Why Did Bush Take My Job?

[Classical_Liberal]

Why Did Bush Take My Job?


By Saeb Erekat
Sunday, April 25, 2004; Page B07

JERUSALEM -- President Bush apparently has taken my job.



Until the Bush-Sharon press conference on April 14, I was the chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only internationally recognized entity that has a mandate to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel. But then Bush appeared on television, standing at the White House next to a beaming Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, and announced that he had accepted Israel's claim to illegally occupied Palestinian land. He further determined that Palestinian refugees would never be allowed to return to their homes in Israel and would instead have to be resettled in a Palestinian state, vast tracts of which he had just given away.

In so doing, Bush reneged on the 1991 U.S. Letter of Assurances provided to the Palestinians by his father's administration; the letter said that "no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues" and that "the United States has opposed and will continue to oppose settlement activity in the territories occupied in 1967." Bush, as the self-appointed Palestinian negotiator, finally exposed the "Middle East peace process" for the charade that it has become -- a mechanism by which Israel and the United States impose a solution on the Palestinians.

In this era of unmatched and unchallenged U.S. power, Bush abandoned America's historical role as facilitator and mediator of Middle East peace and instead simply adopted the positions of an expansionist, right-wing government in Israel. It is mind-boggling that an American president, often citing the rule of law, would use the power of his position not to enforce international law against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory but instead to legitimize them as "currently existing Israeli population centers," thereby giving Israelis an incentive to build even more. It is mind-boggling that a president who supports equality and non-discrimination would dismiss the rights of Christian and Muslim refugees to return to their homes in the "Jewish state" -- a term often repeated but never defined or even left to the parties to negotiate. And it is mind-boggling that the leader of the free world, the president of a nation whose very existence is based on liberty and justice, would act so callously to deny liberty and justice to the Palestinian........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39885-2004Apr24.html

[Frodo]

1. Perhaps you lost your role of "chief negotiator" when

the people you were "negotiating" for decided to negotiate in a different way. Like blowing up buses filled with civilians, or discos (not that I defend discos), or resteraunts.

Maybe you've run out of things to negotiate.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. Are you saying all Palestinians are terrorist

maybe if Israel had actually given up the settlements this wouldn't have happened.

[fryguy]

7. Are you saying that all Israelis are expansionist?

Maybe if the PLA were to remove from their charter the call for the destruction of the state of Israel there could be fruitful negotiations since, how is it possible to negotiate with someone who does not recognize the other side's fundamental right to exist?

[Classical_Liberal]

8. The Palestinians recognized their right to exist at Oslo.

. Israel had several years of relative calm from the Palestinians and expanded the settlements.

[fryguy]

11. "relative" calm

Well that's certainly admirable and kind that for a certain period of time Palestinians refrained from blowing civilians up. And again I ask, why, during this period of "relative calm" didn't the Palestinians work to make things better for the regions that they were given control over? They built a real nice compound for the government, but no schools. Arafat had a fleet of helicopters, but the majority of Palestinians had no running water in their homes. The PLA had spiffy new uniforms and guns, but hospitals in Gaza and the West Bank lacked medicine.....

[Classical_Liberal]

12. They were never given control over anything.

. Again in order to build anything on the west bank you need a permit from the idf. The idf stalls and refuses most requests from Palestinians.

[Frodo]

16. Strange that the palestinian people should protest Arafat then, eh?

We've seen more than one protest at arafat's compound because he has channeled all of their funds to terrorism while the people starve.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. We've seen more than a few protests of Israeli welfare mothers

protesting budget cuts in welfare spending to pay for the idf operation in the West Bank.

[Frodo]

15. Did I say that?

No. Put the PLO IS a terrorist organization. So to be the "chief negotiator" with a terrorist organization takes you a few steps down on the "legitimacy" ladder.

And if you think giving back the settlements would keep the PLO from bombing civilians... well... you're obviously not old enough to remember what the PLO was all about. "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" is part of their charter. "Peaceful negotiations" is not in there. But "Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war" IS. Not "we don't need to kill civilians if they just move out of the settlements". "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time." Not "we can live peacefully side by side if only the Israelis will give us back some land".

[fryguy]

2. a whole lotta "wha" going on

So sorry that Saeb Erekat will no longer be able to fly around the world and stay at luxury hotels at the expense of the Palestinians. Maybe, in addition to "negotiating" with Israel, he should have encouraged the Arafat and the PLA to use some of the millions of dollars in aid and loans to help the average Palestinians with things like education, infrastructures and business development - instead of buying themselves expensive suits for meetings, fancy cars, well manicured private homes, etc.....

[Classical_Liberal]

3. We give alot more aid money to Israel primarily to support

land theft. Also Sharon does the exact same thing using alot more American tax dollars.

[fryguy]

5. wrong

The issue is not who we give money to and how much, the issue is what has been done with it. Israel, and other countries that have received money in the past, has developed industry and infrastructure that helps all its citizens. The PLA has chosen to ignore making improvements to the areas under their authority/control, and focusing instead on cultivating the imagery of statehood - i.e. fancy uniforms for their military/police, Mercedes Benz cars to arrive meetings in, helicopters, stamps, etc. They neglect building roads, schools, housing, industry, etc., the things that would actually IMPROVE the condition of Palestinians in the area. Instead groups such as Hamas has filled the void with their hospitals and schools, where children are taught that Jews are the devil and deserve to be slaughtered. Why? Why is there no industry in Gaza to employ the workers that used to work in Israel? Wouldn’t the development of an economy be one of the top priorities for the government, instead of consistently pointing the finger at the closing of the Erez crossing as the source of economic ills? No. Because if Palestinians’ standard of living and their condition were to improve their seething anger against Israel might subside, and then, without the demon of Israel at which to direct their anger, the leaders would be held accountable for their actions.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Sharon uses it to build settlements and occupy what you claim

the Palestinians control. What do the Palestinians govern? Where are they suppose to build this stuff?

[fryguy]

9. huh?

Are you saying that because there are settlements in Gaza that the Palestinians are unable to develop industry or make improvements to the entire area? That just seems absurd. Because someone you don't like or don't want in the are lives next to you, you will not do anything to better yourself? Doesn't make much sense....

[Classical_Liberal]

10. The Palestinians don't govern the west bank or gaza

. The Israelis do. The settlers are the rulers of Gaza not just residence. The idea that you can build infrastructure on something you don't govern is what is really absurd. In order to build anything on the west bank you have to get a permit from the damned idf. The idf makes a habit of not granting permits. They bulldoze houses if people build additions to them without permits.

[fryguy]

13. They had control

Up until the intifada was renewed. They were not given control of the borders, but that wouldn't have stopped them from building sewers and factories.

And the Israel government buldozes or otherwise removes illegal Israel construction as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. Bull, they didn't have control before or after the intifada.

They always required permits to build sewers. Factories are something done by private individuals. If those aren't built it is probably lack of funds. Furthermore, Israelis don't have to have permits to build and their settlements are rarely bulldozed.

[library_max]

14. If anything you build can be bulldozed to make room for a settlement,

there's not much incentive to build anything, now, is there? If you don't have the right to own and control your own land, how and why are you going to build anything on it? Would you build an addition on to a house you're renting with no lease? Same two problems: 1) the landlord may not like it and demand you tear it down, and 2) landlord may like it and give it to someone else.