Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-20-2002, 01:55 AM   #1
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace"

Bush: Sharon A 'Man Of Peace'
-Israel 'Responded' To Call for Pullout

By Peter Slevin and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 19, 2002; Page A01

President Bush strongly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a "man of peace" yesterday, crediting him with taking satisfactory steps to end Israel's three-week-old military assault despite Sharon's rejection of the president's demand for an immediate withdrawal from Palestinian cities.

Two weeks after he declared that "enough is enough," Bush said he understood why Israeli forces were laying siege to the West Bank city of Ramallah, where Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has his headquarters. He said the United States would demand that Arafat deliver results to match his recent condemnation of terrorism.

"Israel started withdrawing quickly after our call from smaller cities on the West Bank. History will show that they've responded," Bush said in greeting Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who returned early yesterday from a 10-day Middle East mission. "And as the prime minister said, he gave me a timetable and he's met the timetable."

White House officials later insisted that Bush did not intend to tip the scales for Israel. A senior adviser said the president continues to insist that Israelis and Palestinians alike must take steps to end the conflict.

But with Israeli tanks and troops continuing to enforce a tight cordon around the West Bank's major cities, the president's remarks risked further inflaming Arab opinion a week before he entertains Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at Bush's Crawford, Tex., ranch.

"When I hear the president saying that Sharon is a man of peace after he has destroyed our way of life, and after the Jenin refugee camp, I don't know if this is not a reward for Israeli terrorism against the Palestinian people," said Saeb Erekat, a top Palestinian negotiator.

"And when he says history will prove that Sharon is withdrawing," Erekat continued, "all I can say is that President Bush is as wrong as wrong can be."

An Israeli official here said Bush was simply acknowledging that Israel deserves to end its offensive against Palestinian militants on its own terms. Bush, who has received considerable criticism from conservatives for pressuring Sharon, understands that "letting us finish the job is a recipe for greater stability," the official said.

On a day when United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reiterated his call for an armed international force to keep the peace, Bush and Powell discussed the administration's next steps following Powell's mediation mission that ended with a failure to win a cease-fire or an Israeli withdrawal.

Bush and Powell discussed prospects for an international peace conference designed to move the warring parties beyond the immediate violence toward the security issues and political ambitions that have bitterly divided them. While the administration is receptive to the idea, officials must figure how to corral participants who have different ideas about the structure and substance of such a gathering.

U.S. emissaries will renew security contacts with Palestinian authorities in coming days, both to assess the abilities of Palestinian security services after weeks of assaults by Israeli forces and to establish a measure of their performance. CIA Director George J. Tenet, who last year negotiated security steps that have gone unfulfilled, is prepared to return to the region.

Most immediately, U.S. emissaries intend to work with the Israelis and Palestinians to end Israel's siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. Bush said he recognizes that the Israelis will withdraw from Bethlehem only after a negotiated surrender of an estimated 190 Palestinians who took refuge in the church, located on the spot where Christians believe Jesus was born.

Powell, seated next to Bush in the Oval Office, described his efforts as an "integrated strategy" to link the promise of political negotiations with action on security. He said Arafat and other Palestinian leaders must take action against individuals who urge violence and commit acts of terrorism.

But Powell, unlike the president, also maintained the continued Israeli military campaign was causing problems and said the Israelis should speed up their exit from occupied lands.

"I'm pleased that the Israeli government is now continuing withdrawal," Powell said. "I hope it will be accelerated and we will bring that to an end as quickly as possible because that is one of the difficulties that we have now in moving forward in the integrated strategy."

White House officials said Bush is open to the peace conference idea, but reported that no decision has been made. There remains a debate over who would attend and how various issues should be packaged. The administration believes the participation of other Arab states is essential.

"Will it accomplish anything, or will it be a waste of time?" one official asked. "If there is going to be one, the parties have to be sufficiently invested in it. Some of those conferences just turn into sessions where nations beat up other nations."

Bush intends to explore possibilities next week in Texas with Abdullah, who launched an Arab plan to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal from lands seized in 1967.

In his remarks yesterday, Bush angered Palestinians when he spoke of the "Zeevi Five killers," five men suspected by the Israeli government in the October assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi. The men are believed to be hiding in Arafat's Ramallah headquarters, surrounded by Israeli tanks and snipers.

"I can understand why this prime minister wants them brought to justice," Bush said, referring to Sharon. "They should be brought to justice if they killed this man in cold blood."

Palestinians pointed out that three of the five suspects in Zeevi's murder had been given safe passage to Arafat's compound in Ramallah by U.S. officials, escorted by Israeli troops. They also insisted that, under an agreement signed in 1995, Arafat is under no obligation to deliver suspects to Israel, provided they are arrested and tried by the Palestinians themselves.

Israeli officials contend that Arafat has no intention of prosecuting them, and therefore they must be handed over for trial in Israel.

Arafat's security forces arrested the three suspects Feb. 21 in the northern West Bank town of Nablus. Informed sources said U.S. Embassy officials brokered a deal under which the three were transported through Israeli checkpoints to Ramallah in a vehicle provided by the embassy and escorted by two Israeli army jeeps.

"This was done with the knowledge and consent of the Americans and Israelis," said Erekat. "So now to hear the president of the United States talking about the Zeevi killers and justifying the siege of President Arafat's compound this way."

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine killed Zeevi in revenge for Israel's assassination of the PFLP's chief. The three men from the PFLP arrested in Nablus were Basel al-Asmer and Hamdi Koran, who are suspected of killing Zeevi, and Ahed Abu Gholmi, the PFLP's military chief. Two other suspects, including the current PFLP head, were detained by Arafat's security forces elsewhere.

Bush's comments at the end of Powell's visit could make future mediation efforts by the secretary of state more difficult, said Robert Malley, a Middle East adviser to President Bill Clinton.

"This will only confirm in the Palestinians' eyes the sense there is a division within the administration," Malley said. "This will reinforce the impression in the Arab world that Powell was not fully backed in his mission by the administration as a whole."

Correspondent Lee Hockstader in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

2002 The Washington Post Company
__________________

__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-20-2002, 09:07 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Bush says a lot of things that really don't make sense. You get used to it after a while.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-20-2002, 04:03 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:38 AM
With the exception of what Sharon might have been guilty of in 1982, I would not be angered by what the president said. What Israel has done over the past few weeks was clearly in self defense. Its unfortunate many Palestinian civilians may have been caught in the crossfire, but the Palestinian terrorist and suicide bombers forced Israel to take these defensive actions. Hopefully now that many of the Terrorist have been killed or captured and the terror network that arms and supports brainwashed Palestinian youth to blow themselves while targeting innocent civilians has been disrupted, there won't be many attacks at least for a while. Hopefully Palestinians can elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that was offered and rejected by Arafat over a year ago. Thats the best deal their ever going to get.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-20-2002, 07:02 PM   #4
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:38 AM
defensive actions?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________
Salome is online now  
Old 04-20-2002, 07:19 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 03:38 AM
Sharon is not the most peaceable of fellows, I will admit that. I feel that Shimon Perez or Ehud Barak would be more amicable.

That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.

I think it would do some of you some good to READ and CONSIDER the things that STING2 says; just because he doesn't report from some media outlet doesn't mean that his information is not valid or true. I think he has some good, accurate information.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 04-20-2002, 08:50 PM   #6
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:38 AM
Had we not our own agenda here, (next up Iraq) would we even be telling Sharon to withdraw. They are withdrawing now, as I'm posting this.

How nice of our agenda target to orchestrate this current escalation of suicide bombing against Israel and how nice of Arafat to appear to be at the helm, not just a few months after he rolled up his very own sleeve to give blood in support of the USA after 9-11.

Iraq is only trying to buy time, and it's really sad that they have support now from the Saudis (suprise) and that they have puppets in Palestine and Arafat.

As far as Bush, he obviously sees the current situation as a hindrance and a distraction. They are trying to divert us in our "war on terrorism".

I realize how this looks on the surface. Isael has one heck of a military, thanks to our weaponry and their modifications to it. As an ally to us, they do have a genuine intrest to work with Bush and the coalition forces.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 04-21-2002, 12:44 AM   #7
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Montserrat W.I
Posts: 41
Local Time: 09:38 AM
So the Palestinian suicide bombers are not killing themselves beacause their country is being occupied by Israel but because they want to distract the US from its war on terrorism.

So the US was saying that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours so they had impose their sanctions. Now that Iraq has made up with fellow arabs and the Saudis; The US doesn't like it.

Now that they say that they respect the sovreignity of Kuwait the US doesn't like that.

Now the US wants the person who would be incharge of weapons inspection replaced because the Iraquis might 'fool' him in believing that they have no WMD.

Face it the US just wants to attack Iraq.

"Hopefully Palestinians can elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that was offered and rejected by Arafat over a year ago."


My take: Hopefully the Palestinians will elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that they deserve"
__________________
nintendan is offline  
Old 04-21-2002, 03:57 AM   #8
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nintendan:
So the Palestinian suicide bombers are not killing themselves beacause their country is being occupied by Israel but because they want to distract the US from its war on terrorism.
Exactly, they are following Saddam's wishes

Quote:
So the US was saying that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours so they had impose their sanctions. Now that Iraq has made up with fellow arabs and the Saudis; The US doesn't like it.
Are you kidding ???? What the fuck are you smoking???? Who invaded Kuwait in 1990???
Fucking Please

Quote:
Now that they say that they respect the sovreignity of Kuwait the US doesn't like that.
Okay we should trust that then, LOLOLOLOLOL

Quote:
Now the US wants the person who would be incharge of weapons inspection replaced because the Iraquis might 'fool' him in believing that they have no WMD.
Really?

[quote]Face it the US just wants to attack Iraq.[?QUOTE]

Hell yes, ? Why not?

Quote:
"Hopefully Palestinians can elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that was offered and rejected by Arafat over a year ago."


My take: Hopefully the Palestinians will elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that they deserve"
E-L-E-C-T, I wonder if they even know what that means???? Do you?????




[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 04-21-2002).]
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 04-21-2002, 05:31 AM   #9
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.
very true
still I can't think of many moments in history where killing people led to peace
I fear that recent actions will only lead to more extremist behaviour in the future

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________
Salome is online now  
Old 04-21-2002, 05:39 AM   #10
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.
very true
still I can't think of many moments in history where killing people led to peace
I fear that recent actions will only lead to more extremist behaviour in the future

Unfortunately, peace is not a desired commodity from our "fellow" Arabs anymore


I really dont't feel the need to explain this obvious war to anyone anymore..

__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 04-21-2002, 05:44 AM   #11
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
Unfortunately, peace is not a desired commodity from our "fellow" Arabs anymore
I may be very naive but I just don't believe this to be true
the problem to me seems to be is that they only want peace on their own terms, so this makes negotiation almost impossible
still I don't see how killing people will solve anything if the issue itself will remain


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________
Salome is online now  
Old 04-21-2002, 05:58 AM   #12
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
Unfortunately, peace is not a desired commodity from our "fellow" Arabs anymore
I may be very naive but I just don't believe this to be true
the problem to me seems to be is that they only want peace on their own terms, so this makes negotiation almost impossible
still I don't see how killing people will solve anything if the issue itself will remain


Osama BinLaden
U.S.S. Cole
Khobar Towers
World Trade Center (1993)
World Trade Center -now
US Embassy-Kenya


__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 04-21-2002, 06:22 AM   #13
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:38 AM
your point being?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 04-21-2002).]
__________________
Salome is online now  
Old 04-21-2002, 07:16 AM   #14
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:38 AM
The situation in the Middle East is one that can only get worse, before it gets better, if it will ever do so, and I do not think the current political climate that the West, yet again, has created is helping it.

Everyone in Britain (atleast, the people I know and the public outcry)is in a crisis of self-identity, and this is a poor reflection on the rest of the turmoils. What we seem to be asking ourselves and our dear prime-minister is SHOULD we attack Iraq, however, the rest of the parties concerned seem to be ready with or without British support, not that I blame them.

Let me start off by saying that I do not agree with a military attack on Iraq, whether it be nuclear, ballistic, full-scale invasion or a repetition of Afghanistan (a course of action I DID agree with). There is no provocation, there has been no thorough endeavour of Peace, and, ultimately, it does not concern the British people; the war on terrorism has never concerned us, however, Blair has more or less been Bush's right-arm man and now, despite over half of his party telling him to back off the war on terrorism, he can't seem to be able to get out of it. I always said he went about it the wrong way, that supporting the war is one thing, but sending your troops to the front line quite another.

The point now is that the last thing the Middle Eastern crisis (and it is a crisis) needs is someone to insert a torch in an already chaotic region; the last course of action that is needed is a full-scale war on Iraq. Bush realises this, and has therefore taken an active interest in the Isreali-Palesstinian crisis, trying to resolve it before continuing with his own plans.
However, the West have got it all wrong, in trying to resolve the crisis; they're seeing it as a secondary problem to their own agenda, a problem that needs to be solved and removed out of their way. What is needed is an immediate cease-fire, whether it works or not it does not matter, one needs to go through the motions before getting to the heart of the problem. What is needed is a crucial peace talk, where both parties are mediated by some arbitrator, preferably the UN, who, for the first time in history might turn out to be of use. The peace talks, however, have an edge. If mediation between the parties is not reached, then economic sanctions will have to be imposed, tarrifs increased and boycotts made prominent. If mediation is nurtured, the opposite must be offered to both parties; economic benefits, medical aid and further policies on healing past wounds. BOTH parties must be threatened and rewarded, for their fighting is personal, it is fuelled by emotions and passions, not by reason - the outcome, the solution, will also have to be fuelled by motions, not just by fancy words and diplomatic efforts. And when I say mediation, I mean both parties realising that they've taken too much from each other, that Israel needs to give some back to Palestine, and that Palestine needs to gain control of itself with the removal of Arafat and a man of true peace, and a spine. Both must be willing to talk, and the only way to do that is to put of them in the shit-house. When they both realise that they're both in the same sinking boat, they will find the wisdom to compromise. Its either this effort, or the eventual complete annhilation of one of the races. Removing Arafat will not accomplish anything, neither will the removal of Sharon; will that prevent the cycle of revenge? If there is one thing that is clear, is that revenge never ends, until it has killed both parties.

If my negotiations fail, then I would avise the US, the UN and the UK to wash their hands on Israel and Palestine; they have fulfilled their duty and have tried, they should no longer fight or get involved in a war that does not concern them, just as Britain should back away from this war on terrorism now before it jeopardises its interests; and it will, should Iraq be attacked, who will be the ones closest to the firing range? I assure you, it will not be the US.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-21-2002, 10:59 AM   #15
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Montserrat W.I
Posts: 41
Local Time: 09:38 AM

The Palestinians aren't blowing themselves to prevent an attack on Iraq.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. A war was fought beacuse they had. Iraq left Kuwait and surrendered. Iraq has now said that it respects Kuwaits sovreignity.

A war against Iraq now doesn't have a thing to do with Kuwait.

Iraq doesn't trust the US that doesn't mean it has the right to attack the US does it.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. The US has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world. The US has enough weapons to destroy the whole world. The US is the only country in the world to use Nuclear weapons. These weapons were used on a civilain population. The US has more biological weapons than all other countries combined. One might say its dangerous for all countries to have WMD but the same logic can be applied to gun rights in the US.

A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with weapons of Mass Destruction.

There hasn't been any connection found between Iraq and 9/11. It almost seems as if the US wants for there to be a connection.

A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with the war on terrorism.

"E-L-E-C-T, I wonder if they even know what that means???? Do you?????"

I'm not saying that the Palestinians vote. I was only making a point in regards to the deal that Palestinians should accept by using a previous poster's sentence.

Do I know what ELECT means? I certainly do, but looking at the last US elections it doesn't seem as if you do.


__________________

__________________
nintendan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com