Bush Surprisingly Firm in Middle East
The French newspaper, Liberation, claims that Bush is taking a surprisingly firm stance with both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, increasingly free to do so now that he is approaching the end of his presidency.
On the one hand,
Bush demanded, in perhaps the strongest terms of his presidency, “the end of Israeli occupation”. The creation of a Palestinian state “is long overdue,” he said
On the other,
Bush challenged President Mahmoud Abbas challenged to stop attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip. “You can not expect the Israelis […] to accept a state on their border as a base for terrorist activities”
And although,
On the most sensitive issue, the status of Jerusalem, Bush made no specific proposal.
Yet,
His trip has, however, already produced a concrete result: direct negotiations on the key issues of the conflict, which had hitherto been excluded by the Israelis, will be launched next week
Is there a hopelessness about the whole attempt by virtue of how late in Bush’s term it has been left, or is ten months still a long time, in which something serious could be accomplished on the back of Bush’s small success over the last few days?
Read “Bush Increases the Pressure…” on Watching America.com, the aggregator of news and views about the United States.
6 Responses to “Bush Surprisingly Firm in Middle East”
Any suggestion that a president of GWB's limited talents would be capable of accomplishing what better men than he have failed to do seems ludicrous to me, especially since he has so little time left and has so many other irons in the fire. If he does, I'll be glad to reassess my opinion of the man, but somehow I don't think that will be necessary.
It has never been surprising. What is remarkable is how much Bush and his oil-and-oil-nation-tied interests will twist Israel's arm a la Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Damn pesky troublemakers. Can't they just give the Arabs and Iranians what they want?
“Can't they just give the Arabs and Iranians what they want?” Hehehe…
But without Israel the Arabs and Iranians would need to find something else to complain about. How about a nuclear race between Saudi Arabia and Iran?
Any settlement brokered by the US will be suspect in the Arab world. Why not let the UN Secretary General broker the deal instead?
We're selling smart bombs to the Saudis (announced today), and are interested in selling the Saudis a missile defense system, and would love to sell this kind of stuff to the other Gulf states. As for a Saudi nuclear bomb, the idea would be for them simply to buy one or pay up front for most of the work to already have been done elsewhere, such as in Pakistan or North Korea.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States currently?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/15/afric…
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/08/afric…
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nuclearPolici…