Condemnation of Palestinian Peace Contributions of George Walker Bush, The War Geek Ogre

Bush appears to be trying to run away with the lion's share of the credit for a peace treaty between the Palesrael parties. But, I suggest that he was, instead, one of the two biggest stumbling blocks.

Condemnation of Palestinian Peace Contributions of George Walker Bush, The War Geek Ogre

 

Introduction

 

With just 18 months left in office, Bush appears to have settled on a few top-flight issues - Iraq , the "war on terrorism," North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - to shape his legacy.

 

As the White House struggles to show progress in the 52-month-old war, other important global issues increasingly are getting pushed to the side, according to U.S. officials, diplomats and analysts.

 

“The United States is very focused on Iraq and the Middle East. We know we are not a white-heat zone . . . which is good for us. But it means we are not on top of the list,” said Heng Chee Chan, Singapore's ambassador to the United States.

 

Two months ago, President Bush enthusiastically accepted an invitation to visit Singapore in September. But he abruptly changed plans, and his summit with Southeast Asian leaders is off. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is skipping an Asian meeting, too, and tossed out plans to visit Africa this week. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' mission to Latin America ? Postponed.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070723/wl_mcclatchy/20070723bcbushforeign_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

 

Given the horrible seven year track record of the Bush administration, I can understand why Bush might try to establish a legacy in the last 11 months (at this time) of his administration.  Even given a war of utterly epic proportions that has fueled economic growth (as wars almost always do), the American economy appears to be rapidly approaching a recession with little hope of a long-term solution.  The dollar is very weak, allowing foreign nations to purchase their piece of America at discount prices. And, America has already borrowed more money than we should have to finance Bush’s oil colonialism in the Middle East.  The administration really started with the worst terrorist attack on American soil, either a complete failure of national defense or, as I believe, a conspiracy between Usama Bin Ladin and the President’s father to start a new round of command and control politics in the Middle East.  To make matters worse, the civil rights for which our Founding Fathers bled and died have been cancelled.  America is not stuck with two wars in the Middle East that only 30% of Americans actually support.

 

So, I can understand why Bush is interested in a feather in his cap.  In 7 years in our nation’s most senior executive office, he has yet to achieve a single positive result, and time is running out.  If he wants to make a positive contribution to the Palestinian peace process, he knows how to do it: resign and take his silly lap dog Cheney with him.  But, he does not want to actually make a contribution; he wants to continue his pathetic administration until the bitterest of ends in 2009.

 

The Evolution of the Bush Peace Initiative

 

George Walker Bush is probably in about the worst position to negotiate for a lasting peace in the Middle East.  With only 30% of the US public actually supporting him, an abysmal figure that has remained essentially constant for a very long time, Bush does not have very high credibility on the home front.  On the other hand, Bush’s wars of occupation in the Middle East have essentially destroyed his credibility in the Islamic World.  At this time, I believe that over half of the nations who initially sent support for the United States to the Middle East have already left the region.  We were told that we were removing a dictator from Iraq, and the “mission was completed” according to the Bush rhetoric on December 14, 2003.  In 200 years of American history, never has America sunk so low with our international relationships, and we are in little position to negotiate a peace treaty that has eluded the world for 60 years.

 

Bush has become convinced the U.S. can no longer be a back-seat driver in the fraught Israeli-Palestinian relationship, and he must make a sincere effort to prepare the ground for an eventual peace that his advisers acknowledge is unlikely before he leaves office in 2009.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_why_now

 

Bush’s own advisors believe that a peace treaty is unlikely to be negotiated before 2009.  There is an important word in that sentence: negotiated.  Much like the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, dictated peace for Palesrael (my pet name for Palestine and Israel) is unlikely to conclude hostilities permanently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles)  History shows that people do not like living their lives under the dark cloud of perennial oppression.  How is somebody who sowed the seeds of strife and war in the Middle East supposed to inspire peace and prosperity?  I agree that Bush talks a pretty good talk most of the time, but life is not just about talk.  Life is also about walking the walk. 

 

The United States needs its few friends in the Middle East, and those friends want to see some resolution to the five-decade-old conflict at the heart of other Mideast divisions. Driven by rising anti-American sentiment among their publics, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have all urged Bush to do more.

 

There is no express quid pro quo, of course, but part of the unspoken bargain is plain: Help us to prop up Iraq's weak U.S.-backed government, and we'll help you by trying to help the beleaguered Palestinians.

 

Depending on who's talking, President Bush is either taking advantage of a rare window of hope in the clouded Middle East, or he has the worst timing imaginable.

 

 

"This in my judgment ... is what is going to be needed," (Assistance Secretary of State David )Welch said. "American leadership is key. The president has put his stamp on this, and signaled where he would like to go."

 

"We believe that this is a moment for everybody to push the go button and try and make this work," Assistance Secretary of State David Welch told reporters after Bush's White House address outlining what he called new commitments to the Palestinians.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_why_now

 

When the Islamic World requested that Bush attempt to "do more," I believe that they meant, "Do more good work around the globe, please!"  That was not meant to be a “blank check” like the US Patriot Acts.  I agree that we seem to be in the middle of a “window of opportunity” for a final resolution to the issues surrounding Palesrael.  Both Syria and Iran have put considerable effort towards peace efforts in recent years, and momentum for a lasting peace is growing around the globe.  But, as the ancient Romans said, one must “Carpe diem!” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem)  Bush has shown his capability to seize land, but may he learn to seize peace and prosperity before his tiresome regime has finally imploded for good! 

 

Recently, the international community pledged 5.6 billion USD if foreign aid to rebuild the war torn nation of Palestine as well as to accommodate the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland.(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_donors)  This funding could go a really long way towards ameliorating the past grievances of the Palestinian people as well as helping people to become acclimated in a new, more peaceful Middle East.  What did Bush suggest?

 

He noted that the United States has pledged more than $190 million in direct assistance to the Palestinians, most of it already approved and that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a quasi-governmental unit, was making another $228 million available in loan guarantees.

 

"We will work with Congress and partners around the world to provide additional resources once a plan to build Palestinian institutions is in place," he said. "With all this assistance, we are showing the Palestinian people that a commitment to peace leads to the generous support of the United States."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

I am calling the Bush/Blair proposed monetary contribution to the peace process little more than an insult to the Palestinian people.  At the same time that America is spending approximately 200 billion USD per annum on wanton and excessive death and destruction in Iraq, there is less than half a billion to spend on peace and rebuilding Palestine, and roughly half of that is a loan which the Palestinians are probably going to have difficulties repaying in the immediate future.  I guess we can see where Bush places his primary focus: death, destruction, and control.  Does that guy even bother to read his own proposals?

 

At the same time that Bush claims to be working for reconciliation between the parties of the agreement, he is also alienating some very essential and influential people in the Middle East.

 

Bush said he would "continue to deliver a firm message to Hamas: You must stop Gaza from being a safe haven for attacks against Israel. You must accept the legitimate Palestinian government, permit humanitarian aid in Gaza and dismantle militias. And you must reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and commit to all previous agreements between the parties."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

People in the Middle East and around the globe are really becoming tired of Bush’s dictation.  That is a whole lot of demands for Bush to give to Hamas!  What is he offering them in return?   Nothing!  Maybe if America could even throw in just some of our extremely crappy federal prison food, it would sound better to Hamas.  Anything would have to sound better than just the brutish order, “Take it and like it!”  Frankly, I don't think that our federal prison food is fit for human consumption, but Palestinian dogs and cats might come out ahead in the deal.  As I understand it, the Bush family has the contract for food for the federal prison system, and there would be a lot of justice in both George Bushes having to eat their own rotten food while awaiting war crimes trials.  Choke on that!

 

""Bush contrasted his government with Hamas, which he said "has demonstrated beyond all doubt that it is devoted to extremism and murder."""

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

In addition to the dictation, it appears that Bush felt that the responsible thing to do was to insult Hamas.  Hamas is not only a military organization; it is also a political party in Palestine with a lot of popular support, arguably about half of the entire population of Palestine.  If Hamas does not support a peace treaty, it is unclear how successful it could possibly be.  It could be a peace treaty in name alone, and I believe that Bush should be soliciting meaningful engagement from Hamas in the peace process instead of insulting them and shutting them out entirely.  I believe that it has been the consistent policy of the Bush administration to call anybody fighting for the liberation of Palestine from Israeli control “criminals.”  This arrogant, self-serving, utter lack of understanding has no place in the peace proceedings.

 

The Bush administration took action Tuesday against an Iran-based foundation, including its U.S. branch, for allegedly providing support to the terrorist group Hezbollah.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/treasury_hezbollah

 

Bush did this at the same time that he claims that he is trying to find support for his peace treaty?  More than anything else, I am calling this Bush a complete disruption of the peace process! 

 

Likewise, Bush has consistently alienated Iran by 1) declaring their Republican Guard a terrorist group, 2) listing them as a part of his axis of evil, and 3) following the same path to war that Bush followed with Iraq but 4 very long years ago.

 

Everything pointed toward a confrontation between the United States and Iran a couple of months ago, but two unexpected events took place to undermine the "step-by-step escalation toward war," political novelist and foreign policy expert Hannes Artens said during a Madison appearance Wednesday night.

"I believe that in September, we were just a whisker away from this confrontation escalating," Artens said, noting that Congress passed the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment, which ratcheted up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

 

The U.S.-Iran antagonism has been exploited by radical elements on both sides, each side traumatized "by the painful experiences and the haunting images they share," Artens said.

 

"They are constantly keeping this confrontation between the U.S. and Iran in a state of constant crisis mode," Artens said.

 

http://www.madison.com/tct/news//index.php?ntid=269053

 

I want to know exactly how Bush hopes to pull together a peace agreement when he keeps ripping people apart.  I don’t really believe that he is the man for the job!  Finding peace is about reaching an agreement with which people can live and not about brute dictation.  If brute dictation would work with Palesrael, why has it not worked over the course of the last 60 years during which the Palestinian people lived as a subculture in their own former homeland?  They are upset, and I am of the belief that these feelings will not subside until a peace treaty based upon equal rights, equal representation, and a fair compromise is finally reached.

 

The Failed Bush Peace Conference

 

President Bush on Monday announced an an international conference this fall to include Israel, the Palestinian authority and some of their Arab neighbors to help restart Mideast peace talks and review progress in building democratic institutions.

 

The fall conference among Palestinian and Israeli officials and other countries in the region would be a way to prod the peace process. It would be one of the few times that Israelis and Arab leaders have met jointly to work out their differences.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

Into the middle of this maelstrom of accusations and degrading conduct, Bush put forth his failed attempt to bring peace to the region: his Middle East peace conference.  What is really needed is meaningful discussions between just the parties to the proposed peace agreement.  While it was a wonderful idea to have a comprehensive Middle Eastern policy discussion summit with all of the nations in the region, this was a great distraction from the true mission of the peace talks: reconciliation between Palestine and Israel.  There is an old adage about “too many cooks in the kitchen,” and while I support involvement from other nations, I support this on an “advisory role” only.  It is difficult enough to find peace when there are only two adverse parties, when there are dozens of interested parties, it is nearly impossible.

 

He (Bush) said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would preside over the session. Bush said the conference would include representatives from Israel, the Palestinians "and their neighbors in the region" and said participants would include just those governments that support creation of a Palestinian state.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

You had to figure that there would be bitter bones of contention added to the “Bush Peace Plan” extremely quickly.  Why was "Crazed ozone lice" declared the head of the discussions?  In her term as the Secretary of State under Bush, I can not cite but a handful of successful diplomatic resolutions in which she took part, and this is perhaps the most difficult negotiation on the planet at this time.  Also, I have a hard time thinking that she will be fair and impartial.  Is there anybody beside George Bush and Tony Blair that has less credibility in the Islamic World at this time than Condi?  I suggest that neither Bush nor Condi leadership will give rise to the feelings of confidence in the process (especially the Muslim world) that would provide the atmosphere most conducive to the settlement of outstanding claims.  I suggest that even if Rice managed to draft the most desired agreement, her leadership would force into the mouths of the Islamic world a bitter taste before people could even give the agreement a fair chance. 

 

Blair was recently named as special envoy to the region by the "Quartet" of Mideast peace makers — the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

Speaking of Tony Blair, he was included in the mix of what might be “the worst peacemakers in all of world history” to further antagonize the Islamic community.  What does Tony Blair know about fostering peace?  I suggest that if he could not make peace once in 11 years as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, he is not going to succeed at this time, either.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair)  I have some choice titles for that Tony Blair, and none of them are "special envoy." 

 

The diplomats also criticised Blair for his support for the road map which included the retaining of settlements on the West Bank stating, "Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair

 

Tony Blair already was competing with Bush for the worst reputation in the Middle East before the two of them joined forces with Condi to try to ream peace down the throats of the Palestinian people after more than a decade of failure with just these policies.  Why did they seem to think that after so many years of failure that they would succeed just because the Islamic World is seriously considering peace?  What the Islamic World wants is peace with the national dignity of both Palestine and Israel in tact.  That is not what Bush, Condi, and Blair were offering as best as I can tell.  Furthermore, they were not in a position to offer anything by economic aid and consultation as this is an internal matter for the citizens of Palesrael to decide with some very limited issues extended to Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

 

I am of the belief that the Bush Palestinian Peace Conference was doomed from before it ever began.  Too much water has already spilled over the dam, and Bush has absolutely no credibility in the Islamic World.  If he wanted to go down in history as a great peacemaker, why did the “War Geek Ogre” make so much war in the Middle East?  One of the first things that you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging, but Bush can’t seem to bring even one of his wars of oppression to a close.  I believe that history will frown upon his “efforts towards peace” and relate them as merely words without the substance that was requisite to give those words meaning.

 

The Substance of the Bush Peace Plan

 

Relevant Anagrams: 'The Control-Freaky Plan' - 'Fancy hot alert plonker.'

'Ongoing Violence and Strife Plan' - 'Flop-eared, singing conventional.'

            'Triple Apartheid Agreement' - 'Perpetrate ideal nightmare.'

            'The WORST Political Solutions' - 'Hollow solicitation sputters.'

'More Dysfunctional Palesrael' - 'Infamously lacerate splendor.'

 

What more can I say about the Bush plan for Palesrael: more of the same?  What else could you expect from a Presidency that completely flopped by a peace plan that is destined to flop as well?  To me, it appears that Bush is in favor of having a minority interest in America, the Republican Party, dictate terms to Israel to dictate terms to Palestine.  This is exactly what has been happening for the past 60 years, and it has not brought a lasting peace in Palesrael as of the time of this writing.  At this point, it appears clear that Israel and Palestine are both in favor of a “two state solution,” a free Israel and a free Palestine.  But, how free would Palestine be if they are merely receiving orders from America through Israel?  I suggest that this is only de jure freedom in not freedom de facto.

 

Bush voiced strong support for Abbas and his moderate Fatah government. Abbas controls just the West Bank after the Islamic militant group Hamas gained authority over Gaza in June.

 

He said Abbas and his new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, "are striving to build the institutions of a modern democracy."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast

 

That seems to be par for the Bush course: support the plan that gives him the most absolute control of the land despite having less than half of the support of the nation.  This peace treaty proposal can probably be found in the Even Newer Webster Collegiate Dictionary  for the definition of word "oppression."  The failure to fairly share power with Hamas or even to include them in the peace process leads me to believe that Bush is more into constructing a dictatorship against the will of the Palestinian people and kept in effect by force alone than in finding a long-lasting peace based upon the principles of fundamental justice and equality.  While I am also eager to see a resolution to the conflict over the fate of Palesrael, I would like to see a lasting peace instead of just a political feather in the cap of the Republican Party going into the 2008 general election.

 

The Bush administration pinned its hopes on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas after the death of Yasser Arafat, and so far has little to show for it. The United States now sees Abbas' bloody divorce from Hamas militants last month as an opportunity to finally establish his leadership bona fides.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_why_now

 

While I admire Mahmoud Abbas and his concerted efforts towards peace and some national solidarity, I firmly believe that a lasting peace will require the support of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people.  Abbas is only about half of this equation, and ignoring the other half of the equation is to invite disaster into what is expected to be a very fragile peace under the best of conditions.

 

 

Nathan Brown, a Mideast expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Bush is reacting to the "virtual civil war" between Abbas' moderate faction and the Palestinian Hamas militants. Hamas effectively evicted Abbas' forces from the Gaza Strip last month, leaving him with a tenuous emergency government in the West Bank and little say over the fate of 1.2 million Palestinians he nominally leads.

 

"The administration ... clearly sees an opportunity — one which most regional experts, myself included, are deeply skeptical about — to show Palestinians that (Abbas') path is more promising than Hamas'," Brown said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_why_now

 

Bush is the master of overreaction.  When three buildings were attacked in the United States, he invaded two countries that were not even responsible for this transgression.  To me, this altercation between Fatah and Hamas looked MORE like a "short spat" and "a small adjustment in interest of justice" than a prolonged civil war.  Understandably, Hamas leaders were upset about what they claimed to have been a cruel and unjust crackdown in the recent years by Fatah.  While violence may not have been the most justified reaction to the status quo, at least the air was cleared to a very large degree.  Bush can no allow this one altercation to shape the entire future of Palesrael.  To me, the Bush peace plan appears to be an effort to reach an agreement between Fatah (a minority interest) and Israel and make it binding and oppressive for the entire world, especially Hamas.  I don't believe that this is the best hope for long-term peace, justice, and happiness in Palesrael.  I firmly believe that Bush and Israel can run from Hamas, but they can not hide!  Even the great prophet Muhammad went to the mountain when it would not come to him.

 

If the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad will go to the mountain.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/ifthemountai.html

 

Well, now that Bush has put forth his plan, at least we can characterize it.  The Bush plane for Palestine is:

 

1) The most unfair,

 

2) The worst for American National Security,

 

3) The worst for long-term peace,

 

4) The worst for international security, and

 

5) The best for Bush’s world control structure.

 

What else could you expect from Bush after 7 years of this and this alone?  While I think him for taking some of his time to try to resolve issues in the Middle East, I would have greatly preferred meaningful input into the peace process instead of an utter waste of time and the addition of even more strife and difficulty.  I seriously doubt that this will be the direction that Palesrael’s people feel is most just or that people actually choose to go, but it was helpful to have this option pointed out for the parties as the antithesis of a good peace treaty.

 

Conclusions

 

Arguably, the Bush family is the single largest contributor to the Palestinian peace process.  If they had not allegedly stabbed America in our back with the conspiracy for 9/11 as well as spread misery and war throughout the region, the region may not have received so much interest from people who actually want to make a difference in a positive fashion.  However, this was entirely the wrong way to go about such changes in the Middle East, and I sincerely doubt that his intentions were pure and honest.  If he really wants to help, he can leave office earlier than 2009 and take his crappy lap dog to a puppet Cheney with him.  And, he could leave Iraq for some further progress towards peace.  I believe that he does not want to make the sacrifices that would most be the most likely to help out the peace process, and I must make a formal complaint on these matters.  In fact, I believe that Bush and Usama have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the whole Middle East as well as Palesrael in particular.

 

If you want a good guess as to who would be the second least likely person on Earth to bring peace to Palesrael, mine would be Tony Blair, somebody who is probably about equally despised in the Islamic world.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed Tony Blair as a historic and passionate leader on Thursday, saying his debut as Mideast envoy could breath new life into long-stalled talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

While Blair brings gravitas and enthusiasm to the role, critics say his limited mandate will make it difficult for him to achieve a breakthrough. Rice, who as America's senior diplomat is charged with the role as chief peacemaker, defended the division of responsibilities.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_re_eu/mideast

 

I sincerely hope that Condi can find in her heart to give us at least one honest assessment the facts before she presumably leaves office in 2009.  Possibly, Blair feels remorse about the conditions that he assisted greatly in creating and wants to try to make a difference.  I seriously doubt this and suspect that he just wants to keep continue messing up the lives of others. 

 

"The only consensus in the Palestinian and Israeli publics is that their current political leadership is ineffective," said Jon Alterman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Neither community has the beginning of an agreement on what goals it should strive for, or what blend of negotiations and threat of violence it should pursue."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_why_now

 

I think that Bush realized that this is great timing for an opportunist to try to seize some credit very late in the process for which others have worked so tirelessly.  The wars with Al Qaida as well as Iraq have people thinking about the merits of peace over war.  And, the Islamic World and Palestine had already commenced discussions before Bush ever stepped into the arena.  I believe that Bush is just grasping at straws for political capital to try to make his Presidency shine in at least one regard as well as in anticipation of the 2008 election.  There is already a better interpretation of the peace efforts in that area of the world, and I suggest that this is due to the work of others.

 

Where are the meaningful contributions from Bush?  I note that he could push Israel to release some Palestinian POWs, to further relieve tensions, but he has not done this.  However, the Bush administration has arguably not made any tangible steps towards peace in the region such as removing US forces from two other occupied territories, Iraq and Afghanistan.  I do not dispute the possibility that Bush could assist as a mediator in this dispute by offering arguments and talking to the parties, but he is really hurting more than he is helping at this point despite better advice from leading Democrats.

 

However, it seems that the Bush administration wants to both control the proceedings as well as inflame the negotiations while running away with a large part of the credit if the negotiations are successful despite their utterly deficient efforts.

 

President Bush, summing up meetings with both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, said Thursday that a peace accord will require "painful political concessions" by each. Resolving the status of Jerusalem will be hard, he said, and he called for the end of the "occupation" of Arab land by the Israeli military.

 

Bush is in the Mideast for eight days, trying to bolster his goal of achieving a long-elusive peace agreement by the end of his presidency in a year. Speaking at his hotel in Jerusalem, he said again that he thinks that is possible.

 

"I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it," Bush said. Within minutes, Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley said the president would return to the Middle East "at least once and maybe more" over the next year. He wouldn't elaborate on possible destinations.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast

 

I don’t believe one word out of the mouth of Bush these days.  If he really wants to help out the Palestinian cause, why won’t he just resign?  I agree that a final peace treaty is possible before he leaves office, but the chances are slim if he does not resign.  Otherwise, we are likely to get a treaty followed by a bunch of violence if we get one at all.

 

 

Bush said that disputed territory must be mutually negotiated, but he said "any agreement will require adjustments" to the borders drawn for Israel in the late 1940s. He was referring to Israeli neighborhoods on disputed lands that Israel would keep when an independent Palestinian state is formed.

 

At the same time, Bush reiterated that any viable Palestinian state must be "contiguous," saying Palestinians deserve better than a "Swiss cheese" state.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast

 

Bush drives me up one wall and down another eternally.  It looks as though he is a mere reporter upon the action instead of making himself genuinely useful to the process.  At the same time, he is attempting to usurp the hard work and dedication of others in a vain attempt to promote himself very late in his career.  If he wanted to make a positive difference with his Presidency, he should have started in 2001.  He has not added a damned thing to the peace process other than tension!  His proposal for the peace treaty is just the same crap that has enraged the Palestinians for 60 long years of occupation.  And, I must conclude that such an agreement would lead to another 60 years of resentment and war in Palesrael and further decrease the chances of attaining lasting peace in our lifetimes.  If that brutal dictator can’t find another meaning for the word “diplomacy” than “dictation,” he should simply get out of the way for those who can.

 

Reviews

[Raef C. Boylan]

Hi Gabe.
I've read this, and the previous four chapters, and just want to say well done for taking on such a complicated and important project.
It's unfortunate that I only get an hour's break, so I wasn't able to interact with the links you'd provided, but the writing alone was worth the time as you show yourself to be a thoughtful, opinionated political analyst.

There hasn't been much mention of 'Israel' itself in these chapters, and I can't tell whether this is because you view them as blameless or simply because you've chosen not to focus on them as yet. Even from the discussions via email we've had, I can't tell how strong your opinion is when it comes to 'blame' - and I think that's because you are a believer in objectivity and equality. I think the only way the situaion can be resolved is if we avoid blame [like you say, the guilt factor of the Versailles Treaty had disatrous effects later on]...however, without an apology of sorts, I don't think we'll engage the whole of Palestine in the peace process...and that can't happen without inferring blame of some kind.

What is to be done?

Good essays. Great lay-out too, makes it more accessible to those who wouldn't normally read non-fiction.
Thanks for sharing this.

[The Archangel Gabriel]

Yeah! No credit for George Bush for the Palestinian peace process! He subverted the whole thing and wants the credit!

-Gabe