Bush signs on to everything Sharon wants

[Jason McCullough]

http://billmon.org/archives/001401.html


Sharon came to Washington hoping that Bush would endorse -- by name -- a list of West Bank settlements that could be kept by Israel as part of any final settlement under the so-called road map process. This would have cleared the way for a land grab so enormous as to make any future Palestinian "state" a collection of postage stamp-sized bantusans.

In the end, Bush refused -- which seemed at first glance to verify pre-summit promises from the usual anonymous administration (read: State Department) officials, who promised the text of the statement would be vague enough to keep the peace process stumbling forward.

But to me the statement looks like an Israeli ten-strike. Small wonder Sharon emerged beaming from his audience with boy emperor. If Bush didn't actually delineate the future borders of Greater Israel, he did everything but:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949 ... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. (emphasis added)

Hoo boy.

[asspennies]

Good.

[Linoleum]

If this (http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/april/04_14_1.html) is correct, Arafat hasn't just continued to dig himself a deep hole, he's digging his own grave.

[Kalle]

...this is insane. Nevermind the fact that I think that Sharon's plan for an Apartheid Israel is disgusting, with or without US backing, this is insane from a US point of view. While US forces are in the middle of trying to prevent outright rebellion in Iraq Bush does the one thing that is sure to unite each and every Arab civilian in sheer disgust and hatred against the US. In one stroke Bush has managed to escalate the conflict in both Iraq and Palestine.

It's like he actually wants the occupation to crash and burn. Right now I'm just waiting for a repeat performance of Beirut 1983.

[Brian Rubin]

Good points, Kalle. I'm overtly confused by this decision. Is he trying to make history by bucking a long-standing US trend, so that he appears in history books or some such nonsense? Very little, if any, good can come from this decision, IMO.

[Anaxagoras]

Why the confusion? It's not just Liberal Propaganda that Bush is stupid. Very very stupid. He really doesn't seem to understand how the world works. In Bush's world, if you stand up for what you believe in, then you're a Good Person. And as long as you're a Good Person, then God will take care of you. And if He doesn't take care of you, then He's testing you. And that's about the extent of his thought processes, such as they are.


He really doesn't see the connection between his actions towards Israel and the situation in Iraq. Basically, as long as he does the Right Thing and doesn't compromise any of his principles, ever, then he's doing what he should be doing.

[Ben]

Anaxagoras- Bush has a degree from an Ivy league school and is surrounded by smart people. So yeah, Bush being stupid is just liberal propaganda.

That said, I really have no idea what's the deal with this. We really needed to come down on the Israeli's, not give them our full support.

[Midnight Son]

Dubya got in as a legacy and had crappy grades. Just enough to graduate. And he hasn't read a book or newspaper since then!

[John Many Jars]

Right. Harvard and Yale undergrads are something like 33% legacy. The profs know who the legacy kids are, and they know not to actually flunk them, if possible.

[Brian Rubin]

Welp, if Bush's plan was to piss off even more Arab's, it might be working:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8440050.htm?1c

MAN am I depressed. It's not like Bush NEEDED to give Arab's more reasons to hate us...

[Anaxagoras]

edit- post deleted as per Brian Rubin's request... well... he sorta requested it. In a way. OK, he didn't really request it, but I'm sure he won't mind if I delete it. Or something.

[Brian Rubin]

You're that blindly devoted to credentials, eh Ben? Jesus, you really are easily duped.
Does this have to degrade into a dung-throwing contest? ;)

[Kalle]

Anaxagoras- Bush has a degree from an Ivy league school and is surrounded by smart people. So yeah, Bush being stupid is just liberal propaganda.

That said, I really have no idea what's the deal with this. We really needed to come down on the Israeli's, not give them our full support.

Look, I have a fair bit of contempt for Bush and his policies but until this point I atleast assumed that he had enough common sense to not shoot himself in the foot. Evidently, I was wrong. If Bush is surrounded by smart people you'd think *one* of them might have been able to persuade him to atleast keep a lid on Israel as a short term solution while they tried to settle things in Iraq. The only rational reason I can think of that justifies this move is that the Bush administration has already given up on Iraq, which while not implausible doesn't sound probable at this stage. This in turn leads me to believe that no one of those who approved this decision was thinking very objectively and rationally about the issue, most likely this decision was made due to deeply held pro-Israeli beliefs in the administration that chose the worst possible moment to manifest themselves.

[Anaxagoras]

You're that blindly devoted to credentials, eh Ben? Jesus, you really are easily duped.
Does this have to degrade into a dung-throwing contest? ;)

Fair 'nuff. However, what *would* be the right way to respond to Ben's assertion? There is copious amounts of evidence that Bush can barely tie his own shoes without help, countless eye-witness accounts that the man's brain consists of two tin cans and a piece of string, and Ben just mentions "He has a good degree" as if that settles the argument.

It seems that when an assertion is *so* far off base, ridicule is the most appropriate answer. But I'll go ahead and delete my previous post anyways.

[Brian Rubin]

There's probably a better way to respond other than degradation. :) Thank you for letting civility win the day...at least for now. :)

Getting back to topic. I heard on NPR this morning that the Palestinian response to this is, understandably, anger and confusion. Kind of like me. ;) According to an Israeli friend of mine, he expected nothing less from Bush. When I asked him if it's Bush's aim to have all the Arab's hate our country, he said, "yes, that is your future." It's hard to argue with this.

[Ben]

Anax- Realizing that the public policy of the United States is not decided by one person would be a start. Then admitting that getting Cs in Yale is not the work of someone who "can't tie his own shoes."

It's not plausible that the President is so incredibly stupid he doesn't understand how the world works and who is relying on the grace of God AND at the same time having his administration go along with it. Is Colin Powell also a simpleton? Rumsfled? Cheney? Rice? They are all idiots who trust blindly in God sorting them out right?



A greater point for you would be realizing that not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily stupid. And that maybe you shouldn't speculate in great detail about the personal philosphies and mental abilties of people you've never met.

[Jason McCullough]

Bush isn't stupid, but he's willfully ignorant and a horrible analyst; I wouldn't trust him to run a damn thing. Seriously, can you say "Bush is qualified to run the national security policy of the United States" with a straight face?

[John Reynolds]

A greater point for you would be realizing that not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily stupid. And that maybe you shouldn't speculate in great detail about the personal philosphies and mental abilties of people you've never met.

Cite one thing that Bush has accomplished on his own that indicates high intelligence.

[Gav]

I was in Israel last week, and Ha'aretz had a full page article on what Sharon was going to ask Bush, and why Bush was going to refuse it.

Essentially, that article (and other commentary I read at the same time) was that Sharon's going to ask Bush, just to look good, and because there's no harm in trying, then Bush was going to refuse. (apparently the US ambassador to Israel came very close to to saying "if you want a unilateral pull-out, go ahead--the US doesn't need to offer concessions on things that Israel does for its own good", which most people thought was indicative of the Administration's poisition. Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up the original)

I guess Sharon's gamble paid off. I'm completely mystified as to why, though--like everyone else, I've got no idea what Bush was thinking.

Gav

[steve]

Cite one thing that Bush has accomplished on his own that indicates high intelligence.
He quoted some lyrics by The Who in his famous, "Fool me once..." speech. C'mon, THE WHO!

[Rollory]

The right of return has been a Palestinian fantasy for far too long. It was never going to happen. Letting them keep thinking it was maybe going to happen just leaves the door open for unrealistic expectations, like when Arafat nixed Barak's (extremely generous from an Israeli standpoint) peace deal. The sooner the Palestinians understand that the only way millions of Palestinians are going to move back into Israel is with the backing of superior Arab firepower - which, incidentally, doesn't exist and probably won't for a long long time - the sooner an actual, permanent deal can be reached. The Arab/Palestinian anger was going to happen one way or another. That's what happens when illusions get shattered.

As to what Bush was thinking, that's easy enough. Bush is thinking he really doesn't care what Arafat or the Arab street thinks. The Arab street is hostile to the US regardless of what we do; only the degree of rhetoric changes. They had jihadists signing up to kill Americans before 9/11, before the Iraq invasion, and before this announcement. It will keep happening for a while longer. You don't have to be stupid to not care if you piss off someone who's going to try to hurt you regardless.

In the long run, the Palestinians are going to have to confront the realities of their situation. This just pushes them a bit closer to that day.

[Brian Rucker]

Street. The Arab street. Lots of different folks on that street. Some of them were more inclined to the middle of the road. But between Fallujah and the West Bank, you'd better believe the minority of Arabs crazy enough to sign up with Bin Laden has just taken an astronomical leap and crazy's having less and less to do with it.

It's true the U.S. isn't loved in the region and that's largely, as the Arabs understand certainly better than the 'American Street' does, a situation of our own making. However, what the U.S. stands for in some respects, anti-colonialism, democracy and commerce are seen as admirable goals and individual Americans, distinguished from American policy in the region, are usually treated very well. We aren't The British, The French or the Italian colonists and exploiters. In fact, in the early days of the 50's our foreign policy establishment was torn about how to deal with the Arab world. Many of those folks despised the dangerously overbearing British Imperial attitudes towards populations who were genuinely seeking independant and representative goverments of their own. It's with no little irony that I read about a British officer complaining about the arrogance of American tactics - accurate though the observation may be.

At the same time, we were facing a Cold War enemy that had proven itself to be acquisitive and aggressive. So, essentially, we took over the British role of ruling the Middle East since they were proving psychologically incapable of recognising their own Imperial ambitions were at an end and only serving to thrust local populations into the arms of COMINTERN. We might have ended up embracing, genuinely, Arab nationalism as a genuine expression of popular will but, instead and as usual, commercial interests and ideology got in the way. We ended up in a war of bribe and counterbribe with the regional governments versus the Soviet Union. Any that tried to strike any chord of independance were quickly quashed in favor of compliant authoritarian regimes that would keep the populations in line or keep the oil flowing. But unlike the Europeans we did it with economics and in the background - not through outright colonization. We let the local rulers do the exploiting and brutalizing for us and turned a blind eye.

And then there is Israel. At first we weren't even keen on the idea as it would inflame Arab populations that were already at wits end with foreign colonizers after WWII. To tell the truth, I'm not sure what got us to turn the corner but I suspect it was a combination of post-Holocaust sympathy for the Jewish population and the desire to have a new stable base for Middle East operations since the British mandate over its massive wartime base in Egypt was threatened by nationalist movements. But believe me, it wasn't love at first sight. Israel was as eagerly courted by the Soviets, as its population was socialist, even communist, in nature. Many Jewish exiles were leftists persecuted for those beliefs as well as their religion not only by Germany but many European nations. Look at the kibbutz - it is literally a commune. Then it was the French who sought an ally against Egypt's Nasser when he supported the Algerian rebels. Israel was a convenient ally for anyone who was currently on the outs with the Arabs.

However it came to be this way, a large number, but not all as a bloc, of Jewish American voters support rather unquestionly Israel. And these voters are in politically valuable states like New York and Florida. Hence you see Democratic and Republican politicians willing to do absolutely nothing to alienate them. And the Arabs begin to suspect a wee bit that perhaps we aren't honest brokers? Right now we're seeing an even more troubling development - the millenialist religious right which believes a greater Israel will bring about the end times and our President, if he isn't one of them is at least completely indebted to them for his presidency, is in the same camp with the neoconservatives - a group with ties not only to Israel but to the rightwinger Likud party of Sharon and a belief in might makes right.

This has to be influencing policy. I know it sounds crazy but look at Bush's speeches. It's all about faith and very little about facts. That's because what's informing his decisionmaking is -not- real politik but ideology and theology.

I hate having to point out this stuff and it's very much true that the extremist tactics of the Palestinians, and hypocrisy of the Arab leadership in failing to support their legitimate aspirations meaningfully, is a part of this problem that cannot be downplayed. However it's not the whole story at all.

"I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told Woodward. " I would hope we wouldn't have to do it militarily, but we have a duty."

The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq on March, 19, 2003, and the powerful role his religious belief played throughout that time.

"Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."

The president told Woodward that "I am prepared to risk my presidency to do what I think is right. I was going to act. And if it could cost the presidency, I fully realized that. But I felt so strongly that it was the right thing to do that I was prepared to do so."

Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

At their joint news conference on April 14, Bush blessed Sharon's plot. Of the "existing major Israeli population centers," (i.e. settlements) on the West Bank, Bush said it is "unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Bush also hailed Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza and move its settlers to the West Bank as "historic."

Translated, what Bush really said was that there would be no return to the 1967 borders and that Israel's policy of annexing occupied territory and planting large settlements on it -- actions forbidden by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbid permanently acquiring territory by war -- had now received the stamp of approval from Washington. Moreover, Sharon was authorized to take further steps unilaterally, without negotiating with the Palestinians.

Combined with the American military assault on Fallujah, Bush's embrace of Sharon's position succeeded in making America, in Arab eyes, virtually indistinguishable from Israel. The Egyptian daily al-Jumhuriyyah spoke for many Arabs when it observed in the wake of the Bush-Sharon accord, "the victims being killed daily in Palestine and Iraq are due to the continuation of the occupation ... Violence and extremism have increased as a natural response to the brutality of the occupation."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/16/israel/index.html