• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

President Bush Bitched Slapped by Israel

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
washingtonpost.com

Bush's Shift on Israel Was Swift
Country's Friends And Foes Credited

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page A01

The day after President Bush delivered a rare public criticism of Israel last week, he sat down to dinner at the White House with 100 Jewish leaders and did some damage control.

The dinner on June 11, officially marking a new exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, became an unofficial chance for Bush to reassure the attendees, many of them political donors, that he remained pro-Israel and that his complaints about an Israeli attack on a Palestinian militant were an aberration.

"He and others at the White House recognized that their reaction could be counterproductive," said Malcolm Hoenlein, one of the Jewish leaders who talked privately with Bush that night. "People were taken a little aback by the comments and, from what everyone could tell, the White House was well aware of it."

Indeed, by June 15, Bush was putting sole responsibility for Middle East violence on the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, leaving Israel blameless and asking the world to "deal harshly" with Hamas.

The shift in emphasis came about because of a variety of factors, according to diplomats, administration officials and others involved. The day after Bush's criticism of Israel, a Hamas-orchestrated bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 17 checked the president's first, visceral reaction to Israel's attack on a Hamas leader. A dossier presented by Israeli intelligence operatives to U.S. officials made a case that the target was legitimate -- while Israeli officials reached a tacit understanding with Bush aides about limiting future assassination attempts.

And, not least, Bush faced a wave of protest from Israel's defenders on Capitol Hill and K Street -- including many of those at the dinner on the 11th. According to Republican sources, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), who declared that "America must stand by Israel as it fights its own war on terror," had a private meeting with Bush aides and threatened to promote a congressional resolution in support of Israel's actions if Bush persisted in criticizing Israel.

The brief episode illustrates the pressure Bush will be under as he seeks to implement his "road map" to Middle East peace, kicked off earlier this month with a summit meeting in Jordan between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The reaction to Bush's rebuke of Israel -- really just a mild expression that he was "troubled" by the attack -- brought Bush grief from his conservative supporters, and his dropping of the criticism served to confirm Arab fears that he would not pressure Israel.

"Any president that overuses our relationship with Israel to put their feet to the fire will not be able to do it when the key time comes," said Edward S. Walker, a former ambassador to Israel and now president of the Middle East Institute. "It's something that has to be preserved for the very important decisions, and last week was not one of them."

On Tuesday, June 10, Bush reacted angrily to a pair of Israeli attacks. "I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks," Bush said, echoing slightly stronger remarks by his aides. "I also don't believe the attacks help the Israeli security," he added, suggesting that Israel had not been exercising "responsible leadership."

In Jerusalem, Israeli officials felt the administration's anger in phone calls shortly after the first attack. Israeli officials started to assemble a dossier about Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi justifying the attack, but this was not made available before Bush spoke. "We could have handled it better," said one Israeli official, calling the response to U.S. inquiries "haphazard."

Eventually, Israel's Shin Bet domestic security agency turned over information to the CIA in a series of briefings. Among numerous Israeli officials who flew to Washington were Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, Shin Bet Director Avi Dichter and former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who met with Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (who is expected to make a Middle East trip later this month).

Part of Bush's pique when he criticized Israel came from his assumption that Sharon had promised Israel would limit assassinations to militants who were "ticking time bombs" -- preparing to attack Israelis. Weisglass, according to an Israeli official, delivered the message to Rice and others that the target, Rantisi, was such a threat.

After numerous discussions, U.S. and Israeli officials agreed on what would be tolerated in the future. "There's a better understanding with the Israelis of what is and is not a ticking time bomb," a senior Bush aide said.

While those secret discussions were occurring, Bush faced a barrage of dissent from Israel's defenders, Republicans and Democrats, on Capitol Hill. Jewish groups normally friendly to the White House objected.

Then, on June 11, the suicide bombing in Jerusalem pushed aside any thought within the administration of criticizing Israel. Bush spoke again in public, this time asking the world to cut off funds to "organizations such as Hamas" and to "condemn the killings."

At the White House dinner, Jewish leaders were assured in private talks with Bush that he was not going to waver in his solidarity with Israel. Bush, in his public remarks, did not speak of the incident, talking instead about the importance of battling anti-Semitism and recalling his recent visit to a Nazi concentration camp.

"Everybody came away encouraged and pleased," said Nathan Diament, who had helped to craft a statement from orthodox Jews criticizing the White House. Diament said he was convinced the administration "clearly is not going to put pressure on Israel in the face of terrorist assaults."

Bush said as much in his next public remarks on the Middle East, on June 15. "The message is clear: Prime Minister Abbas wants peace; Prime Minister Sharon wants peace; America wants peace; the European Union wants peace," he said. "But there are clearly killers who don't. . . . efore that state is established, it is clear that the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas and the killers. And that's just the way it is in the Middle East."

Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said the Jerusalem bombing "did change the immediate focus" of the administration's rhetoric. But Fleischer added that "the president will not be shy about reminding Israel of its responsibilities."

Still, Jewish leaders are not expecting more such reminders anytime soon. "It was a human reaction more than a change in policy," Republican Jewish Coalition Director Matthew Brooks said of the Bush criticism. "I account for it as a very, very small blip."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
"bitch slapped"? Hardly


Another Bush Bash brought to you by the always informative tnitsuj

If I wanted to have the news posted for me I would probably just read the news myself;) Now if you have REAL comments on it then by all means post away.

CkG
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
I don't see why we spend 3+ billion dollars on foreign welfare to support Israel's economy and war machine. I mean what have they done for us in the past that would even repay us for all the things we did for them ?
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
I don't see why we spend 3+ billion dollars on foreign welfare to support Israel's economy and war machine. I mean what have they done for us in the past that would even repay us for all the things we did for them ?
They provide a foothold for American Imperialism in the Middle East.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"bitch slapped"? Hardly


Another Bush Bash brought to you by the always informative tnitsuj

If I wanted to have the news posted for me I would probably just read the news myself;) Now if you have REAL comments on it then by all means post away.

CkG

You mean comments that you agree with ? What's the point of having a "yes man post" ? I rather have someone who I can disagree with and debate then a "yes man post". Also if you have not looked around most post around here are just links to news sites in most regards.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
I don't see why we spend 3+ billion dollars on foreign welfare to support Israel's economy and war machine. I mean what have they done for us in the past that would even repay us for all the things we did for them ?
Not much most then anything would be intel. Offcially its 3Billion but im sure its much more then that. I believe i read somewhere they have 200+ F16 Jets at 30million a pop(IIRC)... taxes sure sound better everyday :D
I always felt we should cut foreign aid by ALOT...
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,631
0
76
Seems everyone gets a piece of the pie..

US maps out foreign aid for 2004
By Matthew Lee WASHINGTON


US President George W. Bush on Monday proposed a major increase in US foreign aid, asking Congress for a 25 percent boost over last year in his fiscal 2004 budget request.

This is part of an overall 11.2 percent increase ? from $25.6 billion to $28.5 billion - in Bush's proposed spending plan for international affairs.

Recipient countries will be required to carry out open-market reforms under the terms of the Millennium Challenge Account.

EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST:
$150 million is set aside for the Middle East Partnership Initiative which seeks to promote "democratization and good governance in the Arab world".

Egypt, Israel and Jordan remain the main beneficiaries of US foreign aid, although the Jewish state and Cairo see some decreases in purely economic support. Both countries continue to receive massive amounts of military aid, $2.1 billion for Israel and $1.3 billion for Egypt.

Turkey will see the largest increase in direct US assistance in a $200 million balance-of-payments contribution. The money for Turkey, which excludes military assistance, makes up 90 percent of the US aid package for all of Europe and Eurasia.

Aid for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza stays the same ? $75 million - as last year, as does aid to Jordan, at $250 million, and Lebanon, at $32 million dollars.

Yemen gets a 650 percent increase in military funding from $2 million to $15 million over last year.

Bahrain, which got nothing in 2003, is proposed to receive $25 million.

The other $20 million will go for peace projects in Northern Ireland and Cyprus.

Significantly, the Iraqi opposition, which received $25 million in both fiscal 2002 and 2003, has been omitted from the budget proposal.

EAST ASIA:
Assistance totals $152.8 million for the region. Aid to most countries remains level or sees slight decreases.

Afghanistan will receive $150 million to be spent on improving roads and transportation infrastructure, helping President Hamid Karzai's government and promoting militia disarmament.

Funding for Pakistan, which saw a massive increase last year, remains static at $200 million.

AFRICA AND THE CARIBBEAN:
Efforts to fight HIV/AIDS are allocated $450 million and anti-drug programs in Latin America are set to receive $731 million.

Funding for Africa will see slight increases, including boosts in funding to Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Sudan.

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
82
91
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: Drift3r
I don't see why we spend 3+ billion dollars on foreign welfare to support Israel's economy and war machine. I mean what have they done for us in the past that would even repay us for all the things we did for them ?
They provide a foothold for American Imperialism in the Middle East.

not to mention they are the most progressive in the middle east. parts are a bit like california:p do they oppress their women like the rest of the states of the middle east? in some middle eastern states women still can't drive, its absurd how backwards that place is.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
No - no - no, you can't compare Israel with California. it's already the designated comparative to Iraq.
You have to choose another state for israel to compare to.
You've got 49 options, but New York, New Jersey, or Florida would be good candidates.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
tnitsuj

In deference to our female members couldn't you have come up with a better term than "Bitched Slapped"?


0roo0roo
You can add honor killings to that list of how some treat their woman in that area.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Bitched slapped is a little strong but thier is no doubt any president will face hints of anti-semitism if they are an honest broker. The main reason their will never be peace there IMO. Buchanan was burried for it.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
what I don't understand is why the palestinians are trying to negotiate with the terrorists. if anything, israel and the PLA should work together to destroy hamas. Bush was wrong in criticizing israel. all parties should work together to destroy the funding and arming of all terrorist organizations working in the Palestinian areas.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
I wouldnt call his rebuke of israel rare, he has done that more oftenthan any other American president, and quite frankly their actions deserve that and far more.

You notice they have begun dismantling some of their settlements, there was a bitch slap, but if was Bush giving, not getting. Why do you think the rest of the international community wabts the US at the lead in this matter?. Because they know we are the only ones that can rein Israel in....
 

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
RE:"President Bush Bitched Slapped by Israel"

They own Congress and Bush too...
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I wouldnt call his rebuke of israel rare, he has done that more oftenthan any other American president, and quite frankly their actions deserve that and far more.

You notice they have begun dismantling some of their settlements, there was a bitch slap, but if was Bush giving, not getting. Why do you think the rest of the international community wabts the US at the lead in this matter?. Because they know we are the only ones that can rein Israel in....


I see are they still moving around those empty trailers again ?
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Seems everyone gets a piece of the pie..
Except Americans who are paying for it.
Don't we need oil to drive our cars?
Not if we invest on alternative fueled cars we wont. Then we can remove our feet from the big turd pile known as the Middle-East. I would be so happy if we did not have any need for any resources in that part of the world. Then we could bring back our troops to their families. Let them all rest in hell for all I care, Israeli and Palestianan lobbies be damned ! STOP THE FOREIGN WELL FARE PROGRAM NOW !



 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
Not if we invest on alternative fueled cars we wont. Then we can remove our feet from the big turd pile known as the Middle-East. I would be so happy if we did not have any need for any resources in that part of the world. Then we could bring back our troops to their families. Let them all rest in hell for all I care, Israeli and Palestianan lobbies be damned ! STOP THE FOREIGN WELL FARE PROGRAM NOW !
Hehe. I was just joking around. :D

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, political big business connections especially w/ oil doesn't allow us to do so unfortunately. :( Doesn't help w/ a vice President who was a former CEO of one either. :p
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
He criticized Israel for not exercising restraint. How is this so bad? The 2 nations are at war with one another and Israel is the only one in which savage murderers do not run unchecked by its government. Israel has to be the bigger man in this Peace Treaty because the Palestine side is run by no one.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
He criticized Israel for not exercising restraint. How is this so bad? The 2 nations are at war with one another and Israel is the only one in which savage murderers do not run unchecked by its government. Israel has to be the bigger man in this Peace Treaty because the Palestine side is run by no one.
Palestine isnt exactly a nation yet, they are occupied by Israel.
Israel has destroyed any means the Palestinian authority has of damaging the terrorist groups.

and I agree, Israel has to be the bigger man, its they who must make the first steps because they are the ones who hold all the cards
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Nitemare
He criticized Israel for not exercising restraint. How is this so bad? The 2 nations are at war with one another and Israel is the only one in which savage murderers do not run unchecked by its government. Israel has to be the bigger man in this Peace Treaty because the Palestine side is run by no one.
Palestine isnt exactly a nation yet, they are occupied by Israel.
Israel has destroyed any means the Palestinian authority has of damaging the terrorist groups.

and I agree, Israel has to be the bigger man, its they who must make the first steps because they are the ones who hold all the cards
the PA got like that because its leader, Chairman Arafat, chose to begin and fuel this intifada. He used his own militias to fight israel and refused to arrest the terrorists. Don't blame everything on the Israeli gov't. Arafat is a stupid fool who only cared for himself. he hoarded hundreds of millions of dollars that were geared towards poor palestinians. What israel did back in 2000-2002 was right. looked at what it forced the international community to do. it forced them to see arafat for who he is; a poor negotiator who saw violent uprisings as a means to bring israel to the negotiating table. that option failed because the israelis knew better.

and let's not forget who started this matter altogether: in 1967 the arabs wanted to carry out an all-out attack to destroy israel for once and for all. tired of all the wars, israel defended herself and is using the occupied territories as a bargaining table (of which it legitimately won from the attackers) for future peace with the arabs.

what I don't understand is even 50+ years after the holocaust, europeans still want to blame jews for the ills of others, when it is blatently clear (for those who study history) that the jews were in the right.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Nitemare
He criticized Israel for not exercising restraint. How is this so bad? The 2 nations are at war with one another and Israel is the only one in which savage murderers do not run unchecked by its government. Israel has to be the bigger man in this Peace Treaty because the Palestine side is run by no one.
Palestine isnt exactly a nation yet, they are occupied by Israel.
Israel has destroyed any means the Palestinian authority has of damaging the terrorist groups.

and I agree, Israel has to be the bigger man, its they who must make the first steps because they are the ones who hold all the cards
the PA got like that because its leader, Chairman Arafat, chose to begin and fuel this intifada. He used his own militias to fight israel and refused to arrest the terrorists. Don't blame everything on the Israeli gov't. Arafat is a stupid fool who only cared for himself. he hoarded hundreds of millions of dollars that were geared towards poor palestinians. What israel did back in 2000-2002 was right. looked at what it forced the international community to do. it forced them to see arafat for who he is; a poor negotiator who saw violent uprisings as a means to bring israel to the negotiating table. that option failed because the israelis knew better.

and let's not forget who started this matter altogether: in 1967 the arabs wanted to carry out an all-out attack to destroy israel for once and for all. tired of all the wars, israel defended herself and is using the occupied territories as a bargaining table (of which it legitimately won from the attackers) for future peace with the arabs.

what I don't understand is even 50+ years after the holocaust, europeans still want to blame jews for the ills of others, when it is blatently clear (for those who study history) that the jews were in the right.
the blame goes both ways but in the current situation there is nothing Abbas can do except negotiate

as for the past, Israel is anything but innocent
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Nitemare
He criticized Israel for not exercising restraint. How is this so bad? The 2 nations are at war with one another and Israel is the only one in which savage murderers do not run unchecked by its government. Israel has to be the bigger man in this Peace Treaty because the Palestine side is run by no one.
Palestine isnt exactly a nation yet, they are occupied by Israel.
Israel has destroyed any means the Palestinian authority has of damaging the terrorist groups.

and I agree, Israel has to be the bigger man, its they who must make the first steps because they are the ones who hold all the cards
the PA got like that because its leader, Chairman Arafat, chose to begin and fuel this intifada. He used his own militias to fight israel and refused to arrest the terrorists. Don't blame everything on the Israeli gov't. Arafat is a stupid fool who only cared for himself. he hoarded hundreds of millions of dollars that were geared towards poor palestinians. What israel did back in 2000-2002 was right. looked at what it forced the international community to do. it forced them to see arafat for who he is; a poor negotiator who saw violent uprisings as a means to bring israel to the negotiating table. that option failed because the israelis knew better.

and let's not forget who started this matter altogether: in 1967 the arabs wanted to carry out an all-out attack to destroy israel for once and for all. tired of all the wars, israel defended herself and is using the occupied territories as a bargaining table (of which it legitimately won from the attackers) for future peace with the arabs.

what I don't understand is even 50+ years after the holocaust, europeans still want to blame jews for the ills of others, when it is blatently clear (for those who study history) that the jews were in the right.
the blame goes both ways but in the current situation there is nothing Abbas can do except negotiate

as for the past, Israel is anything but innocent
the only "blame" the israelis have is using rightly-won territory for their own interests. the arabs can't just attack her (israel) and use international laws as a means of getting back their land, should they lose. you and I both know that they instigated 5 wars and lost all five. there has to be a price.

as for abbas, he is powerless because arafat wants him to be. if arafat was remotely interested in his people's well-being, he would've put an end to hamas. the arab leaders have to sort out their "domestic" disputes before they decide to talk to israel. they have to be united behind a single entity; whether it be abbas, arafat, or hamas. Even though every one may dread it, there has to be a internecine conflict within the territories before any peace process can move on. that civil war will clean up the leadership mess the palestinians seem to have right now. there is no way around it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY