The BIG GIANT Israel vs. Lebanon/Palestine thread

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by IdoL, Jul 15, 2006.

  1. #1001 stewacide, Aug 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Interesting article on Bush Sr. vs. Bush Jr's approach to Israel:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html?hp&ex=1154577600&en=42c7531c0d1cc236&ei=5094&partner=homepage

    Bush�s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father

    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
    Published: August 2, 2006

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 � When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father.

    The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Mr. Sharon had helped develop. But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 � six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond � the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel.

    �He told Sharon in that first meeting that I�ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,� said one person present, given anonymity to speak about a private conversation. �It was like, �Whoa, where did that come from?� �

    That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As the president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah � even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation � some advisers to the father are expressing deep unease with the Israel policies of the son.

    �The current approach simply is not leading toward a solution to the crisis, or even a winding down of the crisis,� said Richard N. Haass, who advised the first President Bush on the Middle East and worked as a senior State Department official in the current president�s first term. �There are times at which a hands-off policy can be justified. It�s not obvious to me that this is one of them.�

    Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role through the prism of the fight against terrorism. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro-Israeli component of his conservative Republican base.

    The first President Bush came to the Oval Office with long diplomatic experience, strong ties to Arab leaders and a realpolitik view that held the United States should pursue its own strategic interests, not high-minded goals like democracy, even if it meant negotiating with undemocratic governments like Syria and Iran.

    The current President Bush has practically cut off Syria and Iran, overlaying his fight against terrorism with the aim of creating what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls �a new Middle East.� In allying himself so closely with Israel, he has departed not just from his father�s approach but also from those of all his recent predecessors, who saw themselves first and foremost as brokers in the region.

    In a speech Monday in Miami, Mr. Bush offered what turned out to be an implicit criticism of his father�s approach.

    �The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East,� Mr. Bush said. �For decades, the status quo in the Middle East permitted tyranny and terror to thrive. And as we saw on September the 11th, the status quo in the Middle East led to death and destruction in the United States.�

    Now, as Mr. Bush faces growing pressure from Arab leaders and European allies to end the current wave of violence, these differences between father and son have come into sharp relief.

    �There is a danger in a policy in which there is no daylight whatsoever between the government of Israel and the government of the United States,� said Aaron David Miller, an Arab-Israeli negotiator for both Bush administrations, who has high praise for James A. Baker III, the first President Bush�s secretary of state. �Bush One and James Baker would never have allowed that to happen.�

    Other advisers who served the elder Mr. Bush are critical as well, faulting the current administration for having �put diplomacy on the back burner in the hope that unattractive regimes would fall,� in the words of Mr. Haass.

    Whether the disagreement extends to father and son is unclear. The president has been generally critical of the Middle East policies of his predecessors in both parties, but has never criticized his father explicitly. The first President Bush has made it a practice not to comment on the administration of his son, but his spokesman, Tom Frechette, said he supports the younger Mr. Bush �100 percent.�

    Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser, who has been openly critical of the current president on Iraq, did not return calls seeking comment. He wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post on Sunday calling on the United States to �seize this opportunity� to reach a comprehensive settlement for resolving the conflict of more than half a century between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Baker also did not return calls.

    The differences between father and son are partly to do with style.

    �Bush the father was from a certain generation of political leaders and foreign policy establishment types,� said William Kristol, the neo-conservative thinker who worked for the first Bush administration and is now editor of The Weekly Standard. �He had many years of dealings with leading Arab governments; he was close to the Saudi royal family. The son is less so. He�s got much more affection for Israel, less affection for the House of Saud.�

    That affection, Mr. Bush�s aides say, can be traced partly to his first and only trip to Israel, in 1998. It was a formative experience for Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas. He took a helicopter ride � his guide, as it happened, was Mr. Sharon, then the foreign minister � and, looking down, was struck by how tiny and vulnerable Israel seemed.

    �He said that when he took that tour and he looked down, he thought, �We have driveways in Texas longer than that, � said Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary. �And after the United States was attacked, he understood how it was for Israel to be attacked.�

    Others say Mr. Bush cannot help looking at Israel through the prism of his Christian faith. �There is a religiously inspired connection to Israel in which he feels, as president, a responsibility for Israel�s survival,� said Martin S. Indyk, who was President Clinton�s ambassador to Israel and kept that post for several months under President Bush. He also suggested that Republican politics were at work, saying Mr. Bush came into office determined to �build his Christian base.�

    But the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, dismissed that idea, telling reporters last week that Mr. Bush does not view the current conflict through a �theological lens.�

    Mr. Bush has to some extent played the traditional peacemaker role in the region, especially in dealing with relations between Israel and the Palestinians. He called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, set out a �road map� to achieving a lasting peace and was critical of some of Mr. Sharon�s policies.

    But he has drawn a sharp distinction between the Palestinian people and Israel�s conflicts with what he regards as terrorist organizations. He came into office refusing to meet with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and cut off Mr. Arafat entirely in early 2002, after the Israeli Navy captured a ship carrying weapons intended for the Palestinian Authority. That foreshadowed the way he is now dealing with Hezbollah.

    His father�s pre-9/11 policies were more concerned with the traditional goals of peace, or at least stability, in the Middle East. Relations between the first President Bush and his Israeli counterpart, Yitzhak Shamir, hit a low point when Mr. Bush refused Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees to resettle Soviet Jews. And Mr. Baker, as secretary of state, was once so frustrated with Israeli officials that he scornfully recited his office phone number and told them to call when they were serious about peace in the Middle East.

    But Mr. Bush has enjoyed singularly warm relations, particularly after 9/11. �It is this event, 9/11, that caused the president to really associate himself with Israel, with this notion that now, for the first time, Americans can feel on their skin what Israelis have been feeling all along,� said Shai Feldman, an Israeli scholar at Brandeis University who has been in Tel Aviv since the hostilities began. �There is huge, huge appreciation here for the president.�
     
  2. My dad interviewed an iranian the other day. the guy had to run from the country 'cause he'd gotten the death penalty for marrying a christian.
     
  3. Thats just weird. Because according to Islam, you can marry women who are from the people of the book (Christians and Jews)

    But seriously, Israel is damaging itself now...
     
  4. Islam is a nice religion it's just those mother#$%#ers who want to control the people by adding things in
     
  5. It was largely founded on violence and it was always just a means for its founder to get power. If anything the extremists are the ones following mohammeds example, the quaran contradicts itself enough to support both the crazy ones or the sane moderate ones depending on which parts you decide to focus on.
     
  6. like rs4man said, it's total dickheads who f*ck everything up in the name of Islam
     
  7. No.

    You might wanna do a little more reading.

    Islam in its essence has been the most peaceful major world religion/non-religion. Its history is filled with acts of mercy and pardon and freedom.

    Blame the power hungry that cause corruption and transfer the blame onto the innocent.
     
  8. Oh really? So did Mohammed kill a bunch of people or not?
     
  9. Ofcourse he didn't and Islam means peace...
     
  10. LOL ... no

    I'd say Buddhisms whole history is more peaceful than Islam in one week. Islam has only been peaceful if noone else has been around.
     
  11. yeah, i mean if the religion is indeed peaceful, some of the biggest religious conflicts and violent takeovers were at least made in its name. just look at north africa, and what happened in spain.
     
  12. This is now beyond the point of Israel caring about what everybody thinks and who hates it. We have a goal to achieve and we will do everyhing we can to achieve it.
     
  13. thats wrong, i dont believe it.

    Mohammed the prophet married a christian woman, its okay to marry a christian woman.
     
  14. What is the plan at the moment?
     
  15. by woman, you mean one of his dozens of 12 year old girls?
     
  16. Fundamentalists never pay attention to the rules of their own religion. Theres plenty of fundamentalists in the west as well the difference is they don't have as much power here as in the middle east.
     
  17. no he friggin didnt, she was the first person he converted when he supposedly got the Koran from Gabriel.
     
  18. when you know nothing about islam, dont speak about it, cuz it makes you look stupid.
     
  19. shouldn't you be busy slapping your woman around?
     
  20. pics from 'qana'
     
  21. Pictures from 'Qana'
     
  22. But we do know about it, many of us read about all different religions, do you?
     
  23. Still the same. It might now show in the media, but Hezbollah have been greatly weakened.
     
  24. People from other religions are heretics and not worth living!
     

Share This Page