Hello:

The Bush trip to Jerusalem last week was disastrous.. For confirmation, Bush needed only to have visited Sederot. He didn't, of course. He couldn't have pressed the Israeli's for peace if he had.

That Israeli town within the 1949 armistice lines remains under siege as Kassam missiles launched from "Hamasistan" in Gaza — territory Israel left in 2005 — rain down on its people every day. If Israel backs up to the 1967 borders the same scene could be played out in 2009 at Ben-Gurion airport.

In 2002 and 2004, Bush Doctrine of “you're either with us or against us”, appeared to throw away the old rulebook of U.S. Middle East diplomacy. But in 2008, the old rulebook, which emphasized pressure on Israel to make concessions in exchange for empty Arab promises, is back in place.

Bush made it clear last week that he was prepared to apply "a little pressure" on Israel to get it to agree to a peace deal that few in the country believe is possible. Despite other comments that demonstrated his friendship for Israel, his goal of shepherding a Palestinian state into existence during his presidency seemed to be the priority. He even said that Israel was going to have to discuss the so-called Palestinian "right of return."

All this has left Americans who liked Bush's former policies — stumped and saddened by his flip flop.

Maybe you righty's here can explain it.

excon

Don't forget that Bush is no poster child for the rightys. I do not object being called a Righty and am very dis-satisfied with President Bush for a variety of reasons.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/1/d/democratic_crybaby_seal.jpg

The Bush trip to Jerusalem was indeed a disaster . That is where he used the word occupation in an official capacity . It is also where Bush broached on a topic that should be a non-starter ;and certainly one which the President should not have brought up : From both his comments with Olmert and with Abbas :


"If you're asking me, am I nudging them forward -- well, my trip was a pretty significant nudge, because yesterday they had a meeting -- and by the way, the atmosphere in America was, nothing is going to happen, see, that these issues are too big on the ground; therefore, you two can't get together and come up with any agreements. You just heard the man talk about their desire to deal with core issues, which I guess for the uneducated on the issue, that means dealing with the issues like territory and right of return and Jerusalem. Those are tough issues -- the issue of Israeli security. And they're going to sit down at the table and discuss those issues in seriousness."


See, the past has just been empty words, you know. We -- actually it hasn't been that much -- I'm the only President that's really articulated a two-state solution so far -- but saying two states really doesn't have much bearing until borders are defined, right of return issues resolved, Jerusalem is understood, security measures -- the common security measures will be in place. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a clear, defined state around which people can rally.

For those who understand reality ;the so called "right of return " would be the death of Israel. It would ensure that Israel would be flooded with hostile Muslims who could eviscerate the state from the inside. Actually this should not surprise anyone. The President is in favor of open borders here . Why should we be surprised that he wants Israel to do the same ?

The President also said that "illegal outposts" in the West Bank should be removed .


Excon ; Bush's policy began to change about Israel just after the Iraq Surrender Group came out with their recommendations .The ISG urged the U.S. government to support Israel-Palestinian negotiations that addresses what it termed a “key final status issue” which was the "right of return ". Bush did not go along with all of the ISG suggestions .But I guess that James Baker ;that parigon of realpolitik ,got to the Presindent on the issues.
That lame excuse for a Mid East whatever he called her, Karen Hughes , got to him also and convinced him that the Muslims hate us because of the Israel -Palestininan question.
So like a good legacy builder he has returned to what has obviously worked so well in the past... pressure the Israelis to make some more existential concessions.

So in the prelude to the meeting on November 28, 2007 ,White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said
“The right of return issue is a part of the road map and it's going to be one of the issues that the Israelis and the Palestinians have to talk about during … negotiations.” The right of return was NEVER in the road map to nowhere !But unknowing to him , undoing the state of Israel is now the official policy of the Bush Administration.

Meanwhile ;it continues to rain Kassam's .

Tom, I have never heard Bush say he advocated open borders here or anywhere else for that matter. If open is meant to be with-out restraint. And of course they need to settle the right –to-return issue, but it does not follow that for every one who claims the right it will be granted.

Excon

The bush flip-flop was not in his position towards Israel but between American policies towards Israel. In June of 2003 Bush avoided the old-style and counterproductive "peace process" diplomacy and tried a new approach I. e. establishing the goal of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security." That is still his goal.

He also did a flip-flop on other American policies I. e. Preemptive war, viewing Islamist violence as a narrow criminal problem, and a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.

That will be his legacy and time will tell whether his vision was right or wrong, particularly if those policies are carried on

Come on it was a vaction trip, his last year, he can't be elected, no Rep canadate wants him to campaign for him.

What else can he do.

The bush flip-flop was not in his position towards Israel but between American policies towards Israel. Hello again, DC:

Huh? Just who sets American foreign policy?

Because Elliot LOVES Bush, he blames the libs for this. I have NO clue where that comes from. Maybe he'll be along to splain it further. Meanwhile, maybe you can give it a shot.

excon

PS> Is your sniveling baby retort indicative of your belief that because I don't like it, the Dems too are against this recent Bush flip flop? Really?

Hay excon

It's my understanding that each new President and their executive administration set foreign policy with the approval of congress.

Bush changed the previous policy as I indicated and I agree with the changes, what don't you like about them?

Naw, baby was just for fun... means nothing.:p