News & Politics - Israeli Government Actions

Katis · 04-16-2004, 10:04 AM

Please continue any discussion concerning Israel and related topics here.

Indri · 04-16-2004, 08:57 PM

Maybe this relevant news for this thread

Quote:

Bush, Blair Unified on Israeli Plan, Iraq
1 hour, 6 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), standing united on two turbulent fronts, endorsed giving the United Nations (news - web sites) broad control over Iraq (news - web sites)'s political future Friday and said a much-criticized Israeli settlement withdrawal plan is a solid move toward Mideast peace.

Blair seconded Bush's comment about going through a hard time in Iraq, where violence is spreading and casualties are climbing. "It was never going to be easy and it isn't now," said the British leader, a strong supporter of Bush's strategies in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere despite harsh criticism and even ridicule at home.

Palestinian and other Arab leaders have been outraged that Bush endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s strategy to keep Jewish settlements on the West Bank and refuse Palestinian refugees the right to return to Israel, a fundamental shift in American policy.

In a news conference with Bush in the White House Rose Garden, Blair gave unqualified support to Bush's view that Sharon's plan represents a step forward � not backward � for Palestinians' statehood aspirations.

"Let's not look this particular opportunity in the eye and then turn away," Blair said. "I don't think that this ends anyone's dream." He urged other nations and international organizations to explore ways to help Palestinian leaders seize an opportunity.

Bush called on the Palestinian people to do their part by finding "leadership that is committed to peace and hope." The administration refuses to deal with Yasser Arafat (news - web sites).

Both Bush and Blair defended Sharon's intentions, insisting that the Israeli leader wants a state for Palestinians.

"The impression I got from having sat with the man right upstairs here in the White House was he views it as a hopeful moment as well," Bush said.

On Iraq, the two said any retreat from the planned June 30 transfer of power from the U.S.-led occupation authority to Iraqis would be unthinkable � despite the recent violence. The United States has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, while British soldiers make up the next-largest contingent, with 12,000.

Bush said of the Iraqis, "If they believe that we'll cut and run, in other words, if times get tough, we'll just say, `See you later,' nobody is going to take a stand for freedom and liberty."

Blair denounced the recent attacks "from every variety of reactionary forces" who do not want to see a democratic Iraq.

"We will do what it takes to win this struggle," he said. "We will not yield. We will not back down in the face of attacks, either on us or on defenseless civilians."

The leaders, hoping to put a more international face on the U.S.- and British-dominated coalition, warmly welcomed a work-in-progress proposal from U.N. Iraq envoy Lakhdar Brahimi on transferring sovereignty.

"We're actually trying to work with the U.N. now, because everybody understands the importance of fulfilling that objective," Blair said.

Brahimi envisions a caretaker government led by a prime minister, with a president as head of state, two vice presidents and a conference to create a consultative assembly with no legislative powers. The envoy is due to report his plan to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), then return to Baghdad for more talks.

Bush called Brahimi's outline "a way forward to establishing an interim government that is broadly acceptable to the Iraqi people," and he signaled his support for the continued work of the envoy � and the United Nations � in Iraq.

Bush and Blair, who last met in November at the British leader's home in rural England, dismissed questions about the motives behind their Iraq policies. Like Bush, Blair has seen his public support drop and has been forced to support the creation of a commission to examine the prewar intelligence on Iraq as the weapons that were once a primary justification for war have not been found.

Both focused instead on the importance of success in Iraq � as well as in the Middle East, which they said is crucial to advancing the war on terror generally.

"It's a political year, everything I'm going to say, they're going to say is political," Bush said. "We're standing firm on our word because it's right, and it's in the long-term interests of our countries."

Bill bobidy · 04-18-2004, 01:33 PM

So Bush continues to support the murdering of innocents in palestine?

I'm agnostic and white before anyone want to be thinking I'm some kind of terrorist.

Damn typical though, the Israelie right wing are on the move and Bush is happy to put the road map to peace at the back.

Trully, it's dissgusting. Way to go Mr Nazi. Away fry a Muslim on me barbeque. The one next to the steak, that's the ticket.

It seems that even though the Israeli leader is a known murderer he gets Bush's handshake. I'm starting to realise why the suicide bombers are so pissed.

Still, killing more kids will no doubt stop people who want to kill themselves to go to heaven....

mh67511 · 04-18-2004, 06:45 PM

We are learing in World Religion class that the Jews were kicked out of Israel around 70 AD I think. And then they came back in 1948 to claim their land. We also learned that the Palestinians rejected a treaty that would have divided the land, around that time, which the Israelis accepted. I don't know much about the issue, but why did the Palestinians reject this treaty??

*Lauren · 04-18-2004, 08:22 PM

While I disagree with Bush on many, many, many things, calling him a Nazi is plain wrong, and shows ignorance on the issues, and ignorance on what the Nazis actully did.

mh, there were several reason that the Palestiians rejected the treaty. Firstly, it was their country. Why should they lose half of it, because of a European problem? How would you feel if someone walked in and said "Well the American Indians used to live here, we're taking half your country away from you. If you don't like it, tough"

Secondly, the division of the country wasn't fair. The Palestinian division had little access to water, and got a lot of the untenable land.

Laslty, some Jewish settlters (and I can't use Isralei here, because there was no Israel), usually through the Jewish terrorist group (who I've gone completly blank on at the momenet) sent trucks blaring Arabis urging people to leave their homes. The countries surrounding the disputed territory didn't help, as they were encourging people to flee, cause they'd get in there and destroy them. Of course that didn't happen.

Bill bobidy · 04-19-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

While I disagree with Bush on many, many, many things, calling him a Nazi is plain wrong, and shows ignorance on the issues, and ignorance on what the Nazis actully did.

Oh? Isn't Nazi a word that means a govt in bed with business? (edit in- sorry, just change the word Nazi to Fascist but he still is a fervent Nationalist which is pretty much "Nazi") I don't believe I refered to the German Nazis of World War 2 even once, why do you keep refering to them?

Onto the topic though, the Palestinians were forced from their homes at gun point so as to make room for the Jewish folks.

It was a move made by the major powers of the time including the UK and US.
The Jews having been dissplaced in WW2 were PUT in Israel.

Israel then proceeded to infringe on the palestinian territory and broke all sorts of Geneva conventions along with the rule that they should not keep occupying conquered land.

Syria, Egypt and so on then decided to invade and were sent packing, which is pretty impressive considering the size of all countries involved and number of people who live there.

Now we have a govt in Israel that feels building a wall to keep everyone on one side or another while responding to suicide bombings by mass murder is A-OK.

I don't really go with either side but Bush could certainly help here by restarting the road map to peace.

He seems complacent about it, people are dieing and he's got one finger firmly planted were the sun dont shine.

We in the UK tend not to be happy in general with how our govt seem to take no oppinion in the debate over the killing of the leader of Hammas.
The US of course endorsed yet another extreme policy from Israel. Course no doubt they'll be dumbfounded about exactly why it is that foreigners just get a little aggitated at US foreign policy.

I think we really all should have a vote for the US govt as it so infringes on our everyday life anywhere and for everyone.

[ 04-20-2004: Message edited Bill bobidy ]

dayne · 04-19-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mh67511:
<STRONG>We are learing in World Religion class that the Jews were kicked out of Israel around 70 AD I think. And then they came back in 1948 to claim their land. We also learned that the Palestinians rejected a treaty that would have divided the land, around that time, which the Israelis accepted. I don't know much about the issue, but why did the Palestinians reject this treaty??</STRONG>

Because the whole thing involved Palestinians giving up more than half of their land. Nobody wants to give up their land, regardless of whether it's to accomodate people that were also wronged in the past. They had been living there for more than a thousand years. It was their home. So, one can't really fault them for saying no.

I am not at all against Israel. Like any country they have the right to exist and defend themselves against terrorists, but the whole terrible situation can't just be blamed on the Palestinians refusing to sign an agreement.

Plus, there have been a bunch of Jewish Palestinians that had been living in Palestine for a long time (waaay before 1948). The Palestinian Jews, Muslims, and Christians got along alright for a long time. The real problems between the Jews and the Palestinians started when the European Jewish settlers started coming in (i.e. because of the Holocaust, pogroms in Russia, and a desire to live in that area). I guess it could be the settlers' desire to reclaim "their" land and the Palestinians reluctance to make any deal whatsoever that lead to what transpired in 1948.

[ 04-19-2004: Message edited dayne ]