Monday, May 19, 2008

Damage Limitation. Bush tells Arab Leaders that he feels Palestinian Pain.

Bush is attempting to undo some of the damage he has done to US/Arab relations after his dreadful speech to the Knesset to celebrate Israel's 60th birthday, during which he made no reference at all to Nakba, the Palestinian anniversary of the removal of 700,000 Palestinians from their land brought about by Israel's creation.

Bush used a speech in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to urge Arab leaders to "treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve. Too often in the Middle East politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," he told the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Bush made an effort yesterday to express sympathy for the Palestinians - "who have suffered for decades and earned the right to a homeland of their own" - after Arab anger at his highly sympathetic speech to the Israeli parliament.
Is it through their "suffering" that "they earned the right to a homeland of their own" or has that right always been there? And under whom have they suffered? On this, Bush is silent.

This really is the most dreadful lip service after a speech to the people who have been oppressing and occupying the Palestinians for decades in which Bush praised the occupiers to the rafters.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, told Bush about his concerns over the Knesset speech when the two met in Sharm el-Sheikh on Saturday. "We do not want the Americans to negotiate on our behalf," Abbas said yesterday after talks with the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak. "All that we want from them is to stand by [our] legitimacy and have a minimum of neutrality."
That's where Abbas enters fantasy land, the entire notion that Bush could possibly possess "a minimum of neutrality" when it comes to this dispute is simply fantastical. His speech to the Knesset was the proof of that.

What we are now witnessing is a damage limitation programme kicking into effect.

Bin Laden has recently stated what his war with the west is all about:

Bin Laden said the Palestinian cause was the most important factor driving al-Qaida's war with the West and it motivated 19 Muslims to carry out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"To Western nations ... this speech is to understand the core reason of the war between our civilization and your civilizations. I mean the Palestinian cause," bin Laden said at the conclusion of his message.

"The Palestinian cause is the major issue for my (Islamic) nation. It was an important element in fueling me from the beginning and the 19 others with a great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed," he said.

Bush came out with many fantastical reasons after 9-11 as to why the US was attacked, including the ludicrous notion that America was being attacked because the attackers hated the US's freedoms, which left most of us wondering why al Qaeda didn't attack Sweden as well.

Bin Laden has now identified Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as central to his cause, but there's nothing in Bush's recent behaviour which would suggest that the US is willing to show the "minimum of neutrality" when dealing with this dispute which Abbas is asking for, despite the fact that bin Laden is now saying that this is the main reason that the US was attacked on 9-11.

It is surely in the US's best interests to deal fairly with this dispute, if it was their bias towards this issue which led to 9-11?

And yet what we witness is the US firmly on the side of the occupiers whilst claiming to be fighting a war for freedom and democracy. It's a simply bizarre situation.

No-one is asking that the US suddenly deserts Israel and betrays it's strongest ally, but merely - as Abbas states - that the US offers "the minimum of neutrality" when dealing with this dispute.

The United States have traditionally been on the side of the nation seeking independence, which is why they have always favoured Israel's right to exist. However, they must also realise that the Palestinians have an equal right to self determination, and that Bush is merely paying lip service to that right if he calls for a state of Palestine whilst failing to condemn the Israeli land theft - through illegal settlement programmes - which is making that Palestinian state ever harder to achieve.

Bush has promised that there would be a Palestinian state before he left office. Does anyone seriously believe that this is going to happen?

Telling us that he recognises the Palestinians right to a state - and that he sees how they "have suffered" - does nothing to bring that state any nearer. That requires action. From him. In the end, he appears to lack"the minimum of neutrality" which is required to turn that dream into a reality.

Which is tragic, as here Bush really had a chance to do something to elevate his failed presidency and to make a positive mark on history. But it requires a real effort and Bush, apparently, simply can't bring himself to make it.

Click title for full article.

No comments: