Was the “road map” disaster deliberate?
Dubya of Arabia—a blithering appeaser, or a demonic mastermind? Here’s a provocative theory from Lucianne.com: Reply 94—Posted by: 901AtTheRiver, 6/13/2003 12:01:07 AM Dumb like a fox, as always. GWB delivers The Roadmap to the Israeli and “palestinian” leaders. It calls for everyone to just stop shooting and love one another, in separate territories. Hamas bombs another bus or ten, killing and wounding many. Sharon retaliates. GWB scolds Sharon while showing Sharon his crossed fingers behind his back. Sharon winks in agreement. “Fire at will”, he says. Sharon is “with us” by going after terrorists and removing them from the world of the living. GWB can still claim the moral high ground. Israel is stronger as a result and peace follows victory.
Is there a problem here? Reply 98—Posted by: Larry, 6/13/2003 1:14:51 AM Post 94 you are brilliant, but there’s just one problem with your theory. Bush, by throwing away his earlier position that any new peace process was dependent on Palestinian performance, shifted the moral burden back from the Palestinians, where he had placed it, to Israel. And it’s still there now. So even if Bush gives Israel the green light to fight, world opinion is more against Israel than ever. The huge moral advantage that Bush gained for Israel with his June 2002 speech has been thrown away.
But still, if your theory is correct, then Bush would be some kind of dark genius. Reply 99—Posted by: TeacherNet, 6/13/2003 1:22:31 AM Let’s be honest, he has said he was going to back Abbas/Mazan regardless of progress. He and Powell have embraced the same old rhetoric from this guy, condemn in English only, that they also did from Arafat… Only with this guy, there is not even the pretense that he is going to “do something” to stop the terrorists. (Not even that good old revolving door) The world has always been against Israel, trust me, that is nothing new. If you do not believe me, just look at the UN’s record with regard to Israel.
I am hoping and praying that Bush is a dark genius… otherwise, the entire world is in danger. And I am not talking bible prophesy either. If the terrorists can get rid of Israel, historically speaking, it only whets their appetite for more. Reply 100—Posted by: Larry, 6/13/2003 2:01:46 AM Another side to this theory would be that Bush had to fulfill his quid pro quo with Blair: British help in the war on Iraq in exchange for U.S. endorsement of the “road map.” Bush can now throw up his hands, say he’s fulfilled his obligations to Blair, and let Israel finally get serious with the Palestinians.
But I say once again, that if something like this was Bush’s plan, it was at terrible cost to his credibility, because in pushing this “road map” he has looked like an appeaser who had taken leave of his senses. Comments
I share Mr. Auster’s skepticism. Bush’s supporters have always proclaimed that he’s a straight-shooter, that he says what he means and means what he says. Dozens of posters on lucianne.com have been saying so since inauguration day. But whenever he says or does something that violates conservative principles or the principle of limited government or states’ rights, or shows too much chumminess toward Saudi princes, or blasts Israel for retaliating against the murderers of its people, those same lucianne.com posters forget what they’d been saying for two years and discover the Bush is a subtle Machiavellian. I think the first image is closer to the truth. If he were a subtle Machiavellian, then, as Mr. Auster pointed out on another thread, he’s willing for many Jews in Israel to die to serve his secret plans. I’d rather think of Bush as a slow learner who is honest. And his latest blast at Hamas doesn’t indicate that he’s yet learned the whole lesson. He still supports that Oslo II abomination called the Road Map. Posted by: frieda on June 13, 2003 4:20 PMI have thought about this possibility, whether President Bush is just handing the Palestinians enough rope to hang themselves. But admittedly it’s just grasping at straws — trying to put a take on something irrational that would justify the President. I think Mr. Auster’s take on it is correct. Even if the theory were true, which I seriously doubt, it would come at an unacceptable loss to Israeli lives and damage to American credibility. Posted by: Joel on June 13, 2003 4:32 PMHere’s the best explanation I’ve seen so far. It’s from Ruth Wisse’s article printed in today’s OpinionJournal.com: “…[T]he White House still cannot bring itself to admit the true nature of the aggression against Israel. It still tends to treat the regional crisis as ‘a conflict of two people over the land’ that can be resolved by the creation of a Palestinian state. According to this view, since Jews and Arabs both lay claim to the same territory of Israel-Palestine, some division of the territory between them will bring about a peaceful solution.” This notion that it’s a mere territorial conflict explains why Bush insists on being “even-handed,” rather than identifying the antagonists as aggressors and defenders. And it explains why he refuses to take at face value the Arabs’ proclaimed intention of exterminating Israel. Posted by: frieda on June 16, 2003 11:18 AMfieda, if you could call all the shots, what would you like to see happen in israel? included in my question is what would you like to see happen to the palestinians, including the catholics not just the muslims? i never have been able to figure out what the pro-israel faction wants. Posted by: abby on June 16, 2003 12:32 PMIf I could call the shots I’d continue the Israeli government’s policy from the day it declared its independence: people of all religions are free to worship as they choose, in their own mosques, churches, synagogues, etc., which are maintained by their own communities. Citizens of all faiths (and none) have the right to vote and own property. All this is common knowledge and easily ascertained in any library and on the ‘net, but Abby’s question seems to indicate that it’s somehow escaped her notice. Has it also escaped her notice that there are Arab members of the Knesset (Israel’s parliament)? And BTW, it would be more conducive to friendly debate if people who disagree with her weren’t called members of a “faction.” Posted by: frieda on June 16, 2003 4:32 PMfrieda, i didn’t and don’t want to debate, i was just kind of curious and looking for answers. if you don’t like ‘faction’, what would you prefer? from the outside looking in, the various sides look like factions to me, but i’m glad to call them whatever you like. since i was little, i’ve been hearing about violence in israel, don’t you think more needs to be done than just continuing the “Israeli government’s policy from the day it declared its independence”.? afterall, isn’t that what israel has been doing and the violence just continues. do you really think the palestinians and the rest of israel can ever live in peace, or has too much blood run under the bridge for that ever to occur? if it has, and it kind of seems that way to me, what do you propose as a solution to bring peace. by the way, i did know there were arab members in the knesset, i think it’s pretty common knowledge if i knew. Posted by: abby on June 16, 2003 5:06 PM |