NP Bushspeak

[barbara100 at jps.net]

>But the main difference, and the one which Bush's speech addresses, >is
that when a nation is united under a government then it and all its
>citizens are bound by the international treaties and agreements which >have
been signed by that govt.

Isn't Israel breaking all kinds of international treaties and agreements as
it is?  The occupation, the settlements, suspected war crimes and massacres.
Everything they've been doing lately breaches some agreement or other.  It's
disgusting when either side does it, but where I see the "main difference"
is Israel's murder is State sponsored (and do I mean State!) and Palestine's
is desperate rag tag rebels that Arafat could never get control of, least of
all when his water and electricity are shut off, and his compound is
surrounded by tanks. The only way to get them to stop is to let their lives
be tolerable enough so death is not the better option than life.



----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: NP Bushspeak


> "It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable
for
> Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation
> offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue
to
> be victimized by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend
herself.
>
> In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable.
> My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. My
> vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security."
>
> I don't see the arrogance at all. I think Bush's speech was contrived to
be
> very carefully-balanced in order to show no bias towards either one side
or
> the other. His support of the Israeli cause is far less complete than that
> of previous U.S. Administrations. He has always endorsed the creation of a
> Palestinian state, and still does. When he talks about the Palestinians
> having "new leaders" he's referring to the fact that Arafat has basically
> admitted and showed that he is unable to control Hamas and the extremist
> groups responsible for the continuing suicide bombings. These groups and
> their terrorist tactics are very much of a kind with Al Qaeda and Sept.
11.
> There's no point trying to mediate between Sharon and Arafat when Arafat
has
> no authority over Palestinian actions.
>
> I agree that in most respects there's very little difference between
> state-sponsored terrorism (i.e. in this case, Israel's actions) and the
> atrocities committed by groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas. But the main
> difference, and the one which Bush's speech addresses, is that when a
nation
> is united under a government then it and all its citizens are bound by the
> international treaties and agreements which have been signed by that govt.
> When that's the case extremist groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda, and
> individuals like bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh, for example, are criminals
> within that nation, and are subject to prosecution according to internal
> laws. The message is, again, that Arafat needs to get his act together and
> put his house in order.
>
> best
>
>
>
> on 27/6/02 3:44 AM, Otto at ottosell at yahoo.de wrote:
>
> > The Secret Word for tonight is Settlement
> >
> > "And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and
new
> > security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America
> > will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and
certain
> > aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of
a
> > final settlement in the Middle East."
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/bush.mideast.speech/index.html
> >
> > This is precisely the way it will *not* work because it's supposed to be
> > exactly the other way round to be succesful. There will only be a "final
> > settlement" when the last settlement has been closed and the last
Israeli
> > settler has left Palestinian soil.
> >
> > On one side this speech is very arrogant because it's not in the power
of
> > the US-president to demand that another people may choose another
> > president/leader. If it were so Mr. Sharon would have to got too for the
> > same reasons as Mr. Arafat. Not to speak about the way Mr. Bush came
into
> > power.
> >
> > On the other hand the speech has some very promising parts addressing
both
> > sides of the conflict, though the overall impression is still that
> > conservative America unconditionally prefers the Israeli side:
> >
> > Suicide Bombing, by the Editors
> > "Of course Palestinians went and slaughtered Israelis."
> > http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020701&s=editorial070102
> >
> > Well, the truth of course is always the other way round. If you look at
who
> > killed how many of each side during the Al Aksa Intifada it's clear that
Mr.
> > Sharon and not Mr. Arafat is the main killer, that Israel's state
terrorism
> > is most responsible for the violence in the actual conflict. While we
have
> > seen the IDF at Jenin we still miss the clear and unmistakably evidences
> > that Arafat is behind the suicide bombings. The simple death toll, the
fact
> > that Israel resists several UN-declarations for decades now by keeping
> > foreign land under occupation and threatening its neighbors with weapons
of
> > mass destruction, this is not seen by the TNR-editors.
> >
> > There are interesting points in the articles from the Jewish World
Review
> > Kurt-Werner has just posted.
> > Dennis Prager asks: "Why does the Left support the "Palestinians"?" and
> > points to the fact that Israel indeed is the only real democracy in the
> > Middle East. So why is the Left in favour of those undemocratic
pre-modern
> > rulers like Arafat? The answers Prager gives are very silly when you
read
> > sentences like "Those of us not on the left believe that the purpose of
a
> > college education is to discover what is true and what is good" or "At
this
> > time in history nothing so illustrates the left's nihilism as does its
> > support of the Palestinians against Israel" - his final statement
revealing
> > his political "home".
> >
> > In fact the Left doesn't like the rulers but the people, and it expects
no
> > change to a more civilian and democratic society in times of war when
people
> > prefer strong leaders, even if democratic rights are left aside for a
while.
> > Why should the Palestinians have another opinion on this as, I suppose,
80%
> > of the Americans have. It's like all those Cubans still supporting
Castro
> > (and we can only shake our head)- but they take a look at Argentina and
> > weep. Or why did the Israelis choose Sharon? They remembered Sabra and
> > Shatila and expected that similar would happen to Palestinian cities if
the
> > terror coming from those cities doesn't stop.
> >
> > I have always been critical of the leftist criticism on the War on
Terror
> > because it's a different thing. We must not allow neither Osama bin
Laden
> > nor Ariel Sharon to justify their actions with the other problem. The
War on
> > Terror has primarily nothing to do with the Middle East and the Middle
East
> > conflict has nothing to do with the American retaliation for September
11.
> > But bin Laden has justified his terror with the Israeli occupation and
> > Sharon has tried to "sell" his policy as part of this War on Terror and
both
> > is wrong.
> >
> > Otto
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>