Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (2359)	6/10/2003 11:02:04 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Violence Threatens Bush's Mideast Plan By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Less than a week after President Bush (news - web sites) threw his prestige behind a plan to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, new outbreaks of violence on both sides threaten to undermine those efforts. AP Photo Analysts say the president needs to bring hard pressure to bear on both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to keep the fragile process from flying apart, but that it will be hard given the depth of mutual mistrust. The attacks raised fresh questions in the minds of some Mideast experts over whether the Israelis and Palestinians can make peace even with U.S. mediation — and whether an international force of monitors or peacekeepers might be the only ultimate answer. "What is really needed here is for the president to reach very comprehensive understandings with each one of the leaders as to what they're up to," said Shibley Telhami, a Middle East analyst at the University of Maryland. "I'm not persuaded that the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians is such that anyone can assume good will. There is very little trust right now," Telhami said. Israel's assassination attempt Tuesday against a high-ranking leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas drew a stern rebuke from Bush. "I'm concerned that the attacks will make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks. I also don't believe the attacks helped Israeli security," Bush told reporters. U.S. officials were quick to get on the phone with their Israeli counterparts to convey Bush's pique. The strike by Israeli helicopter gunships wounded Abdel Aziz Rantisi and killed his bodyguard and a bystander. It followed weekend attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian hard-liners that left five Israeli soldiers dead. While the administration condemned both acts of violence, Tuesday's attack by Israel clearly rankled the president and his top advisers the most. It was directly at odds with the spirit he tried to nurture in his three-way summit last Wednesday in Aqaba, Jordan, with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, U.S. officials said. At that summit, both Sharon and Abbas committed themselves to work toward acceptance of the "road map," a U.S.-backed peace plan envisioning a Palestinian state by 2005. It calls for a series of initial confidence-building steps, including an immediate end to the violence that has continued almost uninterrupted for 32 months. The weekend attack on Israeli soldiers was carried out by militant Palestinian groups who make no secret of their efforts to undermine the Bush peace initiative. On the other hand, Israel's helicopter attacks were carried out by the Sharon government itself, which called Rantisi "one of the most extremist leaders of the criminal Hamas organization." Furthermore, about two hours after the White House criticized the first strike, Israeli tanks and helicopters fired toward a Palestinian neighborhood in the northern Gaza Strip (news - web sites), killing two young men and a 16-year-old girl and wounding as many as 30 people, according to doctors on the scene. It was almost a personal affront to Bush, who has called Sharon "a man of peace." Judith Kipper, director of the Middle East Forum at the private Council on Foreign Relations, raised the possibility that the Israelis and Palestinians "can't do the things on the ground by themselves" and that an international force of monitors or peacekeepers should be considered. She noted that the "road map" was a joint effort by the United States, the European Union (news - web sites), Russia and the United Nations (news - web sites). Still, Kipper said she wasn't underestimating Bush. "This is not a president who sees gray. When he's determined to go ahead, his sense of doing the right thing and his self-confidence is pretty clear." Sandy Berger, former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, said Bush still has "a window of opportunity — because our victory in Iraq (news - web sites) has given us greater leverage, we have a moderate Palestinian prime minister who we want to succeed, and because there is exhaustion on both sides. "This is a road map but it doesn't come with directions," Berger said. "I'm pleased that the president has gotten involved and put his own credibility on the line." Bush vowed to press on. "I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace, and I believe with responsible leadership by all parties we can bring peace to the region," he said. Rep. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, predicted he fresh violence wouldn't derail the peace process. "I think we just keep going. We have to. This isn't anything we didn't expect," Hagel said. "We knew it would be difficult. We knew there would be ups and downs. We knew there would be roadblocks." story.news.yahoo.com

To: PROLIFE who wrote (2359)	6/10/2003 11:11:29 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Backtracking The Bush Doctrine can’t succeed with exceptions. When George W. Bush is good, he's very good. But when he's bad, he's very bad. He's good on taxes, and bad on spending. He's good on judges, and bad on campaign-finance reform. He's a good wartime president, and a bad ally of Israel. Yes, I said a bad ally of Israel. The terrorist group Hamas announced the other day that it would not abide by the president's roadmap for peace, and would not cease terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. And Hamas, joined by other terrorist groups, has made good on its threat by killing Israeli soldiers and civilians. In response, today Israeli helicopters targeted a senior Hamas leader and wounded him. In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush is "concerned that this strike will undermine efforts by Palestinian authorities to bring an end to terrorist attacks, and it does not contribute to the security of Israel." Fleischer's statement on behalf of the president is not only offensive, but is a flat-out rejection of the policy the Bush administration itself has established in dealing with terrorism. First, Israel is a democracy and a sovereign state. That Israel relies heavily on U.S. economic and military aid does not alter these facts. Israel's elected leaders, not the United States, decide what's in her best national-security interest. Israel's leaders are accountable to the Israeli people, just as President Bush is accountable to the American people. Israel's leaders not only have the right to take steps to protect their citizens, but failing to do so is a gross abrogation of their responsibilities. The president's public rebukes are not only arrogant, but they undermine Israel's ability to stand up to its terrorist attackers. Second, the president was rightly offended when France used its position on the U.N. Security Council to try to defeat the Bush Doctrine as applied to Iraq. Yet, the Bush administration has no qualms about imposing a contradictory policy on Israel — which requires Israel to accept, without retaliation, terrorist attacks on its people. In exchange, Israel is expected to entrust her survival on yet another "land-for-peace" initiative. This is not how America should treat its allies, especially those under siege. Third, the president knows that Israel is a tiny country among a sea of enemies. Having been president during 9/11, he must understand the fear and anguish the Israeli people live with every day. In the aftermath of 9/11, he didn't sue for peace. He didn't seek negotiations with the Taliban regime. He rallied the nation around the principle of self-defense and ordered American forces into action. President Bush did precisely the opposite of what he urges for Israel. Fourth, it's no accident that the more land and security Israel surrenders, the more Israeli citizens are murdered. Terrorists see Israeli concessions, in the face of their attacks, as weakness and opportunity. And it's no accident that this has occurred during the Clinton and Bush years, the only two administrations to endorse a Palestinian homeland. What better evidence can there be that enough Palestinians don't seek statehood and coexistence, but Israel's annihilation? As long as Israel remains the exception to the Bush Doctrine, the doctrine cannot succeed. And if the Bush Doctrine fails, terrorism cannot be defeated.