"Tough choices, end occupation of Arab Land"

I don't hold alot of hope, and like all Presidents on their way out, call me cynical in thinking this is nothing other than an overture for "legacy," but I still think this is news. That the President would even use the rhetoric, I think, is significant:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22587081/

 

i have said for about a year now that there is a good chance to reach an agreement between Israel and palestanians.
now for the people that want to see these negotiations fail and are not willing to support it,i would like to remind you that, ahmadinejad,iran hamas and hezbolah are on your side.
choose your side carefully

 

funny how you named the people that don't want this to happen...the side you named is the one that wants ALL the land, and to them, it really is an all or nothing. The main thing they want is the destruction of the jews.

 

It isn't just the above names, pizzaman. There are hardliners on both sides that would love for a lasting peace to fail, as history has shown.

 

i was trying to remined the people who oppose this process that when they try to derail it they should remember that they are taking side with the people that they think they oppose the most.

 

i think that is what i said.
remember who opposes the peace and know who will win if it colapses.

 

D16 is just confused again.

This is exactly my point. The people that oppose the process do not come solely from the Palestinian side. Believing so, digging one's heels in in believing so, is exactly the kind of thinking that must end if there is to be true peace. Hardliners on both sides of the equation want the destruction to any overtures to peace - it is on this destruction that their power rests. But the hardliners do not include "ahmadinejad, iran hamas and hezbolah" [sic] alone.

I've always said it and I agree with the President's rhetoric here. "A peace accord will require “painful political concessions” by each."

 

i agree that there are extremists on all sides and they are trying to derail the whole thing
i think it is up to the people in both side to reduce the political pain of trying to reach peace by publicly supporting it.
the people that oppose this peace initiative on all side should remember that if this process fails the real winner is the extremists on the other side which they so hate.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

I say we lead by example. We should end our own occupation of Arab land first! How can the president of a country that has bases in countries all over the world tell anyone else to end occupation of anywhere?

 

Well, I did absolutely agree. I'll wait until you clearly state your opinion, so I respond to what you truly feel.

The President and his regime have been extremely shortsighted, and it is cynical in the extreme that he's only paid attention, in this way, on his way out.

Most obviously, doesn't it strike as an obvious "what?" to read:

?

 

That says it all. Now if this clown of a president can take his own advice and END the occupation in Iraq we should start heading in the right direction.

 

i think bush should have continued negotiations that clinton started but at this point it is crying over spilled milk.
i think a peace agreement between Israel Anad palastanians is possible and there are a lot of people on both side that want it.it is also true that there are a lot of people that oppose it.
the problem the way i see it that although majority of both population want peace, they are disapointed and do not feel it has a chance.It is these people that we must convince to join the push for peace and it is these people that have the power to encourage their leaders not to give up.
lets hope that they decide to support and pursue a resolution between them rather than oppose it.
the extremists on both side can not be convinced of this and hopefully will have a lot less say in the mattere as time goes on

 

Having recently finished reading "The Price of Loyalty"; the book about Paul O'Neill's period as Secretary of Treasury during the first 2 years of the Bush administration the observations about this President vis a vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are quite germane.

Supposedly as of the very first meeting of the Security Meetings of which O'Neill was President - Bush switched administration focus from Israel/Palestine to Iraq. That was January 2001. In fact his comments indicated that he was willing to allow Israel to flex its muscles with regard to the Palestinians.

He has not been involved or active in trying to oversee or push through some sort of Israeli/ Palestinian agreement as some of his predecessors.

Who is to know though, in that thorny part of the world if active involvement from the US pres and administration would have meant a difference.

But basically he ignored this situation for the better part of his entire administration.

On a different tack....I recall the commentary from Israeli military who were tasked with removing Israeli settlers from Gaza. It was extremely difficult for them. The settlers did everything they could to prevent the forced removal....short of actual violence. The removal of settlers was accomplished without death or harm.

Primarily opposed to giving up land to Palestinians is a strong but minority group in Israel which is both primarily orthodox and fundamental in its religeous perspective and conservative in its political perspective. They are significant within the Israeli political environment.

They will fight giving up land tooth and nail. They are not in the majority though and their removal from Gaza and Israel's political continuity from that period speaks to their minority position.

The radical position on the Palestinian side, though, is its own government. I can't recall a time when the radical side of the Palestinian people was willing to compromise.

In retrospect, and from other readings it appears that Arafat never had the backing of the more radical elements of the Palestinians. It appears that even as he was negotiating...he simply didn't represent enough of the Palestinians.

It will be tough to establish a peace if one side has an armed strong presence that simply won't negotiate.

 

lets not go on a tangent here.
it is the obligation of israeli and palestanians to reach peace.it really should not have anything to do with iraq or bush

 

the point that i have been trying to make is that every person should try.
you can not say if it is going to work or not but they should try and we should support them trying.

 

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called Bush's comments a "declaration of war."

"Bush's visit and remarks today have indicated that his visit came to support the occupation and has brought nothing to the Palestinian people but evil," the Hamas spokesman said.

Hamas' comments really speak for themselves. I do pity the Palestinian people having to live as pawns to terrorists like Hamas.

 

Barack offered the Palestinians 90% of the West Bank.

Let's be real. Peace is not possible with the Palestinians. The ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Whatever deal that they get, the Palestinians will find another excuse just like Hezbollah. Hezbollah is supposed to be a resistance movement. But against what?

The only solutions is to join the West Bank and Gaza to the other Palestinian State of Trans-Jordan.

Jordan is 80% Palestinian.

 

I think this is an excellent post. This squares with my reading of the history, and analysis of the current situation, as well.

 

Do you have a source?

I ask, because this seems strange, since Bush visited and consulted with Palestinian leadership. Abbas himself said, of the outcome,

As this is diametrically opposed to your statement, I'd appreciate a source.

Then what is the point? PR?

I can't agree. As intractable an issue as the Irish Conflict, for instance, seems to have come to a peaceful, if uneasily peaceful, seemingly permanent solution. This was nearly a century of open conflict, and centuries of latent hostilities and deep-rooted schisms. More will come, and Sinn Fein hasn't ended its design, nor have Paisley's Orangemen. But the guns have been dropped. Why can't the same take place in this troubled land, the Middle East?

It most assuredly won't come if there is a presumption of categorical evil, and categorical blamelessness, at the negotiating table.