by Mark Silva
President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledged today to pursue their vision of a peaceful Middle East, despite a volatile schism which has divided the Palestinians into two camps, with Bush promising that "we share a common way.''
Olmert, heading into a meeting in the White House with Bush, said he will be meeting regularly with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president who has appointed leaders of a new government on the West Bank following the hostile takeover of Gaza by Hamas.
"This visit comes, obviously, during a period of great concern for the world about what's taking place in Gaza,'' said Bush, committing the U.S. and Israel to "discussions about how we can promote a common vision, a vision that speaks to hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people, and a vision that speaks to the security of Israel.''
Calling Abbas a voice of "moderation,'' Bush said the Palestinian president "is a voice that is a reasonable voice amongst the extremists in your neighborhood.''
The Bush administration is backing up that talk this week with the release of U.S. foreign aid to the new Palestinian government in the West Bank, while also pledging humanitarian through a United Nations relief agency for Palestinians living with Gaza – a region of 1.5 million people now ruled by a party, Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization and which does not recognize Israel's right to exit.
"This is a very special time,'' Olmert said during an appearance with Bush at the White House in which just a few questions were permitted. "Things happen lately very dramatically. I'm sure that many people in the world were astounded by the brutality and the cruelty and the viciousness of the Hamas murderers that killed so many Palestinians in such a way. We who live in the Middle East, some of us surprised, but not less outraged by these events.
Yet, Olmert said, "even under such circumstances, what we ought to do is to try and find opportunities for the future that align this situation. And I'm absolutely determined that there is an opportunity.''
Also pledging to "strengthen the moderates'' and cooperate with Abbas, Olmert called him the "only person who was widely elected in a democratic manner by all of the Palestinian people.
"I am going to make every possible effort to cooperate with him… to provide the Palestinians with a real, genuine chance for a state of their own,'' Olmert said, supporting Bush's long-stated goal of "a two-state solution'' while "at the same time, making sure that there is security for the people of Israel.''
"We share a common vision of two states living side-by-side in peace,'' said Bush, reiterating a statement that he had delivered in the Rose Garden five years ago this week. "I's important for the moderate people, the ordinary Palestinians, to have something to be for. I also think it's in Israel's interest to have a state… Inherent in that is Israel's right to exist. There needs to be solid recognition of this state's right to live in peace.
"We share a common way forward,'' Bush said. "And our hope is, is that others in the region understand that this way forward leads to peace.
Olmert said it wouldn’t take any convincing by Bush to proceed with talks with Abbas. "I'm sure the president will not have hard work to convince me, because I proposed to meet with President Abbas -- in fact, I initiated the idea that we will meet on a regular basis, bi-weekly, to discuss the matters
"And I proposed that I even come to Jericho, something that no Prime Minister before me did,'' Olmert said. "But there's no question that I want to talk to the president of the Palestinian community, Mr. Abbas. I will be talking to him.
"Of course,'' Olmert said, "we also have to talk about a groundwork that needs to be done in order to allow us rapidly to talk about the creation of a Palestinian state. This is the main vision of my friend, President Bush. This is the vision that we share. ''
Talking with Syria is another matter, however. For its sponsorship of Hamas and other terrorist organizations, the Bush administration has refused direct negotiations at the highest levels of the government with Syria – though Bush says Israel is free to pursue such talks.
"They can handle their own negotiations with Syria,'' Bush said. "If the prime minister wants to negotiate with Syria, he doesn't need me to mediate… I'm looking forward to having a discussion about Iran and Syria and the neighborhood. But this man is plenty capable of conducting his own negotiations without mediation.
"We have been very, very attentive to the needs of the -- humanitarian needs of Gaza and we will continue to provide everything that is necessary in order to meet these humanitarian needs,'' Olmert said. "Israel will not be indifferent to the human suffering in Gaza. Israel will be different from the Palestinians, themselves, because the reality is that all this suffering is caused by Palestinians against their own people.
"What the Hamas was doing in Gaza is absolutely atrocious and intolerable,'' the Israeli leader said. "And I'm sure that many who had some hopes that maybe Hamas can be more reasonable and more restrained I think lost these hopes because of what they have been doing to their own people.
"As for Syria,'' he said, "I'm afraid that you may have not have understood correctly what the Syrian leader said. The Syrian leader said that he is against any preconditions from the Israeli side, but he's certainly for preconditions from the Syrian side. One of the preconditions is that he wants President Bush to work more than he does already in regional issues and to be the mediator. And the President said correctly, this is not the -- I think -- the job for the President of the United States.
"I don't think, if someone wants to speak directly, he needs the involvement of America in order to allow these negotiations to take place,'' Olmert said. "I am not certain that the understanding of the president of Syria can lay the foundations for immediate discussions between Syria and Israel.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'll bet the guy from Palestein is asking W. and the Neocons how they could have been dumb enough to open up pandora's box in Iraq and put the whole middle-east up for grabs in the process.
John E - Alex, I'll take civil war in Iraq for $800 please.
Alex - This is a double Jeopardy question Mr. John E.
Why is the middle-east in a state of potential disaster?
John E - What is lockstep, nonthinking, robot Republicans in America?
Alex - Yes! and you have $1600 and control of the board, John E.
Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 1:33 PM
Syria wants George Bush in their business? Are they insane?
Posted by: Cheryl | June 19, 2007 2:34 PM
John E, explain to me, citing specific examples and sans rhetoric/insults, how Bush's Iraq policy has impacted the Israel-Palestinian conflict that has been going on for 70 years. This is for 1600 and the lead.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 19, 2007 2:41 PM
Why are we on Israel's balls again?
Posted by: Colin | June 19, 2007 2:49 PM
Ah, leave it to one of the world's most ignorant people, John E., to confuse the Palestinian issue with Iraq. They are not related, Johnny E-rrant. The fight between Hamas and Fatah have nothing to do with Iraq.
And it's nice to see that Johnny E-rrant's weird, demented alternate reality world, that he actually wins in Jeopardy. Shoot, in REAL life, he could never even win a game of Candyland.
Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Herbie Hancock,
You think Iraq hasn't affected the whole middle-east?
Do you actually belive that the Decider and Darth can bring peace to this area where others who are much smarter and way more polished have failed?
Iraq is hands down, the WORST foreign policy blunder in US history and it has caused a ripple affect of violence across the region, Herb.
Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 3:17 PM
The two biggest criminals in the world are discussing how to establish peace...amazing
Posted by: Hnai | June 19, 2007 3:33 PM
Oh Mark is doing his pick-and-choose censoring again.
So, we'll do this again:
John E., please explain how Iraq has anything to do with the fight between Hamas and Fatah. Please do a point-by-point discourse as to how the two are related, OK? You love make your moronic claims but you never back them up with anything but weird, demented alternate reality world.
Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 4:33 PM
Wow so John E. and Hnai are two very uninformed, or just unintelligent people. To John E. - Since when does Iraq have anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians? That subject is neither here nor there. While I do not like Bush, I am not going to blame his Iraqi situation on the Israeli situation. As for Hnai, please explain how Israel are the criminals? How are they the bad guys in all of this. When rockets rain down in your neighborhood on a daily basis, I would love to hear who the bad guy is then. Ignoramuses like the two of you need to speak only when spoken two, and take a history lesson or two. Foolish libertarians...
Posted by: David | June 19, 2007 4:47 PM
Excellent diplomacy! Israel and the USA engineered the Palestinian civil war by demonizing the democratically elected government and supplying the West Bank with arms. Then Israel will negotiate the Palestinian state in the West Bank, while permanently occupying Gaza. After all, Israel can't have a border with a group of terrorists, and does need the Gaza shoreline for new settlements!
Israel and the USA have been very successful in their efforts to grab Palestinian land. We only hope that the other Arab states are watching and getting ready to hand over theirs.
Posted by: George Simms | June 19, 2007 4:49 PM
They are related in one way only .
And that both are instigated by the CIA
Posted by: Hani | June 19, 2007 4:53 PM
Hnai,
Anybody who knows me knows Dubya isn't on my list of people I'd like to hang out with. The Israeli government has done a few things I've taken exception too.
But lemme tell ya sport, "two biggest criminals" is waaaaay off base.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 19, 2007 5:04 PM
Posted by John D June 19, 2007 4:33 PM
Little Johnny Frozenrope,
It's called "taking your eye off the ball".
Have you also not noticed the race that Iran has made to build nuclear weapons and the buildup of North Korea nuclear weapons systems since the Republican Commander Guy said:
"Bring em' On"?
Stick to HVAC repair business, Little Johnny.
Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 5:04 PM
Is their "common way" to bomb first and worry about the consequences later?
"John E, explain to me, citing specific examples and sans rhetoric/insults, how Bush's Iraq policy has impacted the Israel-Palestinian conflict that has been going on for 70 years. This is for 1600 and the lead.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 19, 2007 2:41 PM
Ask George W Bush. He thought there was a connection-
"Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.
Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders. (Applause.) True leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror."
George W. Bush February 23, 2003
But I guess that was one of the great many things he was wrong about.
Posted by: Tony | June 19, 2007 5:27 PM
George Simms,
I am a big fan of conspiracy theories, but your's makes absolutely ZERO sense. Israel and the USA did not "engineer" the Palestinian civil war. If you hadn't noticed, Israel has been a state since 1948. They legitimately gained control of the land (as if having it given to them by the United Nations wasn't legitimate enough) during the Arab-Israeli War in 1948. They took down over 6 countries and 2 Islamic militias. I think they damn well deserve the land that they occupy. Plus, Georgie boy, it sounds like you hate this country (the U.S.) quite a bit. If the U.S. is such a terrible place, why don't you leave and go live with the Palestinians in Gaza since they are innocent in all of this and not corrupted by the evil tyrannies that are the U.S. and Israel. George Simms: YOU are a moron.
Posted by: David | June 19, 2007 5:31 PM
George, Hamas does not need to be demonized. They do that on their own. And Israel pulled out of Gaza and it has been an unmitigated disaster ever since. I have no idea what you are talking about with the US seizing Palestinian land. Please enlighten me.
Hnai, two biggest criminals? I feel bad for you if you really believe that. You make John E. look moderate.
John E., still waiting for you to tie up the Iraq connection to the Gaza mess with specific examples. You accuse John D. of taking his eye of the ball, but this blog is about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which everyone in here is talking about except you.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 19, 2007 6:09 PM
Brain washed by your media and Talkshows..thats all I could say Herbie and David.
This is typical of many but not all Americans, very sad.
Posted by: Hani | June 19, 2007 6:31 PM
Hani,
If you want to run with the big dogs, you're going too have to better then this.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 19, 2007 7:02 PM
Hani,
That was a nice attempt at a rebuttal, but you will have to do more than just tell me that I am brainwashed by media and talk shows. If I let the media and talk shows run my life, I wouldn't have one. But since you know so much about me and "most Americans," who am I to argue? Judging by your name, Hani, you are most likely of Arabic descent. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but your bias is evident. Do a little homework on the U.S. and Israel before you make sweeping generalizations.
Posted by: David | June 19, 2007 7:13 PM
Herbie the Stupid,
Israel, Lebanon, Turkey(Kurds), Iran (Nukes), Syria (Lebanon), North Korea (Nuke buildup), Hamas, Hezbollah, Afganistan......are you really that stupid that you haven't noticed how inflamed this has all become since your moron Republican President stole the office in the Whitehouse in 00, Leo Juanie?
Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 10:32 PM
Herbie the Stupid,
Israel, Lebanon, Turkey(Kurds), Iran (Nukes), Syria (Lebanon), North Korea (Nuke buildup), Hamas, Hezbollah, Afganistan......are you really that stupid that you haven't noticed how inflamed this has all become since your moron Republican President stole the office in the Whitehouse in 00, Leo Juanie?
Posted by: John E | June 19, 2007 10:32 PM
More nonsense from the perpetually unemployable John E.
North Korea; building nukes under Clintoon's and Carter's watch.
Syria: Been a problem for decades (and hasn't your type been saying we should appease them?).
Turkey: how have they been bad?
Iran: a problem for decades and again hasn't your ilk been all about appeasement?
Oh, why bother? Communicating and educating you is like trying to teach a squirrel to NOT cross the road during traffic.
Posted by: John D | June 20, 2007 9:12 AM
John E. the uneducated,
What do the Kurds have to do in all of this and North Korea for that matter? The Kurds have been perpetually persecuted by any and every Muslim group in the Middle East. They have never been the aggressor. North Korea isn't even in the Middle East you imbecile; they have nothing to do with any of the situations in the Middle East. North Korea has been up to these games decades before Bush took office. As for the rest of the Muslim nations, they choose to use terrorism as their way of trying to get a point across. None of it is necessary however, and their growing problems are solely due to their stubborness and ignorance. Speaking of ignorance, it runs deep in you, John E. the uneducated.
Posted by: David | June 20, 2007 10:11 AM
Thank you, Tony, for pointing out the obvious, I was about to pull up the quotes myself.
Herbie, Bruce, Mr. Dyslin: one of the reasons that was sold to the public for why the war made sense was to ease the pressure on the Israel- Palestine situation. You are ignoring a deep and broad historical record to argue there is no connection, at least that there was none in the minds of the architects of this war. The fact that it did not work is just one in the endless line of false assumptions and bad analysis brought on by this administration.
When the same people who have been wrong about just about everything involving Iraq for the last 6 years tell you they know what will happen if Americans pull out, don't you Wingnuts ever come to the conclusion that maybe they don't know what they're talking about, as evidenced by the fact that their predictions have been wrong just about every time?
The cynical side of me says that if we're fighting them over there so we don't fight them here (a superb non-sequiter yet one the president continues to trot out and that dead-enders like John D continue to go for), why not let the Sunnis and Shiites have at it. Seems to me that will distract them for a long long time to come and all we have to do is sit back and watch.
Posted by: Bryan | June 20, 2007 12:35 PM
"North Korea isn't even in the Middle East you imbecile; they have nothing to do with any of the situations in the Middle East."
I love it. This only shows that until some media outlet joins the two for people they will concentrate on the little details and miss the whole big picture. Do you honestly believe that what guides our policies abroad is in media outlets. Wait. That the government reads the paper we read and reacts accordingly.
Paragraph two Wesley Clark...
"The march to war in the Middle East is well underway. Outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that diplomacy is the best way forward with Iran, but appends his statements by saying that he can not “absolutely predict every set of circumstances,” which means that war can not be ruled out. In this regard, Gordon Brown is no different. [1] The man scheduled to be the next British Prime Minister once Tony Blair steps down (June 27, 2007), has refused to rule out war against Iran and its allies.
The war dossiers against Iran and Syria, the last two bastions of independence in the Middle East, are being built. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, has confirmed that the White House has been plotting a course based on a major military roadmap in the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Africa that would start in Afghanistan and Iraq and end with Iran. [2] Clark has stated that, after Afghanistan, seven additional nations were on the the Pentagon’s list to be attacked and invaded over a five-year period: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran. [3]
The geographic boundaries for these wars all fall within the military jurisdiction of United States Central Command (CENTCOM). This five-year period began with the invasion of Iraq in mid-2003 and, if the American former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe is correct, it should end approximately in mid-2008 or the last war could be initiated by this point in time. It should be noted that the second presidential term of George W. Bush Jr. ends in January of 2009. Is it possible that in 2001, when the Pentagon outlined this military roadmap, that the re-election of President Bush Jr. to a second term in office in 2005, had already been envisaged, in relation to these war plans?
General Franks, the former Commander of CENTCOM, in a late-2003 interview said that he believed that another crisis for the United States could in effect result in the suspension of the American Constitution and the establishment in the U.S. of a military form of government: "
---------------------------
[1] Brown admits Iraq mistakes made, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), May 26, 2007.
[2] General (ret.) Wesley Clark, 92 Street Y Exclusive Live Interview, interview by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, March 2, 2007.
[3] Ibid.
-----------------------------
A military strategy, a national security defense plan, is BIGGER and takes into account more history and current global politics than you get from the media only. What amazes me is that every speech given by our current President references his agenda words and phrases that bridge Iraq to other places.
"You are ignoring a deep and broad historical record to argue there is no connection, at least that there was none in the minds of the architects of this war."
Thank you for this, and here I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: AR | June 20, 2007 3:29 PM
[quote]
North Korea; building nukes under Clintoon's and Carter's watch.
Posted by: John D | June 20, 2007 9:12 AM
[/quote]
So North Korea took a 12 year break from building nukes while Reagan and H.W. Bush were president?
You can't really be trying to claim that, are you?
Posted by: BC | June 21, 2007 2:20 PM