Bush arrives bearing gifts.
George Bush and Laura have arrived in Israel to celebrate the 60th birthday of the state bearing what has been described as "beautiful presents" for Mr Peres. Unfortunately, we can't be told what these presents are "for security reasons". That's a strange one.
But then we find why. George's "beautiful presents" are rumoured to contain, "advanced types of armament, fighter planes, cruise missiles and new radar systems that will increase the early-warning time for surface-to-surface missile fire". Imagine the surprise and delight on little Ehud's face when he opened that bloody parcel.
Whilst in Israel celebrating the 60th birthday Bush will not even find the time to visit Abbas in the West Bank. It will also be interesting to watch whether he even mentions Nakba, that other important anniversary which occurs around this time.
There has never been an American president as blatantly pro-Israeli as Bush has been and yet one wonders whether this has actually helped or hindered Israel. The Israelis and the Palestinians are certainly no nearer to peace than before Bush came to office and Israel's reputation as an army which never loses was thrown away in the ill-fated war in Lebanon which Bush actively encouraged.
The truth is that Bush had watched Clinton spend the last few years of his presidency attempting to push for peace between the two sides and that Bush wasn't going to repeat that. So he has literally done almost bugger all to attempt to find a way to solve this dispute - other than a photo shoot at Annapolis - and could be said to have made solving it infinitely harder with his promise to Sharon that he would recognise "realities on the ground" meaning illegal settlements built outside of international law.
He may be the first US president to ever call for a state of Palestine, but he's actually done bugger all to make it a reality.
And now, at a time when he is supposed to be attempting to find a solution to the problem, he turns up with "advanced types of armament, fighter planes, cruise missiles and new radar systems" and doesn't even bother to offer Abbas a cup of tea.
His blatant pro-Israeli bias has helped no-one, least of all Israel. It's just another situation in which Bush has not only been a resounding failure, but he's guilty of not even trying.
I seriously think that his presidency has not only been bad, it's been shameful.
Click title for full article.
9 comments:
It will also be interesting to watch whether he even mentions Nakba, that other important anniversary which occurs around this time.
Given that your heroic Palestinian patriots just attacked a children's clinic in "celebration" of Nakba, I'm not sure why Bush should dignify them with anything.
A woman, her 2-year-old daughter and a doctor at the top-floor children's clinic were seriously wounded.
Gilbert Maman, a paramedic in a bloodstained white shirt, said that as he ran upstairs toward the clinic "a man handed me a child, a girl of 3, injured and bleeding everywhere."
After treating her, he told Channel 1 television, he rushed back and "we found another three victims under the rubble." Fire officials said an infant was among those pulled out alive.
The Palestians are such brave, honorable and heroic fighters, aren't they?
I notice that you didn't mention that the rocket attack was in response to "two Israeli raids earlier in the day" which "left three Palestinian militants and two civilians dead in Gaza".
Like Bush, you only ever see this from the Israeli perspective making you part of the problem rather than the solution.
An occupied people will always fight back, that's as old as time. The solution, which Bush has never in seven years properly explored, is to look for ways to end the illegal occupation.
And, of course, there is nothing unusual about you not noticing the deaths of Palestinian innocents whilst asking that we mourn the loss of innocent Israelis, as you provide yourself with the excuse that the terrorists live amongst the local populace.
Tell me this, shortly after 9-11 (at the very moment that the US were demanding that bin Laden be handed over by the Taliban) Haiti renewed it's request for the extradition of Emmanuel Constant, a man responsible for the brutal murder of thousands of Hiatians. At the time Haiti made this request Constant was living in the US. Would it be acceptable for Haiti, or some other nation on Haiti's behalf, to bomb Washington in an attempt to kill this terrorist? And would you accept any civilian deaths as the inevitable result of a terrorist being allowed to live alongside the general population?
If not, why not?
I noticed you yet again choose to support and justify the deliberate targeting of civilians for murder.
as you provide yourself with the excuse that the terrorists live amongst the local populace.
That's because unlike you, I have been trained in the Laws of Armed Combat (LOAC) and am able to distinguish a legitimate military target from an illegal one. A legitimate military target surrounding itself with civilians is still a legal target. A children's clinic and a mall where there are absolutely no legitimate military targets is something completely different, and the deliberate targeting of such a facility, with the express desire to murder non-combatants, is illegal and a war crime. While you don't see any difference, there most certainly is one.
Would it be acceptable for Haiti, or some other nation on Haiti's behalf, to bomb Washington in an attempt to kill this terrorist?
They could certainly try. I have a feeling it wouldn't go very well for them.
They could certainly try. I have a feeling it wouldn't go very well for them.
You have chosen to give an answer based on machismo rather than to address the point.
I know you'll hate this as you fervently believe in American and Israeli exceptionalism, but in order for any action to be inherently moral, you would have to prove universality. You would have to prove that the actions which you are condoning would be acceptable wherever they were applied.
I put it to you that you would not condone civilian deaths in Washington in order to ensure the killing of Emmanuel Constant, you would find such an act outrageous.
You are condoning actions in Palestine which you would condemn were they to be done in the US. That's my point.
You have chosen to give an answer based on machismo rather than to address the point.
Because you had no point. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Israel goes after legal military targets, whereas the Palestinians choose to target civilians for murder, a war crime.
You're the one who likes to wrap himself up in the law. Apparently you're only interested in doing so selectively, when it suits your "cause".
but in order for any action to be inherently moral, you would have to prove universality. You would have to prove that the actions which you are condoning would be acceptable wherever they were applied.
Now what are you talking about? You're attempting to dodge the legal certainty that the Palestinians commit war crimes by illegally targeting civilians for murder versus the legal certainty that Israel pursues legitimate military targets. So for you now it's not what's legal, it what's "moral", per your interpretation of course.
I put it to you that you would not condone civilian deaths in Washington in order to ensure the killing of Emmanuel Constant, you would find such an act outrageous.
Not sure what this has to do with Palestinians murdering Isreali civilians, since now you're oddly tring to bring in Afghanistanm bin Laden, and more bizarrely Haiti into the argument. I'll play along though.
First, your analogy with Afghanistan/bin Laden and Haiti/Constant is an obscenely false one.
If Constant were living in the US under US protection, plotting widescale terrorist attacks against Haiti or others, training his followers in the US to commit terrorist acts, sending these trained followers outside of the US to commit these terrorist acts, and was the head of an organization responsible for successfully carrying out mass murder while under US protection, then you might be able to draw some kind of parallel. However, that's not even remotely the case.
Constant has faced legal sanctions in the US for his activities in Haiti. While I personally would have had no problem with his deportation. The Clinton administration chose not to deport him because he faced death upon return to Haiti. Given the EU's stance on deporting criminals when they would face death or torture upon their return, one would think you would appreciate that stance.
So, lousy and irrelevant attempt at an analogy aside, it seems that all you are trying to do is dodge the fact that your Palestinian heroes are murdering Israeli civilians, a war crime, while Israel goes after legal targets.
If Constant were living in the US under US protection, plotting widescale terrorist attacks against Haiti or others
Constant was living in the United States, with the United States refusing to extradite him, and he had already carried out terrorist massacres in Haiti which is why the Haitians wanted him extradited. So he could well be said to be "under US protection". They were certainly refusing to hand him over, so he's certainly under as much protection as one could say is given by Palestinians to terrorists in their midst.
Also, Constant attended, on invitation, the Clinton inauguration balls in 1993, so it is safe to say that he was living under US protection. He certainly wasn't holed up in hiding.
Constant has faced legal sanctions in the US for his activities in Haiti. While I personally would have had no problem with his deportation. The Clinton administration chose not to deport him because he faced death upon return to Haiti.
Clinton also released him because he was planning to reveal the CIA's involvement in his work and he was issued with a gag order ordering him not to talk about what took place. Constant was, after all, on the CIA payroll. The CIA admit this.
The reason I bring up bin Laden is because the Bush administration ordered the Taliban to hand him over or face attack for harboring bin Laden after 9-11. When the Taliban refused, the US attacked. Israel are employing this same principle when they launch attacks against terrorists that the Palestinians won't hand over.
Haiti have requested that the US hand them Constant, but the US gave no response. Would it be fine for the Haitians to attack the US in order to kill Constant, a terrorist who has killed a greater number of Haitians than the number of Americans killed by bin Laden and certainly more Haitians than any Palestinian terrorist could be said to have killed Israelis.
I'm wondering if you have one rule for Palestine and another for US and Israeli soil? Dropping missiles into urban areas, even if going after legitimate military targets, as you say Israel is doing, will result in civilian deaths.
You seem to have no problem with this, I'm just wondering if that extends to the streets of Washington. Would a missile attack in an American city which killed Constant but also killed about six Americans be acceptable to you?
Or are you, as I suspect, only not bothered about such deaths when the people dying are Palestinians?
Would it be fine for the Haitians to attack the US in order to kill Constant
As I have clearly pointed out, the situations are not the same, and your analogy is completely false. I'm sorry you are unable to find a similar analogy to Bin Laden and Afghanistan, as I am sorry you refuse to recognize the fact that Israel's actions are legal while those of the Palestinians are not. Equally odd is that you are fine with extraditing someone when they will be killed. That seems to run counter to your stated objections to rendition, but whatever.
More disgusting are attempts to justify murdering civilians. Is there a reason you keep refusing to address the fact that Israel's attacks are on legal military targets, whereas the Palestinian attacks, such as the one on the children's clinic, are illegal and constitute war crimes? Is it just that you believe that trying to murder Israeli civilians is acceptable, or do you actually see some kind of moral equivalence between attacking legitimate military targets and deliberately trying to murder civilians? Even if you see some kind of moral equivalence, the Geneva Conventions.
Missed the end of that last sentence there, let me try again.
Even if you see some kind of moral equivalence, the Geneva Conventions doesn't.
More disgusting are attempts to justify murdering civilians. Is there a reason you keep refusing to address the fact that Israel's attacks are on legal military targets, whereas the Palestinian attacks, such as the one on the children's clinic, are illegal and constitute war crimes?
I agree that the Palestinian attacks are illegal and that attacks on civilian targets are war crimes.
However, I do not buy into your claims that Israeli attacks are legal simply because the target is "hiding amongst the local populace". Israel do not take enough care to avoid civilian casualties as has been pointed out many times by many international organisations.
And I note that once again you refuse to answer my analogy and claim to find no relevance. This is because were you to honestly answer it you would reveal that one of the reasons you dismiss the deaths of Palestinians is because you find Israeli and American lives to be worth more than Palestinian lives. That's why you refuse to engage with the analogy and pretend not to understand it.
If it's okay for Israel to drop missiles into civilian areas to kill terrorists then it should be okay for anyone to do it, including Haiti.
The problem with your argument is that it has no universality, it appears to be relevant to Israel and no-one else as it seems to perfectly fine for the US to house a terrorist who has killed more than 15,000 people and the question of whether another country could emulate Israel's actions is something you refuse to even countenance.
It's the kind of hypocrisy that I have become used to when dealing with you.
Post a Comment