posted on October 7, 2001 12:04:37 AM new
A buildup to attack in Afganistan notwithstanding, bush did say that the United States supports the idea of a Palestinian state which is a change of US middle east policy that could very well be taken as a victory by whoever it was that committed the attack(s).
posted on October 7, 2001 12:26:52 AM new
Let's be clear. Even Sharon agrees that the creation of a Palestinian state was his own pre-existing goal, as well as the U.S.'s; it was the focus of Clinton's peace process.
The change in the foreign policy isn't in creation of a Palestinian state; the change in the foreign policy would be in saying that.
Last week's public verbal sparring between Israel and the U.S. was interesting, a bit too interesting not to wonder about a little.
posted on October 7, 2001 05:14:11 AM new
I had thought that I had been clear in saying that the saying was the change in policy, but Donny says that she finds cause to clarify that the saying was that, so I guess I didn't say that after all that saying.
posted on October 7, 2001 06:22:52 AM new
You don't say!
Yes, I wondered about that announcement also.
Several possibilities. Part of the bargaining to establish the coalition? Maybe just a warning to cease the minor hostilities as was previously agreed?
posted on October 7, 2001 09:46:22 AM new
Another possibility is that the public squabble between Israel and the U.S. was for show.
I found it really surprising to hear the Bush administration characterize Sharon's words as "unacceptable." The language of diplomacy is so delicate that a public announcement of another country's action as "unacceptable" would be reserved for a situation like now re the Taliban - not for an ally, or even, (except as above) for a non-ally.
The usual language would be something like - "unfortunate," or "regrettable," even if, privately, an adminstration did find something "unacceptable."
posted on October 7, 2001 08:00:48 PM new
Or the plain truth could just possibly be that after giving Israel billions of dollars & innumerable weapons, plus other support over a period of 50+ years, it really ticked Bush (& the rest of the government) off to hear them dare to threaten us...
posted on October 7, 2001 08:45:40 PM new
He also spoketh the truth and my impression from subsequent statements is that Bush did hear the message, 'unnaceptable' it may be.
"Today Israel tomorrow der vorld!" won't be happening.
posted on October 7, 2001 09:05:36 PM new
Of all the presidents there have been, Bush is the last one I'd accuse of going his own way and making some bold statement that wasn't posed to him as the correct thing to say for the time.
posted on October 7, 2001 09:20:49 PM new
The way that Sharon rolled over about this suggests that if there was a message to be heard here, Sharon heard it.
posted on October 8, 2001 08:16:07 AM new
Well I'm sure you're happy with the 'clarification', Donny, but I'm afraid that in any case Israel will not be sacrificing itself at the altar of the United States [for 'the coalition' mind you], not today or tomorrow. You can count on that. Deepest sympathies.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 8, 2001 08:21 AM ]
posted on October 8, 2001 08:43:46 AM new
You should realize James, that if the administration deemed it useful, they'd probably have no more compunction about pushing Israel out of bed than they've shown getting into bed with Russia, China, and the rest. Whether or not Israel was willing to sacrifice itself wouldn't even be part of the equation. No doubt Sharon realizes that, and that's why he "clarified," or "apologized," or "back-tracked," however it's described, pretty dern quickly.
Sharon's a big blusterer. He talked bigger than he could back up, probably, at least in part, for a perceived political value within Israel itself. It backfired bigtime. Not only did he get criticism within Israel, but the U.S. adminstration jumped on it. If it had just been a matter of "showing Israel who's boss," the U.S. adminstration wouldn't have made such a production out of making a public reply, it would have been done privately between the U.S. and Israel.
But the U.S. adminstration, I believe, saw an opportunity here to score more points with the Arab nations they're trying to court, so they made a big public deal out of rebuking Sharon. That the points were made at Israel's expense is only Sharon's doing. He started playing a game he wasn't going to win, and he should have realized that.
I'm not "anti-Israel" in criticizing Israeli policy and practices anymore than I'm "anti-American" when criticizing American policy and practises. But I can say, I don't care for Sharon, and I like Peres a lot better.
posted on October 8, 2001 04:44:40 PM new
I agree with your last post, Donny. Though I think that some of the characterizations in other posts above are inaccurate.
It isn't hard to understand that Israel is upset about the U.S. getting into bed with Arab nations. I'd even go so far as to say our approach is hypocritical: We claim we're going after terrorists everywhere, but the U.S. hasn't said word one about the terrorism that goes on in Israel on a daily basis.
I'm not saying whether terrorism is justified in the Middle East (I don't think it is), only that suicide bombers aren't anything new. And the U.S. approach is blind in one eye. The idea of sitting down with the PLO, a terrorist organization, is repugnant enough. But to listen to the U.S. spouting platitudes about the "war on terrorism" is almost too much.
Lastly, there has been a lot of U.S. support for Israel and that helps. But Israel also helps the U.S. by providing military intelligence and doing our dirty work. There is a lot of private support in this country. Both sides are posturing, Bush and Sharon, but for sure Israel won't knuckle under to U.S. wishes just because we've developed new alliances. Bush may think America keeps Israel on a short leash (I doubt Bush is that naive), but that is just wrong. Israel doesn't need the U.S. that badly. Really, I suspect Sharon is helping Bush by distancing Israel from the "coalition."
posted on October 8, 2001 08:58:15 PM new
"Really, I suspect Sharon is helping Bush by distancing Israel from the "coalition." "
That was exactly what I first thought, because the blunt public exchange would be unusual enough for non-allies; for allies it was, at least for me, unheard of.
But I changed that first opinion when Sharon "clarified," as the Jerusalem post put it (they put quotation marks around that word), or "apologized," as the New York Times put it (no quotation marks in the New York Times). Few politicians, let alone a world leader, and especially one like Sharon, who's involved in jockeying for position within Israeli politics, would set himself up to have to backpedal like that.
Sure, the "war on terrorism" is hypocrisy, and it's been disturbing to see almost everyone and anyone approach the U.S. and say - "Yes, we condemn the terroristic attack on your country, we understand, we're plagued by terrorism too," and then see these people blown off by the U.S. We only care about our terrorism problem. About the only people who made any headway in that regard was Russia - Chechnyan freedom fighters turned into terrorists overnight. At times it's been surreal - even the IRA issued a statement about this, condemning terrorism.
And how long has India been complaining about terrorism in Kashmir? They came to the White House too, one of the later visitors, with this by now familiar refrain, and got a very cool reception - because the country they complain about is Pakistan. Even though the car bombing in Kashmir happened while the Indian representative was visiting the White House, they got brushed off.
