Furious Palestinians Reject Bush Pledges to Israel

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian leaders have denounced President George W. Bush’s pledge to Israel that it could keep parts of the West Bank as a rejection of Palestinian rights that endangers the region’s future.

“Bush is the first U.S. president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. We reject this, we will not accept it,” Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie told reporters at his West Bank home.

“Nobody in the world has the right to give up Palestinian rights,” the moderate premier said in reaction to what appeared to be a historic policy shift – Bush’s implicit recognition of Israel’s right to retain settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“This U.S. administration’s policies, its bias towards occupation and rejection of international law will jeopardise U.S. interests in the region,” said Jibril al-Rajoub, Arafat’s security adviser.

“The Americans will as a result only reap hostility among the people of the Middle East. This U.S. administration is dealing with the world as if it’s a Texas ranch.”

Bush also appeared to deny Palestinian refugees any right of return to what is now Israel, saying they should be resettled in a future Palestinian state instead.

Khaled al-Batsh, a senior official in the militant Islamic Jihad, said Bush’s statement and letter of assurances to Sharon was “a declaration of war” against the Palestinian people.

“The American position aims to blow up the Palestinian cause and take the situation back to square one,” he said.

Bush and Sharon repeated commitments to revive the road map, which envisages a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But Israel rules out negotiations until Palestinians end suicide bombings and other militant violence against Israelis.

Bush gives palestinian land to Israel!

“The Americans will as a result only reap hostility among the people of the Middle East. This U.S. administration is dealing with the world as if it’s a Texas ranch.” you can say that again.

Treaties and agreements don`t mean much to israelies and amerikkkans any person who thinks they will stick to an agreement is dreaming they have torn up treaties left right and centre now amerikkka giving palestininan land to israel@like a birthday gift then they wonder why amerikkka is hated around the world.

2

The price of the intifada.

3

Bush can promise the extremist Jews all of Palestine if he wants. But the zionist entity is demographically doomed, a fact many in Israel as recognise as well. :)

4

I wonder is Bush gave that speech for votes?

Can't find complete copy of speech, but I though??? Bush made mention that the initial peace agreement with Israelis' leaving Gaza.. and some of the West Bank were initial and not the final borders?

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Bush can promise the extremist Jews all of Palestine if he wants. But the zionist entity is demographically doomed, a fact many in Israel as recognise as well. :)
[/QUOTE]

Demographically, militarily,@financially, and the reality is that the illegal state of israel is living on borrowed time.

This right wing policy of Bush is not surprising it just adds more fuel on the fire in the region and speeds up the inevitable destruction of the zionist entity.

6

Since G. Bush is increasingly unsure of a re-election, seems like hes creating an atmosphere which would leave the new president with plenty of problems in order to make him look bad.

Its funny seeing G. bush 'praising' Sharon for withdrawing from Gaza, as if its a favor to the Palestinians. Withdrawl from Gaza and west bank are common sense decisions which shouldnt require anyones approval, and which would automatically bring peace to the region. But its more than obvious that this conflict has always been about a land grab.

Sharon is just inviting a sustained intefada by maintaining settlements. His greed for land is similar to the greed for power Saddam had.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
Since G. Bush is increasingly unsure of a re-election, seems like hes creating an atmosphere which would leave the new president with plenty of problems in order to make him look bad.

Its funny seeing G. bush 'praising' Sharon for withdrawing from Gaza, as if its a favor to the Palestinians. Withdrawl from Gaza and west bank are common sense decisions which shouldnt require anyones approval, and which would automatically bring peace to the region. But its more than obvious that this conflict has always been about a land grab.

Sharon is just inviting a sustained intefada by maintaining settlements. His greed for land is similar to the greed for power Saddam had.
[/QUOTE]

Does the land grab have to do with water?

Complete withdrawel from Gaza and 4 settlements in West Bank isn't bad offer for short term peace. Might make life better for Pali's for a bit. The long term would still be open.

Middle east has oil true. But one cannot eat oil. Humans need food and fresh water to live. Can't survive on only oil. Middle east has what U.S. economy needs.... U.S. has what bodies need to live.

And off subject.

Talk on Palestine/Israel following press deal.

What if GBJ is preparing to ask Sharon to join U.S. agression on Iraq?

8

Can we all now agree that Bush is a pandering fool?

Everyone realizes that a full right of return is impractical and unrealistic. Most recognize, though not admit, that Israel will never withdraw completely from the territories. But these topics are still held as metaphors for hope in Palestine. So why the hell would Bush need to say this knowing it'll unnerve so many people?? Getting it out of the way? Nope, not gonna happen.. specially not on Bush's insistence, WTF.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
Since G. Bush is increasingly unsure of a re-election, seems like hes creating an atmosphere which would leave the new president with plenty of problems in order to make him look bad.
[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to believe this.. pretty f---ing insane... I mean, he can't be that damn stupid that often.. sigh.

9

But some Americans on this Forum, would still insist that the American Foreign Policy is not biased or flawed in any way.

Let's not forget that as powerful and greedy as America might be in this day and age, it is only a third party mediator in the Mid East plan. (Israels bodyguard. You know, the one that takes the bullet and has no say).

Obviously to someone with Bush's intellect, he actually believes that he is one of THE parties whose land is disputed!

Not dunts, but SUPERDUNTS.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
But some Americans on this Forum, would still insist that the American Foreign Policy is not biased or flawed in any way.

Let's not forget that as powerful and greedy as America might be in this day and age, it is only a third party mediator in the Mid East plan. (Israels bodyguard. You know, the one that takes the bullet and has no say).
[/QUOTE]

I don`t agree Amerikkka has no say in mid east politics.

Amerikkka is the biggest provider of military and financial assistance to this illegal state. It most definetly has a say it has vetoed about 50 UN resolutions in favour of israel.

Amerikkka is an ideological state with ambitions on every nation. It is unrealistic to assume a state as powerful as the USA is dictated to by a tiny state such as israel which relies heavily on Amerikkka and the middle east regime to contain the armies and hostile nations surrounding it.

Amerikkka does not revolve around the israeli state the fact is the israeli state revolves around amerikkka.

11

ppl say weird things when they are high, usually dont know what they are saying. side effects of no-chance-of-winning-next-election perhaps?

12

^ thanks mursalin.

13

AK47

What I meant with the bodyguard scenario is that US is not one of the 2 parties to the proceedings. Yes it does have a vast amount of say in a lot of issues concerning countries in the Middle East (it does finance the puppets), but it has no right to approve or rubberstamp an illegal occupation land grab that doesn't effect it's borders.

Like someone quoted yesterday 'Bush's approval of Sharons plans is like Osama giving the Chinese the right to live in America'.

14

The armies have been dispatched and were defeated already on a few occasions and that was without the US military getting involved. US won't allow that to happen.

15

Right of return? :) never going to happen because then democracy will not be the desired form of govt wanted by Israelis.

16

From speech:

The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity, removing unauthorized outposts, and *improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians*not engaged in terrorist activities.

As the Government of Israel has stated, the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, *existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. *

  • Italics *

Means in your views?

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
AK47

What I meant with the bodyguard scenario is that US is not one of the 2 parties to the proceedings. Yes it does have a vast amount of say in a lot of issues concerning countries in the Middle East (it does finance the puppets), but it has no right to approve or rubberstamp an illegal occupation land grab that doesn't effect it's borders.

Like someone quoted yesterday 'Bush's approval of Sharons plans is like Osama giving the Chinese the right to live in America'.
[/QUOTE]

Sholay

Yes i see your point, But sharon went to the US to seek approval or a rubberstamp. Israel does also have ambitions on the mid east region and it is being contained by the Amerikkkans such as being told what its set borders are and promises of financial and military assistance as long as israel listens like a good boy!

As for having no right to approve or rubberstamp illegal land grabs as muslims we totally reject any person or country drawing maps and saying such and such place muslims can have and the zionists can have this other place I agree on this point.

18

This cartoon tells a whole lot

[thumb=F]billday14447_4168379.JPG[/thumb]

19

It will be interesting to see what is done with Gaza. My guess is that factional fighting, corruption, and long standing hateds will expose the Palestinian leadership for what it really is, incompetent.

Without the Israeli's to blame, what will happen? Probably 10 years of STILL blaming the Israeli's.

20

[QUOTE]
The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity, removing unauthorized outposts, and improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians*not engaged in terrorist activities.
[/quote]
I always say things should be taken in isolation on the Palestine problem, but this is one exception. When you hear these words they sound too familiar. How many times has that been promised and then reversed on account of some usual act? The checkpoints shouldn't be abolished altogether, but they need to be rethought and used more delicately.
[quote]
As the Government of Israel has stated, the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not *prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account ...] its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.
[/quote]
I actually think the fence is a good idea.. it gets people used to certain borders. But the only problem with it is a big one: where it goes. Sharon has pledged to make the line more fair, but little has changed. Until it does the fence is nothing but bad.
[quote]
The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.
[/QUOTE]
That's a no-sh-t statement. Look at the way it is phrased: control of airspace, waters, etc. Palestine does not have a formal standing army capable of defense against external threats. Of course Israel will maintain control of those. But more importantly, on the diplomatic side of things, this grants Israel continued sovereignty over the Palestinian territories.

The main rationale for the Gaza pullout--and this is widely acknowledged and thus a source of anger--is to reallocate military resources to creating the fence and protecting West Bank settlements. It is a strategic move on Israel's part, not to give the Palestinians a foothold for self-governance, rather to clamp down harder on the areas where it counts. Gaza has always been a dead-end trailer park. The West Bank is the marrow.