Bush Sells Out The Palestinians.

Today President Bush threw off any semblance as an honest broker in the Middle East and reneged on his own "road map" by endorsing a plan by Ariel Sharon to annex several settlements in the West Bank including Hebron and Jerusalem.



US President George W Bush has hailed Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plans to disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.
Mr Bush called Mr Sharon's proposals "historic and courageous".

He restated his commitment to a Palestinian state, but appeared to rule out one which included the whole West Bank, saying realities on the ground had changed.

news.bbc.co.uk...

edition.cnn.com...

There will be no peace in our time.This does not make the region or the USA a safer place.I half expect Iraq to get worse tonight on the back of this announcement.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by John bull 1]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Kano]

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Valhall]



[Edited on 15-4-2004 by John bull 1]

In other news, ATSNN has given credence to a grossly unbalanced headline. Propagandists rejoice. "Bush sells out the Palestinians"? Please. The only thing keeping the myth of a mutual peace alive was the roadmap. It was the carrot with which the world drunkenly tempted the Palestinans like lemmings over the cliffs. Now they're really screwed - why? Because they'll be isolated from the Israeli economy which they depend on to sustain them.

Look! The Israelis are leaving! Complain at all costs, or the world will stop paying attention to us and we'll rot in our own destroyed economies as Arafat escapes with the hundreds of millions he was supposed to use to make our lives better! Whether or not they have Jerusalem makes no difference to whether or not they can make lives for themselves - and that poverty is the necessary breeding ground for the suicide propaganda to take root.

All I ask is that they take a sober look at their own situation. I don't expect to get it, of course. But perhaps the cold isolated reality of having their land back without the help and favor of the Israeli economy and the final dissolution of the negotiations which their leaders never took seriously in the first place will wake them up from their dreams of manifest destiny. They will rot, and starve, and think. And perhaps in twenty years we can try again, when and if their children dont want to die reaching for that carrot and seventy virgins anymore.

~incidentally, lets separate this from the iraq war, hmm? Bush is still a warmonger. This, however, is not his war to fight - thankfully - or there would be a hell of a lot more casualties on both sides.

I look at it this way....it's a start, Sharon should have pulled out of Gaza a long time ago...but what I don't understand is why those 6 settlements remain? It still leaves the door open for problems. If they truly wanted peace, why just not pull out from the remaining 6 settlements too, that would quiet the Palestinian issue with Jewish settlements on their land.

however it still wouldn't solve the other issue of the Palestinians wanting land took from them to create Israel back in 1948.

If ATSNN wants to have any respectibility beyond being a newsgroup for nutters, it needs to not post 'articles' that replace unbiased reporting with opinion-headlines and content with rants about how the world is going to #.

I wasn't informed at all about this little spiel, was anybody?

Yeah, I agree. The way the story is written, it might have better been placed in OP/ED. I know that's where I do my biased ranting.

**

what a pile of crap... and from a moderator who should know better.
This is an editorial - not an objective news story.
ATSNN just went down a notch in credibility.

ATS News Network?
Baloney!
If editorializing the news stories is what ATSNN is all about then it is just another page full of partisan puke.
I guess I'll go to Rense's page, at least I know that I'm bound to wade through bull# there, I thought this was trying to be a respectable, credible news site.... ....
NOT.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Solarix]

I wouldn't say that he sold out to the Palestinians since the Gaza pullout is Sharon's idea. A similar story about this same issue two days ago looks at the issue in a another light. I saw it as a land grab in the other direction. Sharon lets go of the Gaza strip (mostly), while he claims more land in the West Bank. He now has full backing from the U.S. to build the wall on the route that he chooses. He never has to withdraw to the 1949 Green Line, and eventually, Israel could start easing back into Gaza.
This is really a smart move for Sharon.

Ok, maybe the title is too polarising, but still....

Bush did sort of sell-out on the Palestinians by giving Sharon backing for his illegal plan to keep West-Bank Israelli settlements. There is not any other international consultation or support for this plan. Giving Sharon the power to sell his Gaza pull-out policy to his own party.
After the wall, this is again unacceptable for the palestinians, and it should be to the international community, if you ask me.

Maybe you shouldn't call it a sell-out indeed, as I think he didn't have any eye for the palestinians in the first place. They should have known that the U.S. (even more under Bush administration) is no independant partner for dialog. Being no partner, also means having no possibillity to sell-out on one.

Fact, not fiction.... - The Israelli economy is also dependant on the Palestinian position and it's people. People who don't see this are being ignorant.



[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Hoaks]

I have edited the classification of this story to an OP/ED.

No one has really stated anything derogatory about the quality of this post. But I can see the offense that could be taken by this being placed as a "strict news article" instead of an OP/ED piece.





[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Valhall]

You know the British handed the world hell in a handbasket so to speak because of the artificial and arbitrary borders they imposed on the middle east prior to WW-II. The one thing that bothers me the most is people concentrating on Israel exclusivly when it comes to giving up so called tribal land. Why is there no call for the other countries in this area to also give up traditional tribal lands to form a palastinian state. The hypocracy is overwhelming as usual in the lack of an answer to this question. This is the main reason I don't see the Israeli's as the bad guy that everyone else does.

Even though in my opinion it is not logical and/or possible, I must agree to the fact that this a good point that should come onto the international table.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Why is there no call for the other countries in this area to also give up traditional tribal lands to form a palastinian state.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Hoaks]

Further interesting that the moderate Arafat and current moderate Prime Minister cry 'foul' and yet have not changed their moderate stance and position of an ethnically cleansed state of their own, as well as a ethnically Palestinian dominated Israel. Interesting, especially when the Israeli position is always considered and viewed as extreme by them, the EU, and the majority of the Arab world.


seekerof

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Umm...it can't be a sellout unless there was something at stake in the first place.

How many better deals have the Palestinians passed up? In the past, land and peace have been offered most magnanimously. In return, they all but hissed, spat, and lashed out. "Why should we have our own soverign country when we can just have an endless war against a militarily superior opponent which we can never win?" Sounds to me like Israel's tired of bickering and has decided to start putting an end to this with, or without as the case currently stands, Palestinian "cooperation". The only deal the Palestinians would accept would be a complete withdrawl from the entire region, which is obviously not going to happen. Tough noogies, Palestine. Here's your country you've been wanting for so long. Do something with it, or let it rot as you have for the past 50 years. The choice is yours...

What do the palastinians expect?
When they abuse the US (celebrating 9/11, cherring Saddam etc), and kill their representitves in Israel (those govt guys earlier this year)

They don't have many friends in the West - apart from the islamo-frenchies....

They are getting what they have earned....

Amazing how the zionists flocked to this one... not to mention the incredibly low score this thread has received by the same propagandists.

Keep it up, John Bull, and don't let these buggers get you down. Just because the zionists have a larger lobby in the US doesn't mean you are wrong in making such a defiant post. And don't blame it on them for following the popular stance; defense of this particular cause is a most noble position, and you should be commended.

As for how a non-moderator was allowed to make edits to your post, JB,... well... that's something for you guys to discuss internally, and I hope it does get the proper kind of attention.

Returning to the topic (I hope I haven't lost the majority of you already )


Folks, Bush did basically sell the Palestinians (one 'a') out by endorsing Sharon's plan to annex what he said he would withdraw from. Not to mention that zionists control the top levels of American government, but you cannot blame the puppet president for following orders.

They don't have many friends... west of Portugal; that means, they don't have many friends here in the United States because of the powerful zionist lobby that dictates how much the general population can know and appreciate about the Palestinans on a fundamental level. However, if you pose the same situation to the more lenient media of Canada, Brazil, or even Argentina, you'll find that there are far more sympathizers for their cause than you'll find here. Last I checked, those countries were still considered part of "western civilization", which would indeed be a good idea as Ghandi suggested.

That footage of Palestinans cheering on 911 has been debunked as file footage that was reairded for "mossad effect", and this idea further reinforces the premise that the War on Terror really was primarily in response to the Palestinian uprising against Israel.

Furthermore, none of the other Arab nations were forced to give up their lands due to a 1940's invasion of zionists, so they don't have the necessity to give up their lands for their bretheren. While I'd agree that it'd be a righteous thing to do, it's just not practical since their own coutnry wasn't swept right under their own feet like with Palestine's situation.

That's like asking the United States to give up... say... the state of New York as a new state of Israel.


And guys, please don't discredit this as a news site. Just because you may find a news piece that doesn't necessarily agree with your ideals doesn't mean that this isn't a valid news source. We live in an imperfect world, and what that means most primarily is that it is impossible to please everyone with everything, and that includes this well-put-together ATSNN site.

Sure I could have written a headline like "Bush Hails Peace Plan" but then that is more bias than my one which seeks to cut out the propaganda and give the reality of this present developement.America and Israel's perception is of no interest to me.This is the reality and how it is viewed in the Arab world,the EU,and Great Britain.

Valhall,

Your edit has only one purpose and that is to bury a story you did not like.

I hope you will contact me and explain why you felt it necessary to demote what is truly a Top Story.

Bush didnt sell jack # out, he told the Palestenians to go # themselves. They deserve it, they want to reject a deal in 2000 that would have given them 97% of pre-67 borders with hgways into West Bank and Gaza and then begin their intifadah. They had their chances, they wanted nothing to do with negotiations, they wanted all of Israel.
They kept killing innocent children and women and men of buses, markets, and resteraunts.....They cheered in the streets after 9/11, they cheer when soldeirs of ours die in Iraq, they threaten Israel daily and now America after Yassins death and we are suppose to sit back and let them continue ongoing peace negotiations to regain control over something they dont deserve anyways. I feel for the "Average" Palestenian who denounces terror, I really do....But until they make their voices heard Bush did the right thing. In matter of fact he shouldve done it a long time ago.
We are in a war on terror and the fact is Israel has Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah, hamas and etc.....We cant fight the war on terror without taking sides in Israel anymore.
God Bless America and Israel.

It's early morning here in the UK and I'll be honest I haven't got the stomache to answer your bigotted reply with a reasonable response.

This will not make the Middle East,Israeli's,Americans,or anybody safe.

This is reward for an aggressive expansionist policy.

"Aggresive expansionist" Are you kidding me......Its a blow for "expansion of terror". Why should anyone, let alone a country that lost the borders years ago, fair and square(granted you believe they were ever theirs) have the right to return to borders it has lost already. Why should we give them these borders after we offered them in 2000 and were rejected? Why should we continue to try and play bi-partisan with the Palestenians and Israelis when Palestenians have 4 of the largest terror organizations in the world?

Your partisanship on the issue has already been shown by the title of your thread.


Oh and I never said it will make anyone more safe as you say. I do however believe it will "Eventually" lead to a palestenian uprising against the current extremists who run all Palestenians that actually care about peace and not, their "aggressive expansionism" on taking over "all" of Israel.


[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Dreamz]