What worries me about the "road map" is that there is no penalty for the Arafatians. What is they continue to support the terror? Is Israel required to go on anyway? If the "peace partner" fails, does it mean that there is no Palestinian state, at least not in this generation? It's not fair that they only get a carrot, and we only get a stick...

Does anyone honestly believe that there will ever be peace in Israel? I mean come on, why do we delude ourselves at the expense of innocent Israeli citizens?

#1 Veebee:

We can't really threaten as they haven't really got anything to lose. We could threaten to liberate Lebanon, then Syria, then Egypt, then ... but it was hard enough to get support for war with Iraq.

But stories like this are deeply disturbing, suggesting that Bush is prepared to sacrifice Israel’s security to ensure his reelection...

Stuff like this, pressure like this makes me think just nuke Mecca etc. now and get it over with. All this garbage leads to it anyway. Making a weakened Israel that has no choice but to unlease nuclear hell on it's centuries long tormrntors.

if you don't lay it out strongly for the arabs, they assume there are no consequences. bush has been told by gary bauer's group, by william kristol's organization, and by other people leery of what is perceived as excessive pressure on israel, that he is in danger of losing their support, but the truth of the matter is where will they go? bush and the state dept. know they will not suffer any penalties for leaning on israel, while turning a blind eye to the palis.

Bush advisors couldn't be more wrong.

Forcing the Road Trap down Israel's throat is going to force voters to vote whomever is running against Bush.

JG

Andjam,

Well, at least the "road map" can contain some sort of "last chance" provision. Some sort of an assertion that well, if you fail to curtail terrorism, all statehood negotiations will be frozen for 20 years, and if, in fact, you will be found to support the terrorist infrastructure, then all negotiations will be frozen for the next 50 years.

What I think is going to happen now, is that attacks on Jews and Israelis will increase and the "road map" will not be implemented. But a few years later another "peace plan" will emerge and once again Israel will be forced to negotiate with the terrorists.

The problem with Israel / Palestine is that it looks like a pepperoni pizza. The killing wont stop until a clear, defendalbe border is made. Not these measly roadblocks. And how can you make bona fide borders with such a terretorial entanglement?

Beats me.

I've said it here before, and I'll say it here again:

Bush is no friend of Israel -- he's a co-conspirator of the House of Saud.

Look at what he doesinstead of what he says.

Israel MUST start weaning itself off the American teat.
Friendly heads of state die or are replaced.
Nation states don't have friends; they have INTERESTS.
Israel must snap out of its diaspora mindset & resume developing its own vast human potential.
She has NO 100% reliable friends!

Bush has one of the best foreign service apparatus around him since Nixon. He was absolutely correct about Iraq (even though he used the wrong excuse). He has done more to help Israel since Eisenhower. He has used American lives to help eliminate the money that flows into the paletinian terror machine.

Give him a chance on this. The roadmap is a no-lose situation for Israel. You either get peace or you get a unified western world recognizing that the PLO is crap.

a top US Congressional source said that the US administration was angry about the delays in implementing the 'road map' because it sees success in Mideast peacemaking as an important element in George W. Bush's reelection campaign.

what source, Tom Daschel?
and, has Israel been delaying the splodemap? I hadn't hear anything like that yet.

koncha #11

You either get peace or you get a unified western world recognizing that the PLO is crap.

The last two and a half years have seen the most vicious acts of murder perpetrated by the PLO and those acting under the PLO, yet Israel is still the pariah of the world. The roadmap is Oslo Mk2. Nothing will improve whatsoever.

Re 11 koncha i agree with your first statement completely. Yet i disagree that western world as a whole will see PLO as crap. I mean how much more evidence could they possibly want to stop shaking hands with Mr.Arafish?

Chris T.

A couple of geographical comments. So we have the territory and we have to draw borders, right. To understand clearly just what part of the world we are talking about, we nee to figure out what we mean by Palestine.

Historically, the landmass did not have a political meaning, other then the fact that Romans applied it to the area in an effort to de-Judiase it. Prior to the dispersion, Jewish population centers were situated on both shores of river Jordan.

Lets fast forward 2000 years. After WW1 the British acquired the area called Palestine. It included what is now Israel, Lebanon, parts of Southern Syria. Most of the territory today is Jordan. Nobody living in Palestine in 1910s was a "Palestinian." About 60% of the population West of Jordan river was Arab(sometimes they called themselves Syrians). IF the word "Palestinian was used, it was usually in reference to Jews. For instance, there was a newspaper called
Palestinian Post and a Palestinian Symphony, all Jewish organizations.

In 1922 The League of Nations divided Palestine into the future Israel (on the West bank of Jordan) and Jordan, a Muslim Arab state (on the East). Ben Gurion and local Jews accepted the partition.

In 1948 the territory in the West again, was divided into Israel and Palestine (for the lack of a better name), Jews and Arabs. Again, Ben Gurion and the Jews accepted the partition, but the Arab world rejected it. What followed was the Israeli war for Independence.

An armistice was negotiated by the State Department in 49 and Israel wound up with what Ben Gurion called an "Auschwitz border" on the East. This border, now known as the "green line" was (and is) virtually indefensible. This is the border the world community wants Israel to return to.

Also, I do not believe that the conflict is about the borders. Arguably, Israeli Independence war still goes on. The Arab world continues to reject Israel and the so-called Palestinian people are in the frontlines of the war. It doesn't matter where you draw the border, the question is existence of Israel and presence of Jews in the Middle East.

Past US President's who engaged significantly in the Middle East did so with the overall goal of establishing peace by pressuring Israel to make concessions.

However, as perfectly evidenced by the 2000 talks, when a US President pressures an Israeli government to make concessions - as they did by offering to the Palestinian Authority 97% of what they were asking for - what resulted was not peace, but Infatidah 2.

Even Arafat's own advisors suggested he accept the 2000 deal. Arafat declined the deal without any counter, left, and cranked up both the PR and terror campaigns knowing that more concessions would be available as a result of more violence.

I believe that the core of Pres. Bush's administration, in particular Condi Rice understand that the real road to peace is for the pressure and ability to deliver being placed on the Palestinians. They need to understand and accept peace and co-existence just as the Egyptian and Jordanian governments did. They need to reign in their own terror groups as well as those like Hamas and Hezbollah that are funded from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

They know that Israel is more pragmatic than the PA and has taken the first steps towards peace. But both sides need to take the steps - and it's the PA's turn to deliver concrete measurable steps.

These comments from "administration officials" are leaks from the government by people who I believe neither speak for the administration or speak in favor of the roadmap or for the rights of Israel. There remain many in the governments' employ that are pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-US success in the Middle East, and anti-Bush - and these people are the ones who are eager to be quoted / eagerly quoted in their anonymity.

They are the ones who are also the "administration officials" who are playing to the position that the administration "lied" about WMD in Iraq and other politically sponsored shots against the goals and aims of President Bush.

They should be taken with a grain of salt, until, and unless, one of these weasels is willing to put their name behind the quote.

A serious question for all of you: is it possible for one to be pro-Israel without being pro the Likud Party and all its positions?

3ChordGuitarist:

what source, Tom Daschel?

LMAO! I knew that statement didn't sit right. NIce call. It does go exactly in the mold of "Unless Iraq is transformed into Illinois in 14 days, this administration will have failed." "Unless Bush creates the peace we've never seen in over 50 years, this administration is a failure."

I think, hope, maybe somewhere between the two, that Bush is waiting for the Liberals to start attacking him for being too soft regarding the PLO. He'll mutter something about being fairminded, bumps in the road, committment to the process, etc. Look vulnerable and flush them out and have them make the case to the public for hammering the terrorists. Then seize that tack as his own just as momentum starts to build. Let the conservatives boil too and add incriminations against Arafat and co.

The sanctions against Israel sound like a flat-out lie. Not by JPost, but Bush/Sharon.

#17

Yes.

JG

#17 Mike Reynolds: Actually, that's a stunningly stupid question, as a best-case scenario. If you don't know the difference between a nation and the entire platform of one political party, please go away. If you do, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Nay sayers abound, I do not trust the Road Map, but i also am pragmatic enough to realize Israel cannot maintain an Army among the Arab population as it does now. That is not sustainable for many reasons, which we all know.

We must find some road map to peace. If this one works, great. If not, we will need to find another.

The big difference this time, as I see it, is Sept 11 and the recognition that the USA in the current administration has declared war against Israel's enemies. This has never happened before.

The road map not only goes from Gaza to J-m it also goes on through Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Riyadh Medina, Tehran and Cairo.

The game has just begun, perhaps in the Third inning.

As to the logic and symmetry of what was and the facts/Resolutions/dislocations/immigrants/refugees and as to seeking answers in these; it is all moot today. What matters is what is on the ground now, not what was decided or happened in the past.

This is a new time. USA invasion of Iraq changed the dynamics. We do not yet know what some of the fall out will be, but the dynamic have changed.

We need to think differently and not depend on our past answers. These are truly interesting times.

#21 Simpleton
"We must find some road map to peace. If this one works, great. If not, we will need to find another."

And another...
And another...
And another...
And another...
And another...

Please don't do that. You're making my stomach hurt.

And what's this "we" shit. "we" sit in our comfy chairs & pontificate while Jewish blood is running in gutters all over Israel. "WE"? Give me a fucking break!

#17 - Mike Reynolds

I'll assume your question is honest so,
allow me to remind you of the facts of Israeli politics,
and the myth that is the "Likud":

Likud is NOT REALLY RIGHT WING:

PM Sharon is a refugee of the left wing "Mapai" party which ruled Israel for ages. The ailing succesor of "Mapai" is "Labor", but the differences between Likud & Labor are marginal, and are only a matter of pretence.
For instance, it is a LIKUD government that gave the Sinai to Egypt in return for the peace accord.
The name of the person who uprooted the "Yamit" settlement in the Sinai is - "Ariel Sharon".

The current government in Israel is NOT A RIGHT WING GOVERNMENT:

Furthermore, the current coalition is similar to the national unity government that preceeded the current government,
the differences are getting rid of the ultra-orthodox parties, and replacing "Labor" with the new rising star in Israeli politics - "Shinuy". The members of "Shinuy" are refugees from the extreme left under the guise of moderates and are more powerful than "Labor". You could actually say this is a center-left government.

The only thing "Right" about the current Israeli government is the policy of finance minister Bibi Netanyahu. Everything else is ignorant bullshit that western "journalists" recite since Sharon won the elections.

I wonder if this is just posturing just like the pals are constantly doing. Yes, we'll impose "sanctions" with a wink and a nod. Doing this would give us some leverage with Abu Maggot and tha Arafish, yet when it finally came down to it, we could "impose" them yet do absolutely jack squat to enforce them.

Truly it would serve the pals right to negotiate in bad faith just as they have in recent memory.

I am 100% for it. What comes around goes around.

i find it hard to believe that george w. bush (not george h.w. bush) would compromise Israel security. he is the most moral president we have had since...lincoln? his
advisers - rumsfeld, chaney, wolfowitz, abrams, rice are true neocons.

this is the efforts by the state dept to one-up DOD.
i think bush is letting powell promote this, and bush,
like sharon, expect the road-map to be a road-map to
Palestinian non-compliance. bush says i told you so to powell (like he did before with iraq), sharons gets to take
the high moral ground, european union gets a dose of reality which it will ignore, bush can tell the arab countries he tried, and arafat and abu mazen get
to fight it out

again, bus is a moral person, one can read his statement about anti-semitism in europe and elsewhere as a stronger statement than from a clinton who would have said anti-semitism in europe. period. the elsewhere was
a veiled (pun intended) reference to the arab world.

but bush is holding the cards (sharon has taken a peek),
and remember bush has made arafat a non-entity. bush
will give a chance for abu mazen to finish arafat off. either he succeeds and maybe something will change.
more likely, he won't and the palestinians kill each other off like they did in intifada 1. the arabs havent changed,
the arabs are not going to change, but perhaps the world will change a little bit with the departure of hussein, the disruption of al qaeda, and then the us can go after bigger threats to the us (and israel) like iran. first,
syria will get the squeeze to de-terrorize itself, and then
by the end of bush second term - iran will get theirs.

this is the best case scenario. in my heart of hearts, i
cant think bush would screw israel, like his old man
and clinton did.

#17 Mike Reynolds 5/31/2003 09:54AM PST

A serious question for all of you: is it possible for one to be pro-Israel without being pro the Likud Party and all its positions?

Of course it's possible to be pro-Israel without endorsing the Likud Party and all of its positions. Diverse views are a neccesary part of a good political system. For example, Natan Sharansky voted no in the cabinent vote on approving the Road Map steps. This was not in line with the Likud party vote, but I doubt that anyone here would argue that Natan Sharansky is anti-Israel.

However, it is not possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Zionist. It is not possible to be pro-Israel and think that it is immoral for Israel to defend its borders and fight terrorism. So, not every possible disagreement with the Likud party is compatible with being pro-Israel. For that matter, people here don't call positions anti-Israeli on the grounds that they are non-Likud any more than they call positions anti-American on the grounds that they are non-Republican. It's not disagreement that's objectionable, it's the poisonous content of some specific ideas. Confusing the issue is popular in some political subcultures, but it is not something that should be endorsed by reasonable people.

As I have said, I tire of this bullshit. Isreal either gets up the nerve to purge the palestinians and consolodate a greater Isreal behind a high wall, or dismantle the settlements and consolidate a lesser Isreal behind a high wall.

They can be bombed and shot for as long as they like. They have the muscle to do what they want, if they refuse to crush Arab terrorism, that's their problem.

What's the EU and the Arab thugocracies going to do if Isreal drives out the Pals? Scream blue murder.

What else? Well what did they do while the Balklands ran red with muslim blood? On their own doorstop? After all their fine speeches about 'never again'?

Nothing.

They are gutless scum. Ignore them and get it over with, or else stop complaining. I reserve my symapthy for people who can't fight back, like the Tibetians or Burmese. The Jews can look after themselves.

Israel always makes concessions hoping that the Arabs will accept their stupid homeland, only to have Yasser reject it as "not enough". Then Israel uses restrained force against the poor homeless Palestinians.
I think that this time Israel needs to declare the Palestinian State, with defensable borders and no large Arab population centers. (Sorry Hebron lovers.)
The Arabs and the UN will of course say it's not enough, not right, etc., but then the next time there is terrorism against Israel the IDF will be fighting against a country, not just a group of poor poor refugees. The IDF can then start destroying cities of this nation that has attacked Israel, begining with Jenin, Ramallah, and other cities that are dangerously close to Jewish population centers.
We all know that only a huge slaughter of Arabs will be needed to settle the issue once and for all. They're still "too fond of war", as Wm. Tecumseh Sherman would say.
Give them their ...ing state, then kill it.

11 & 25: You've got it right, IMO. We've not seen or heard Dubya do or say anything that contradicts his June 2002 speech. (Still no talks with Arafat, for example.) And this article, least of all does nothing to support such a view.

Speaking of which: I'm no newspaperman by trade, but to me the quality of this article falls somewhere between "piss" and "poor." Who are these "U.S. Officials?" And why not even a "No Comment" from Mr. Weisglass, who supposedly received the sanctions?
If someone on this thread can vouch for the veracity of items like these as they appear in JPost, please let me know, and I will post an apology. But this whole article strike me as gossip.

And Charles, based on what evidence do you write:

suggesting that Bush is prepared to sacrifice Israel’s security to ensure his reelection.

Opinion polls consistently show Americans to be pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist (like myself). Therefore, who's votes is Bush supposedly trolling for? Republicans like me would simply stay home if he did such things. It would be political suicide for him to do so.

Again if you know something about JPost I don't, I hope you'll share it, but for now it seems to me like you're writing and posting from some alternate reality on this one. :%P%

#10 Given the past support of Israel by the USA, I must disagree with your assessment. We do support Israel. Unquestioningly? No.

#11 I agree with you. The world is a much different place since 9/11. There is a much larger focus on the Israeli/Palo conflict presently. While many "civilized" countries like France and Belgium probably will never get the picture, many others who were previously silent will.

I still think GWB has a greater agenda in mind here. I don't think this administration is simple-minded when it comes to this conflict.

However, harsh repercussions should be laid down on the Palis for any violations. The bullshit lie that their govt. has no control over the violent Islamists can no longer stand.

If the IDF shot 100 Palis for every Israeli they killed, this crap would cease in short order.

World opinion? What has that ever done to help Israel?

The new Bush Doctrine:

"Peace with Terrorism for Israel only"

someguy: that's why I used the word "suggesting" rather than "demonstrating." I'm skeptical of this report too; it first appeared in the World Tribune, which is not the most reliable of sources. But when Jpost (a more reliable source) picked it up, I felt it couldn't be ignored. If it turns out to be untrue, I'll be very happy to post an update to that effect.

But about Bush meeting with Abu Mazen -- this really rubs me the wrong way, especially immediately after touring a death camp of which Mazen tried to deny the existence.

The roadmap is doomed to failure, in my opinion, and unless there is a deeper game being played I am very disappointed that Bush is putting so much emphasis on it. No such deals should ever have been considered before substantive steps were taken on the Palestinian side to stop the terrorism and brainwashing of their children into a life of hate and violence. By proceeding with this plan, that demands no accountability for the Palestinian Arabs, we're sending exactly the wrong message to them and to the Arab world -- that terrorism pays off.

Thanks, Charles. If you vouch for JPost, I'll take your word for it.

And your last two paragraphs are spot on. Come to think of it, why would Bush meet with Mazen before substantive steps have been taken by the Palis? As I understood it, that was what the roadmap was for, and this meeting at this time seems to undercut that stated purpose. Not much accountability being enforced, is there?

Quote from "Cow and Chicken":

"Ah with-DRAW the QUEST-shun!" :D

First, thanks Charles for promoting this item.

Second, as I noted in my original post on this, I think Bush is laying down a marker here.

I think that either Bush has read Abbas's inaugural address or at least has been briefed on it. I think he knows that Abbas spoke glowingly of "courageous uprising against Israel’s aggression." I think Bush knows that Abbas talked of securing the release of the "honorable heroes" being detained by Israel. That Abbas expressed hope that the "foreign occupation" of the land of Iraq would soon end. That Abbas condemned attempts to isolate Arafat. That Abbas conspicuously defined the security he would work to secure as the security of Palestinians.

When Bush said that you could either side with America or you could side with the terrorists, Arafat did not get the message. So Bush is putting the proposition in somewhat different terms, and now he will see if Abbas gets the message.

I think this is grounds for cautious optimism.

someguy (29) wrote:

Therefore, who's votes is Bush supposedly trolling for? Republicans like me would simply stay home if he did such things. It would be political suicide for him to do so.

Absolutely. I really don't get it either. The people who loudly clamor for the "peace process" to continue (read: Israel is to make all the concessions and should ignore ongoing genocide attacks) are people who will never, ever vote for Bush. Bush could bring peace to the ME, stroll across the Sea of Galilee, change tap water into Brut Champagne, and raise pancake Corrie from the dead tomorrow, and they would still not vote for him. (In fact, they would say "Scrub is grandstanding again.")

The only thing I can think of is that this is fulfilling a promise made to Tony Blair in return for Britain's support. Well, Blair behaved admirably during the whole runup to the Iraqi war and during the war itself, but he's a certified Idiotarian when it comes to Israel (and the EU).

Donna (#36):

Bush could bring peace to the ME, stroll across the Sea of Galilee, change tap water into Brut Champagne, and raise pancake Corrie from the dead tomorrow, and they would still not vote for him. (In fact, they would say "Scrub is grandstanding again.")

Good point. I missed that one. Bush would lose those who would have voted for him, and gain no voters in the process.

Double political suicide. Nope--I don't see him doing that, not even for Blair.

Come on, did anyone really doubt that Bush was going to do what was in his re-election interests? He is determined to succeed where Clinton failed, even if it means that more Israelis will die. The Palestinians will rightly claim that these bullying tactics mean that their murderous campaign is succeeding.

I find it infuriating that Bush is threatening Israel's ability to defend itself while his Administration does nothing about making the $2 billion the Egypt gets contingent on the cessation of anti-US and anti-Israel hate propaganda.

It's the same old double standard hard at work, folks. I just hope that the Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot - again.

I know that im being rather silly here - but it would be nice is the Palestinians suddenly did an about face, accepted peace, and everyone could just get on with their lives.

Sorry - wont happen.

I have a feeling that with this administration at the helm, there is a good chance that giving the current "road map" a try is a good idea. Bush seems to get things done you realize -- whats to say that if Israel plays along nicely, and the palestinians shit the bed, that action man himself wont put the issue to bed once and for all?

#36 Donna V

The only thing I can think of is that this is fulfilling a promise made to Tony Blair in return for Britain's support.

Hm, maybe I'm getting this all wrong, cos I'm still a bit confused over all this roadmap business and what's up with it, but that explanation has never convinced me. Nevermind Blair's position, it's the UK that simply doesn't have that kind of influence over the US. I mean, would Bush take, on a crucial issue like this, a position that risks disappointing even a part of his own electorate... just to make Blair happy? That's really stretching Blair's powers to superhuman. It was the UK's own interest to go to Iraq, Blair regained a lot of the support he'd lost before the war, he gained even more status, so they don't even need to ask for any payback; but, even if they asked for that kind of payback and put pressure on Bush for the roadmap, British pressure alone wouldn't cut it.

If there's pressure here it'd be so obviously by Saudis & Arabs partners, those are the guys with the kind of power and influence that Blair couldn't even dream of. Not even three times the UK could match it.

zaza: Excellent point! [Donna slaps forehead and exclaims "Of course! It's the *(�^@# Saudis! Duh!"]

Not to mention the %@@%&***%#%$@&**State Department.

That was (effectively) a double-post Donna V.

WTH?

According to AP, US consulate reopened in Beirut Friday.

One reason given: this will spare Lebanese from having to travel to Syria or Cyprus to apply for a visa.

Let me get this straight: the US is allowing people from a country whose government recognizes Hezbollah as a legitimate "political party" and supports its right to fight Israel "occupation" to travel and stay in our country.

Did I get that right?

We are so screwed.

M&*(%^$( F^*(^*(^ State Department!

#20 Model4: Coming from a similar position, I understand #17 Mike Reynolds' question. He understands perfectly well the difference between supporting Israel and supporting Sharon or his cronies. He's wondering if the people around here do. It's intended as a "litmus test" question. I ask similar questions in both strong left and strong right forums -- it often shows whether people are mindless ideologues or people worth arguing with.

As to the road map: its purpose is to get someone other than Arafat (or Arafish -- very cute) to speak for the Palestinians, in the hope that said person could take different positions. Everyone now realizes that Arafat has ossified and will never alter his policies again, so the first step in changing the Palestinians is to chunk Arafat.

I emphatically do not agree with those such as #27 Amos2 who believe that purging the territories is the answer. It is true that with the US presence and aggressive posture it is highly unlikely that such a move would trigger another Arab-Israeli war. Nonetheless it would simply perpetuate the struggle with a lower-level conflict across the Jordan River. Additionally, anyone who knows anything about the Israeli economy knows how dependent it is on Palestinian labor. Purging the Palestinians is like shooting your only workhorse. The fact that the horse kicks you a lot is not enough reason to shoot it -- you gonna pull that plow yourself?

The real key to shutting down the terror is to shut down the meme that drives both the intifada and the "war on terror". i.e., the propaganda machine that maintains Arab hostility towards Israel and the West. Without the support of most Arab governments, the opinion that everything is fault of the US and Israel would become one opinion among many and the heavy $$ and personnel support would collapse. This is unfortunately a long term project. In the meantime, efforts such as the roadmap must be pursued to prepare Palestinians for statehood -- including the idea that one day their struggle will end. The necessary consequences of that ending have not been sufficiently thought out in Palestininan official society because Hamas, IJ, and Aracronies have "supressed" anyone mentioning them.

Finally: some people around here believe it is immoral to threaten Israel's US subsidies. I fail to see how this can be disallowed in all cases. If it is the Palestinians (Arafish...hee!) who are being obstructionist, we whack them. If it is Sharon... we do what? Yell at them?Granted, Sharon has not been obstructionist lately. But please do recall that this is the man who attacked Beirut against the orders of his superiors.

The idea behind Zionism is that Israel be treated as another country. (That at least is true.) That the Jews stop being thought of as a "special-case people". (It should be noted that a necessary corollary is the that the Jews themselves must stop thinking in these terms as well.) That Israel have secure borders and a respected place in world affairs. (This is finally close to coming true after fifty years.) And, finally, that they be treated by other nations as all other nations do -- "Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

As long as US-Israeli relations are hardwired "ally" and EU-Israeli and Arab-Israeli relations are hardwired "enemy", Zionism has not won.

I saw a recent poll today on Fox that showed most americans were for pressuring Israel and possible sanctions on the Road Map. It's not exactly political suicide.

If Bush and his entourage were blown to bits by the PLO mass-murderers, I wonder what the U.S. response would be. Probably not the ususal stale condemnations and the hyperbole of not letting this deter us from the goals of peacenonsense. The hypocritical double standards would be exposed, but at least the disease that is the Arab PLO (and their terror masters) just might be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Then, and only then, will there be peace. But, needless to say, it shouldn't have to take the above scenario to accomplish what is truly the only solution to the festering vermin that is the Arab Muslim world.

The Allies bombed Nazi Germany and Japan to Kingdom Come during WW2. The world has nary heard a peep out of them since in terms of military shenanigans. The same must be done to the Muslim world. Indiscriminately. Since ferocity is the only thing they understand, let's get ferocious.

Today's June 1, and I guess, from a series of newspaper ads I've read, it is the 55th aniversary of Israel's founding. Let's hope Bush will draw up his policies for peace wisely so that Israel can continue to last and work with America for 55 more... centuries.

My guess is that after meeting with Abu Denier Mazen, Bush comes out and declares that even as Bush has pressured Israel to accept the roadmap, there is nothing that the PLO will do to accept it. So you can't have a negotiated peace if only one side negotiates.

Perhaps GWB will try to bring Abu around to openly opposing Arafat and trying to actually slow down or at least stop promoting terrorism. When Abu fails to even try this, then Bush can ignore him as well as the Arafish. Then there's no one left for Israel or Bush to negotiate with.

This would justify putting the PLO squarely into the "they only understand one thing" camp, maybe 'upgrade' the PLO to a new member of the Axis of Evil now that Iraq has turned over its AoE membership card and blazer badge.

#33 Charles 5/31/2003 12:24PM PST

But about Bush meeting with Abu Mazen -- this really rubs me the wrong way, especially immediately after touring a death camp of which Mazen tried to deny the existence.

It occours to me that the two might be related. This could be part of Bush's intention to send a clear message to Abu Mazen and others that neither holocaust denial nor anti-semitism is seen as remotely reasonable or acceptable to the United States.

The roadmap is doomed to failure, in my opinion, and unless there is a deeper game being played I am very disappointed that Bush is putting so much emphasis on it.

I think that it is right to assume that Bush is playing a deeper game here. That's what Bush does. Bush went to the UN before -- it wasn't because he thought the UN was a moral authority. It also wasn't because he intended to let the UN make decisions. It was because he wanted to win dimplomatically as well as militarilly, and he succeeded brilliantly at that.

Part of resolving any conflict involves diplomacy, but not in the way the idiotarians think. They think that dimplomacy is a combination of appeasment and magically creating agreements convince everyone to dance in perfect harmony no matter who they are. In reality, it is the proccess of using threats and manipulation to get people to either help you or refrain from interfering.

I think what Bush is actually doing is a combination of trying it in case it works, and creating diplomatic circumstances that will allow force to be used more effectively if it doesn't. Even though there was very little chance of getting a second UN resolution, going to the UN for one made things easier.

The Road Map has an unprecedented chance of actually working, because Bush is much less likely than any President in history to demand unilateral concessions from Israel and look the other way when the Palestinians do nothing to prevent terrorism and incitement. He's not real big on people who try to pull the wool over his eyes.

No such deals should ever have been considered before substantive steps were taken on the Palestinian side to stop the terrorism and brainwashing of their children into a life of hate and violence.

The point of the Road Map is to create circumstances where forcing them to stop is possible. The force can either come from the Palestinian Authority with the Road Map, or it can be imposed from outside with the justification that they are not acting in good faith to meet the terms.

I don't think Bush is suffering from the all too common delusion that the Palestinians would love to stop, if only they had a state. He knows that force is going to have to come from somewhere in order to make this stop. He thinks it's possible that it could come from the Palestinian Authority if Arafat is no longer in charge.

There isn't any chance of a Palestinian state being declared before they knock this off, no matter what the UN etc think. Bush is not likely to agree that the Palestinians have met the conditions unless they actually have. Bush's interpertation is the one that matters -- all the UN does is make resolutions that no one enforces, unless the US is involved. This doesn't mean there can't be *any* Palestinian incitement and violence, but the Palestinians that would govern have to be sincerely trying to stop them and be mostly effective at it.

By proceeding with this plan, that demands no accountability for the Palestinian Arabs, we're sending exactly the wrong message to them and to the Arab world -- that terrorism pays off.

I think Bush is calling their bluff, and I don't think he intends to look the other way if, as is likely, it turns out that they were in fact bluffing. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, Bush won't expect it to work anymore, and neither will the politicians that are electable after him. Palestinian statehood is not the goal of Palestinian terrorism, and a civilized state that suppresses terror is no reward to those who perpetuate terrorism.

from Opinion Journal 6-02-03
---

'Holocaust Denial' in Reuterville
Here's a new one from Reuters: The word evil gets scare quotes even when referring to the Holocaust, as in the headline: "Bush Tours Auschwitz, Says 'Evil' Must Be Resisted." Agence France-Presse does the same thing: "In Shadow of Nazi Terror, Bush calls for Unity to Fight 'Evil.' "

AFP's reference to "Nazi terror," however, likely wouldn't pass muster at Reuters, where one man's Nazi terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
---