about stopping terrorism, but he took a firm step in the opposite direction in his speech yesterday. He should have told the Palestinians clearly and unequivocally that their 21-month campaign of violence against Israel is unacceptable and must conclude before any discussion of rewards can be started. Instead, the President outlined his vision for a "provisional" Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories." Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism. This not only does grave damage to the President's proclaimed war on terrorism but it sends a signal to the Palestinians to expect further rewards for yet more violence. True, there was much in his presentation about the virtues of local elections, independent auditing and market economics, but the only message that will stick is a cruder one: Terrorism pays. Bush's outline for action then went on to make a large number of mistakes about the specifics of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Here are some: - Misreading Palestinian opinion: Bush declares that only a small minority of Palestinians subscribe to the means or views of the terrorists. "The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage." But this is false; nearly every opinion survey, political speech, mosque sermon and other indication suggests that a substantial majority of Palestinians enthusiastically support the campaign of violence against Israel. This has the ominous implication that practising democracy, as the President calls for, would lead -- ironically -- to a more aggressive policy toward Israel. - Moral equivalence: Bush implies a basic commonality between the plight of Israelis who suffer terrorism and the Palestinians who inflict it. "It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation." To see the error of this statement, change it to "It is untenable for American citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Afghans to live in squalor and occupation." - Victimology: Palestinians have "been treated as pawns" says the U.S. President. Not so: Since 1967, the Palestinians have had an increasingly autonomous and powerful voice in running their own affairs. Especially since the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, they have been in control of their own destiny. To portray them as victims suggests they would behave differently once they have a formal state. In fact, every sign points to a continuation of the present policies.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 9:45:29 AM EST
- Good governance the key: "True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism." This is a touching but naive belief in the wonders of decent ruling institution. To be sure, autonomous local leaders, multi-party elections and honest politicians are all to the good, but how might they lead to a reduction of hostilities? This view has things precisely turned around: Democracy, market economics and anti-terrorism will only follow on a far more fundamental change, namely a Palestinian willingness to accept the existence of Israel. A Palestinian state that continues to seek the destruction of the Jewish state by nature cannot be democratic. - Overemphasizing terrorism: "There is simply no way to achieve [Palestinian-Israeli] peace until all parties fight terror." Palestinian terrorism has caused terribly tragedies but it is not the heart of the problem. Terrorism, after all, is but a tactic in the service of a war aim. That war aim -- the destruction of Israel -- is the heart of the problem. For example, it is perfectly possible to imagine a future Palestinian state that does renounce terrorism and instead builds up a conventional force of planes, tanks and ships with which to attack and destroy Israel. Along these lines, it is noteworthy that Bush did not call on the PA to reduce the size of its armed forces. A house cannot be built from a blueprint that gets wrong the terrain, the size and shape of the plot, and the building materials. Likewise, a political program cannot work if it is premised on errors. By rewarding terrorism, the Bush speech sets back the current war effort; by misunderstanding the Palestinian-Israeli war, it is rendered unworkable as a serious effort at conflict resolution. In all, it represents a disappointment and a missed opportunity.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 9:49:54 AM EST
Bush is not rewarding terrorism at all, in fact it is my belief that he just cut Arafats throat.. Ben
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 9:55:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Bush is not rewarding terrorism at all, in fact it is my belief that he just cut Arafats throat..Ben
View Quote
I agree. Yassar AFatRat is toast. But I don't think Bush cut his throat. More like he just cut off his balls. He's leaving the coup de' gras to the IDF.[frag]
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 9:56:52 AM EST
I don't think that Bush or any of the principals take this speech or its ideas too seriously. It is just to appease the "how can America be silent when the Jews are invading Palestine" crowd. Jews and Palestinians find the very existence of the other offensive, and none of these "concessions" will be satisfactory to either side for very long, if ever. I'm no expert, thats just my take on it.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 10:07:08 AM EST
I am Christian but a whole hearted supporter of the IDF. I beleive what Bush has just done is indeed sut Mr. Rag Heads throat, but in a political manner as to try not to make anyone angrier at us in the muddle east. remember there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes. I for one would be willing to commit troops to help the IDF, as long as there is no UN involvement. Every time the UN is envolved we get screwed. Rules of Engagement (ROE) suck. I for one respect he IDF and if unleashed would in no time have the majority of the problem solved. As we have here in America also the liberals and do gooders would be screaming massacre. Young adults and children are being killed on a regular basis by the Pals and to my astonishment some of the world look at the IDF as the bad guys (BG). Politics is not going to make this go away anytime soon. It will last for sometime and I beleive eventually we and the IDF will be involved in more countries than Isreal. I just hope whenit happens that someoe will remove the politics during the conflicts, the liberals will hide away and let the military get the job done. Just my 2 cents worth.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 11:12:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2002 11:29:28 AM EST by Jarhead_22]
The Israelis have to give up the West Bank, including the settlements. The "Palestinians" have to give up trying to destroy Israel and individual Israelis. Until they can get that done, any declarations by the President are just wasted air.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 11:23:50 AM EST
I think what Bush did was very clever and sets us up for a win-win. He gave the Palestinians an out with requirements that they will most likely not meet. If they do, then, BINGO! we have "peace" and everyone is happy. Expect GW to get a Nobel peace prize. If the Pals don't bite, then he can wash his hands and said that he tried, thereby paving the way to let the Isrealis deal with it however they wish. The rest of the Middle East can no longer blame the U.S. and then Isreal can really clamp down. Of course, things are more complicated than this, but it's an idea. -White Horse
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 1:37:53 PM EST
Fritz, How on earth you managed to come to that conclusion... or did you do that just to get attention to the thread? Arafat to hold free elections? Share power with a elected legislature? Hell no. He enjoys being a petty dictator like his friends Assad and Hussein. Worse, he isn't even eligable. No one with ties to terrorism can run for these offices. "New leadership" means just that. Although this [i]could[/i] begin days and be accomplished in the next 18 months as outlined, it wont. Probably it will lead to a Palistinian civil war. White Horse is right, by putting the onus back on the PA itself he gets to wash his hands of the matter, or try to. And gets to move on to what he really wants which is to invade Iraq. This whole campaign of terror in Israel being all along orchestrated to delay a US attack on Iraq by Iraq itself, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has switched sides now that the King is no longer in daily control of the government, and Crown Prince Abdullah is running it- who never has liked the US. Even more important, he doesn't want Iraq to become a unrestrectd exporter of oil. If a US backed government comes to power in Iraq, its commitment to OPEC probably goes out the window and the taps will run wide open. Ostensibly this will be so Iraq can pay its bills, like the 8 billion it owes Russia for weapons the prompt payment of which is a prerequisite for Russian acceptance of a forced regime change in what was one of their former "pet" countries. The effect will be to plunge oil prices well below 20 dollars a barrel again. Good for the US, but not for the Saudies and other Gluf States that have high overhead in the form of a bloated aristocracy and the need to bribe the public regularly to keep them quiet. OPEC has spent the last year or more trying to establish a 25 dollar a barrel floor for oil, partially contribuitng to the rise in gasoline prices here.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 1:39:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: The Israelis have to give up the West Bank, including the settlements. The "Palestinians" have to give up trying to destroy Israel and individual Israelis.
View Quote
And the Muslim states must recognize the right of Israel to exist.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 1:44:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Arafat to hold free elections? Share power with a elected legislature? Hell no. He enjoys being a petty dictator like his friends Assad and Hussein.
View Quote
Don't be too surprised if Arafat steps aside.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 1:49:47 PM EST
Don't be too suprised if Colin Powell resigns either.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 1:58:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Don't be too surprised if Colin Powell resigns either.
View Quote
Ok, this is the second time I've seen something about Powel, can someone clue me in on what's going on with him? Did Bush usurp him or something with his statement?
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 2:55:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2002 3:03:59 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By Balzac72:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Don't be too surprised if Colin Powell resigns either.
View Quote
Ok, this is the second time I've seen something about Powel, can someone clue me in on what's going on with him? Did Bush usurp him or something with his statement?
View Quote
If you beleve the leaks... It has been Powell who keeps arguing for Israeli to not retaliate against the Palistinians. Because he values Arab support for US measures, since he personally knows all the leaders of the Arab countries having delt with them and worked intimately with them a dozen years ago. He may be getting support from Cheney, again for the same reason. Opposed to him are Rice and Rumsfeld who, again if the leaks are to be beleved, have a more moralistic approach. Terrorists must be punished, and the governments that support them as well. The United States was attacked, and bringing those responsible to justice comes first regardless of who's feelings are hurt. They also beleve that the US should help, and act in concert with, other countries who suffer from Islamic terrorism- Israel, India, and Russia. They do not beleve Islamic public opinion can be won, or that it even has value since so few Islamic countries are democracies. Rather, if the support of a Islamic country is needed they beleve in using economic and political coersion on the leaders of said countries to force them to help, as in Pakistan. Powell doesn't approve of such heavy handed measures against the Islamic states, because he thinks that some day when we need them, and don't have a big moral club like having been attacked directly, they will remember how they were treated by us and not support us. He seems to beleive that the "frendship" between the US and the Islamic countries in the Gulf War was real and can be recaptured. Rice and Rumsfeld apparently do not even beleve its in our best intrests to get that involved with non-democratic countries. If this is true, Bush's rejection of Arafat, the dumping of a established leader in the Islamic world is a defeat of the Powell position. Now the possibility exists that Powell himself has abandoned Arafat because of his failure to controll terror. But it could also be that Bush has sided against Powell and with his defense team. What is unknown is how bitter this divide was, but what is known is that Powell spent a lot of personal capital on this and didn't come to a solution.
Top Top