According to this article, Bush rips up the road map, Bush has officially ended support for the road map for peace he had supported.
Apparently he has also said that he no longer supports a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees in other countries. Sharon is of course very happy with this and the Palestinians are irate. The projection is that the response is going to be none to rosey from the rest of the Arab world. What the hell is going on? The article suggests this is supposed to be a way to recover on foreign policy, but how could he do that when this is going to piss off the arab world so much? Is he actually trying to manufacture terrorists?
People wonder why arabs become terrorists. I doubt this is going to win us any new friends.
Oh, and for extra fun lets add crappy diplomacy
I must admit I am a little skeptical about this last part as I cannot imagine why the embassy would let that slip.
So, does anyone think this will solve the Palestinian/Iraeli conflict? Anyone think this is a major step forward? Anyone think this is a good idea? I am going to have to side with the idea that we are about to see a huge new round of suicide bombers, though I must admit I have been paying even less attention to Israel recently what with Iraq and all and may not understand all that has led up to this. What could he have done instead? Should he have “stayed the course” with his previous plan?
Nixon couldn’t do it.
Ford couldn’t do it.
Carter couldn’t do it.
Reagan couldn’t do it.
Bush 1 couldn’t do it.
Clinton couldn’t do it.
Is there a trend?
Why people think that a US president can enforce peace there is beyond me. So long as there are substantial numbers of idiots on both sides who really don’t want peace, there won’t be any.
One speculation on this change is that it is a reprisal to Arafat for supposedly approving the murder of three Americans last year.
But it seems to me that all this can do is create more problems in Iraq, where there is significant sympathy for the Palestinians. So it doesn’t sound like a smart move to me.
Glad to see this thread - would have started one myself otherwise having caught this news last night. I could not believe what I was hearing. I mean how can the US government believe that they can maintain even one iota of the appearance good faith, appear as any sort of honest broker, after this?
I choose my words carefully - “appearance” - as I fall into the camp that it was not a “road map to peace” anyway but asking for the Palastinians to run up the white flag. But I will try not to deflect this thread with my views on the situation generally. But this decision had my jaw dropping open just when I thought that Bush could not make the world a worse place?!? Jesus Christ on a bicycle, I guess there really are no depths this bunch of creeps will not stoop to. If this guy gets re-elected I may have to start looking at headed for the barracades myself…
But, turning to the OP
Not me - or probably anyone outside Israel or the US. But I can only assume that none of those good questions were the objective of the U-turn. I assume this can only be for US domestic political reasons with Bush having a few too many bad poll returns in election year.
This actually for me the whole issue on this OP. How, when you have a plan that is in trouble anyway, can you think it will hold together if you pull the ground under one side? I assume you can’t and therefore implemention of any “peace process” in not the objective here.
**One question I would like to know. ** How will this play out in the USA domestically, electorally? Or possibly, how will the broad beaming smiles on the faces of the current Israeli administration play out in the USA domestically, electorally? I can only assume that one or both or those are the only criteria by which this decision will be judged by the Bush administration.
It’s not going to help the US’s cause in the ME. Rightly or wrongly the majority of the population of the ME strongly support Palestinian rights. Cutting this deal without the Palestinians involved and basically tying the hands of future administrations will not play well.
This is just reinforcing the hatred of the US in the region.
From what I can see it will play well with the average voter. There is strong support for Israel in the US and not just in Jewish communities. Also seeming not to bend to terror will play well although IMO the US seems to be rewarding Israeli terror and bullying tactics but I’m not American.
77% of Christian conservative men support Israel, according to this humongous PDF. Since that is Bush’s core electorate, he definitely wants to support Israel. But I don’t think he’s trying to win over the Jewish, who still vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Their vote could only make much of a difference in NY, and I don’t think Bush thinks he’ll win NY.
Terror tactics? yes I am. I don’t consider missiles into public areas, the killing of civilians and the destruction of nearly all the Palestinian infrastructure as anything less. These policies are obviously put in place to get the public to realise that they have to stop supporting the terrorists. My cite would be any reputable news source’s ME section for the last 10+ years.
Oh and yes the terrorists and terror tactics of the Palestinians are disgraceful as well.
Anyone remember when Bush came to office and basically said the Middle East problem has been going on for a long time and it’s not my problem. Then later after the infatidh (sp?) really got bad, then Bush was forced to be involved as leader of the US.
Now here he goes and unilaterally breaks US policy for the past 25 years and supports a unilateral move by Israel that completely alters US involvement. No debate in congress, UN, middle eastern countries, Palestinians or anywhere else that I’m aware of that the US should make such a massive shift.
[This is just vile and tomorrow I will get my ass over to the US embassy to register for an absentee ballot. I am ashamed for my country.]
Of course, Alessan, but this proposal appears to tie withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to support for illegal settlements in the West Bank. Should WB settlements like Ariel (bottom left) placed within newly drawn borders, the Palestinian state would not have enough fertile land or water resources to be viable, as I’m sure you appreciate.
Whilst it’s perfectly clear that you’re saying there’s a nasty condition attached to the withdrawal from Gaza, could you please summarise quickly what the nasty condition is? (For those of us who can’t make head nor tail of what Bush has done).
Well apart from making a possible Palestinian non-viable it also backtracks from the previous US position that the presence of these illegal settlements were incompatible with peacemaking.
It also now puts in place a possibility that Israel can further change the “realties on the ground” by planting more settlers hang on in and eventually get their way.
