Bush is no Friend to Israel! Bush Promotes a Palestinian "Right of Return"

[nu4idf]

Bush Promotes a Palestinian "Right of Return"

by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
January 14, 2008
Danish version of this item (http://dk.danielpipes.org/article/5382)
French version of this item (http://fr.danielpipes.org/article/5380)
Italian version of this item (http://it.danielpipes.org/article/5385)
Portuguese version of this item (http://pt.danielpipes.org/article/5381)
Romanian version of this item (http://ro.danielpipes.org/article/5383)
Russian version of this item (http://ru.danielpipes.org/article/5411)[FPM title differs slightly]
The Palestinian "right of return" entered the lexicon of American policymakers in December 2006, when the Iraq Study Group Report (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20061206_btext.pdf) urged the U.S. government to support Israel-Palestinian negotiations that addresses what it termed a "key final status issue." That recommendation came as a mild shock, given that the "right of return" to Israel is transparently a code phrase (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1257) to overwhelm Israel demographically, thereby undoing Zionism and the Jewish state, and so never before a goal of official Washington.
A year later, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino adopted the term, though without much notice. Out of seemingly nowhere, she informed journalists at a press briefing on November 28, 2007 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071128-8.html) that "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."
Indeed, on schedule, "right of return" emerged as a motif before and during George W. Bush's recent trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, when he mentioned it three times publicly:
January 4 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080106-2.html): In an interview with Israel's Channel 2, Bush announced himself "optimistic that we can have the outlines of a state defined. In other words, negotiations on borders and right of return and these different issues can be settled."
January 9 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080109-4.html): At a joint press conference with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, he referred to the core issues of the conflict as "territory and right of return and Jerusalem."
January 10 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110.html): In a parallel joint press conference with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, he stated that the two-state idea "really doesn't have much bearing until borders are defined, right of return issues resolved, Jerusalem is understood, … [and] the common security measures will be in place."In a different setting, also on January 10 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html), Bush, somewhat elusively, stated his belief that "we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue." Is the "right of return" to be one of those new international mechanisms?
Comments: (1) Despite the major shift in policy implied by the U.S. government adopting the "right of return," the media has largely missed the story, as "The Lurker" documents in "Censoring Bush's call for Palestinian ‘right of return' (http://muqata.blogspot.com/2008/01/censoring-bushs-call-for-palestinian.html)." In particular, the Jerusalem Post reported on this reference, then posted a second story denying it.
(2) When the Iraq Study Group Report first appeared, analysts puzzled (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061206204349.qjq06iek&show_article=1) over the "right of return" mention, as one person close to the process explained: "It's hard to know whether that language got in there because of carelessness – I know there were many revisions up to the very last minute – or whether it was a deliberate attempt to fuse something to the Bush rhetoric which wasn't there before." Retrospectively, it appears that the reference was indeed intentional – and quite successful in its purpose. "The Lurker" concludes, perhaps correctly, that James A. Baker, III, lead author of the Iraq Study Group Report, "has once again become a major factor in setting U.S. Middle East policy."
(3) This is only one of several problematic statements from the Bush administration, such as the president's (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/784) morally equivalent reference to "terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis" or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/799)'s calling the Arab-Israeli conflict the central issue of the Middle East and seeing Palestinians as analogous to Southern blacks.
(4) Bush prefaced his January 10 comment by asserting, "I'm the only president that's really articulated a two-state solution so far," and he is right. Put differently, he is the only U.S. president to promote a "Palestine" and now to call for a Palestinian "right of return." More broadly, throughout his presidency, Bush has marched to his own drummer on the Arab-Israeli issue, offering novel and personal solutions to a century-old problem and throwing out the rulebook (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1125) on Arab-Israeli diplomacy.
(5) One can only guess how often Bush raised the "right of return" in his private conversations with Israelis and Palestinians, and with what intensity and pressure.
(6) Looking ahead, to the last year of the Bush presidency, quoting myself (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5044): "should the Israelis resist a joint U.S.-Palestinian position, I see a possible crisis in U.S.-Israel relations of unprecedented proportions." I am not predicting this will happen but noting that the pieces are all in place for such a development.
(7) Although Bush is "seen by many Israelis as the best friend (http://www.*******.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL09106399) the Jewish state has had in the White House," I have long doubted that characterization (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/769), and now more so than ever.
Other items in category Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy (http://ru.danielpipes.org/category/2)

[gaijinsamurai]

Somehow, I feel that support for anything short of expelling all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza would lead you and Mr. Pipes to call Mr. Bush "no friend of Israel".

Let me guess, you live in Kiryat Arba, or someplace similar?

[JJC]

Not worse than Barak's introduction of 2 Jerusalems myth, besides nothing to worry, in the end everything lies in the hands of Israeli government and people. If the polls show that more Israelis are accepting the idea of splitting Jerusalem or in the future right of return then it will happen, not because U.S. or anyone else is pushing it.

[haze99]

What's good for the goose....more of this returning land to the Palestinian's. Sigh. If this is the case, then every tribe from the Apache to the Zuni needs to line-up at the White House and ask for their original territory back. Since we "occupy" their land! Maybe the Palestinian's need to ask for casino's?

[WarriorMonk]

...ah...frontpagemagazine...

[Kilgor]

he can say what he wants when its the 11th hour and it doesn't mean a thing, except maybe to improve what will be written in the history books.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

How on earth can Israel be expected to absorb and give citizenship to 4 million Palestinians?

[Ordie]

Israelis wants security.

Palestinians wants justice.

It's a question of how to meet each other needs.

[nu4idf]

Palestinians wants justice.

Thats the most un-educated and untrue remark! The word justice is something that should be applied and used in civil rights, and I find it offensive that you used justice when they, the arabs, believe that justice is pushing Israel into the sea!

[Ordie]

Thats the most un-educated and untrue remark! The word justice is something that should be applied and used in civil rights, and I find it offensive that you used justice when they, the arabs, believe that justice is pushing Israel into the sea!

That's what I hear from a cafe owner in San Francisco whose property is now a part of Lod airport. He's knows he'll never get it back but he wants justice (compensation?).

But its a common word among Palestinans overseas.

[Calanen]

Palestinians want justice.


If you wind the dispute back to the beginning, the Palestinians dont really have the high moral ground to expect a 'just' result. They are in the position they are in, because in 1948 they and their arab allies decided to 'push Israel into the sea'. They lost that battle, and again in 67, and again in 73.

So a recourse to 'justice' denotes that the Palestinains are in this position because of some inherent unfairness on the part of Israel, and I would disagree with this statement.

Whatever the rights and wrongs - here we are, and I'd again propose the peace plan I set out in another thread, which gives the Palestinians Gaza, West Bank, on the condition of no terrorism whatsoever backed by UN mandate for the use of force to shut down terrorism, and has the city of Jerusalem managed by the UN as a free city so that neither faction 'gets it'. I dont think you can effectively do a Berlin division to Jerusalem, otherwise this just becames a new front line for the two sides to fight each other.

[JJC]

Have you monitored the history of UN towards Israel? Do you know Arab states control majorities in all U.N. bodies; this week the UNSC struck down would be first ever condemnation of Palestinian terror attacks from Kassam rockets. Why is it hard for UN to condemn Kassam rockest on civilians, because the Arab states protest such resolutions. So I don't trust UN or anyone else to be a fair broker in Jerusalem.

[non]

Israelis wants security.

Palestinians wants justice.

It's a question of how to meet each other needs.

Optimist, huh?
.............................
I know questioning the President's acumen has become a tired cliche, but does anyone actually think that President Bush could possibly have anything intelligent to say about Israel-Palestine, anyway? Fresh ideas? Keen insights? Overwhelmingly persuasive communication skills to bridge opposite parties?
He might be saying "right of return" because he knows it's an issue. Is it safe to assume that he's conscious of what the issue actually entails every time he mentions? But, he knows PA Reps. shake their heads in a note of recognition when he says it, and an acorn is released in his minds eye for the little chipmunk running the wheel in his head. A voice says, 'note: right of return stuff gets response and monotheism... remember monotheism.'

[I can't think of a name]

Well the "Israeli Lobby" is a myth, a very sinister one at that.

[non]

Well the "Israeli Lobby" is a myth, a very sinister one at that.

Ummm-mmm, fresh chum.

[MPNFL]

take netanyahu and assad and lock them both in a strip club and then lock the door. get them drunk and force them to talk and they can't leave until they figure out a deal for everyone.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

He might be saying "right of return" because he knows it's an issue. Is it safe to assume that he's conscious of what the issue actually entails every time he mentions? But, he knows PA Reps. shake their heads in a note of recognition when he says it, and an acorn is released in his minds eye for the little chipmunk running the wheel in his head. A voice says, 'note: right of return stuff gets response and monotheism... remember monotheism.'

Bush is the most pro-Palestinian US president in history.

[Moledet]

Whatever the rights and wrongs - here we are, and I'd again propose the peace plan I set out in another thread, which gives the Palestinians Gaza, West Bank, on the condition of no terrorism whatsoever backed by UN mandate for the use of force to shut down terrorism, and has the city of Jerusalem managed by the UN as a free city so that neither faction 'gets it'. I dont think you can effectively do a Berlin division to Jerusalem, otherwise this just becames a new front line for the two sides to fight each other.
The UN had its chance in 1948, it was supposed to take control over Jerusalem in 1957 after a poll among the city residents but when the Jewish quarter of the town was shelled, under siege and Jordanian snipers were shooting at the residents the UN didn't care so Israel decided that the UN decision (that wasn't binding) has no moral basis and is canceled.

Giving them territory will solve nothing, not when they educate their kids that Tel Aviv is an illegal settlement (it's in the text books), that Palestine is from the river to the sea, etc...

I like the population exchange plan, they will move to the sea and we in exchange accept 2 mullets and one cod.

[Power_serj]

You guys are rediculous. Perhaps President Bush is being a moderate unbiased mediator! There can be no outcome to negotiations without an unbiased mediator!

[tanks_alot]

There is a difference between saying that the Palestinians should get the West Bank, Gaza strip and East Jerusalem - which is open for debate, to supporting the "right of return", because the formers are territorial concessions and the later is effectively the end of the state of Israel.

Having millions of Arabs move into Israel will be the end of Israel and anyone that suggests it is not seriously interested in negotiating and finding a realistic solution for the conflict.

I think it's easy to understand that if one of the clauses in a peace treaty between two nations, is the destruction on one of the nations, than in the real world, it's not likely to happen.

[deagle]

instead of pro-israel, or pro-palestinian, why not just pro-peace ?

[non]

instead of pro-israel, or pro-palestinian, why not just pro-peace ?

Because it only takes a few who aren't.Etcetry, etcetry.

[Calanen]

instead of pro-israel, or pro-palestinian, why not just pro-peace ?

What you need is a solution, a workable solution. These problems are extraordinarily complex.

But, if I were Israeli, I'd put my foot down about the 'right of return'. It seems like an insurance policy being cashed in for losing the war in 1948.

And Moledet, I agree that the UN has its faults, did things badly before, and Israel has justified grievances with it. However, I cant really see any other org that has the ability to relatively neutrally run the city.
And if either the Jews or the Palestinians are granted or retain exclusive control over that city, there will never be peace.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Guys read the article. Bush hasn't called for millions of Palestinians to be allowed to move to Israel.


In a different setting, also on January 10 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html), Bush, somewhat elusively, stated his belief that "we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue." Is the "right of return" to be one of those new international mechanisms?

[Rictor]

Establishing a Palestinian state is the opposite of supporting Right of Return. If Bush is now pushing, together with Olmert and Abbas, for a two-state solution, how exactly does that equate to supporting Israeli citizenship for Palestnians?

[dangerclose]

Sorry to say, but Bush is either an idiot if he truly believes that or just a liar paying lip service to his saudi friends. The palestinians gave up their right of return when they packed up their bags and willingly left their homes ahead of the approaching arab armies in 1948. They planned on coming back after the jews were annihilated. Oops.



**** them.

[Ordie]

For those of you who are not familiar of the source, Frontpage magazine is an ultra conservative on-line publication edited by David Horowitz. (A real nutcase). The article is written in a manner to get an emotional reaction.

I googled Bush /right of return /palestine and only Frontpage magazine had the story he promotes right of return and the Peoples Weekly World story that Bush was against it.

None of the mainstream news sources carried the story.

Take for a grain of salt.

For those of you how are interested, a good website dedicated on Israeli-Palestinian issues is www.bitterlemons.org (http://www.bitterlemons.org) . I also enjoy reading Haaretz from time to time and is a good source as well.

[The_Android]

Well the "Israeli Lobby" is a myth, a very sinister one at that.

No, it's not a "myth".



In 1997, Fortune magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_%28magazine%29) asked Congressmen to rank the "25 most powerful" lobbying organizations in DC. In 2005, the National Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal) did the same. Both times, AIPAC came in 2nd - ahead of, for instance, the AFL-CIO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL-CIO) and the National Rifle Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association) (NRA), but behind the AARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac#_note-3). In 2001, it came in 4th on the Fortune list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac
http://www.aipac.org/

[Ordie]

I recommend reading The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.

Here's the book review in Haaretz:

More: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=910199

[I can't think of a name]

To complement that.....

The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham H. Foxman (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Abraham+H%2E+Foxman&z=y), George P. Shultz (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=George+P%2E+Shultz&z=y) (Foreword by)

Note that "Israeli Lobby" and conspiracy type myths have bee going on for centuries. Read old Der Sturmer articles from the 1930s and see some similarities to todays hysteria.

[shadowsrider]

yes, but some of Israeli forum members apparently believe in anti-jewish world conspiracy...
Did Bush stop financing Israel?
Did he cancel military equipment aid?

[I can't think of a name]

yes, but some of Israeli forum members apparently believe in anti-jewish world conspiracy...
Did Bush stop financing Israel?
Did he cancel military equipment aid?

Bush can't even if he wanted too. That aide is enshrined in the Camp David Peace accords set up by Jimmy Carter. Same goes with the money and weapons that go to Egypt that no one talks about.

[The_Android]

To complement that.....

The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham H. Foxman (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Abraham+H%2E+Foxman&z=y), George P. Shultz (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=George+P%2E+Shultz&z=y) (Foreword by)

Note that "Israeli Lobby" and conspiracy type myths have bee going on for centuries. Read old Der Sturmer articles from the 1930s and see some similarities to todays hysteria.

The pro-Israeli lobby is not a conspiracy theory. If even congressmen say AIPAC belongs to the most influential lobbies, how can it be a myth? I mean, just visit AIPAC's website, they do exist and they do have influence.

I think you're mixing this up with some neo-nazis etc who claim that "jews run America". The influence the pro-Israeli lobby have may be exaggerated, especially by some people with an anti-Israeli agenda. But it's silly to start drawing comparisons to Der Sturmer if someone just states that the lobby is not a myth. Claims that USA (and most of the world) is run by ze evil joos is a myth and conspiracy theory, that I can agree on. However, lobbies like AIPAC is not the invention of conspiracy theorists. They're a lobby amonst many others and have a degree of influence. That's just reality, not hysteria.

[Ordie]

The fact of the matter is that lobbying is the norm as part of the policymaking process. Everybody including non-profits, local, state, and foriegn governments hire a lobby firm to present and advocate thier positions in government through legislative bills.

Ultimately it is up to the legislator (congressman/ senator) to decide what is best for his/her constituency and country.

[timetraveller]

IF it wasn't for the secret deal done between A Jewish delegation and the British Goverment .. which lead to the Balfour decloration .. and latterly the creation of Israel ..
When On the other hand British Goverment promised the Arabs them Independance through Colonel Lawrence soley to win there favour and Alliance .sadly the British Goverment had no plans of giving them Independance .. .. and there was a time when both lived side by side .. in peace .. then one night it all kicked off ..

[Moledet]

IF it wasn't for the secret deal done between A Jewish delegation and the British Goverment .. which lead to the Balfour decloration .. and latterly the creation of Israel ..
When On the other hand British Goverment promised the Arabs them Independance through Colonel Lawrence soley to win there favour and Alliance .sadly the British Goverment had no plans of giving them Independance .. .. and there was a time when both lived side by side .. in peace .. then one night it all kicked off ..
Give me a brake, it's not like the Brits followed that declaration. It first of all gave both banks of the river to the Jewish nation, the western bank of the river is today's Jordan and it was given by the Brits to the Ha'shemit king not a long while after the declaration. Later, the Brits again and again limited Jewish immigration although their own research committees (known as the White Books) found the Arabs guilty of starting all the bloody clashes.

There was no time both sides lived in peace and it didn't kickoff one day, when the settlers arrived they worked land bought by the Jewish Agency and they were robbed by Arab gangs, so they created an armed organization called Ha'Shomer Ha'Tzair (Young Guard) that protected them from the Arabs.

In 1920 there were clashes started by the Arabs when they were fighting against the French army in the North, they attacked Jewish settlements there. Later that year an Arab mob in Jerusalem attacked the Jewish neighborhoods when it returned from the Nebi Mousa celebrations, 6 Jewish residents were killed, 200 wounded, property was stoled and synagogues were set on fire. Both Arab and British policemen aided the mob. Only on the third day the British stopped the riots but blamed the Jews for it and arrested some Hagana commanders that were released 3 months later.

Then in 1921, the Arabs attacked again this time in Jaffa, after the 1st of May communist parade. During the 5 days of the clashes 47 Jewish residents were killed, 140 injured. The Brits again found the Jewish residents guilty, blaming them for protecting Tel Aviv (and dismantling the armed guards of the city), limited the Jewish immigration, and given the western bank to king Abdallah that founded Jordan.

In 1929, again after the Jewish residents asked to put benches in the Western Wall so that old people could also come and pray the Brits refused and the Jewish residents demonstrated against this, in response an Arab mob armed with knives and batons attacked the Jewish neighborhoods of the city. The riots expanded to Hebron where 67 Jewish residents were killed and their property stolen. The entire Jewish community of Hebron vanished after living there for centuries (some were saved by Arab families that helped them escape from the city). Gaza Jews also had to escape from the city under the cover of the British soldiers and were never allowed back. Thanks to the Hagana and Beitar activists, Tel Aviv and Haifa repelled the attacks. Overall, 113 Jews were killed and 339 wounded.
These riots created the IZL that unlike the Hagana believed that they can no longer sit with their arms crossed and they must fight back. The Brits again limited Jewish immigration and forbid any land buying by Jewish people although this was against the mandate given to it by the League of Nations (the Brits later backed off and apologized to Weizmann).

In 1936 started the Arab revolt which was the biggest mistake of the Arabs, the rest is written here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Bush can't even if he wanted too. That aide is enshrined in the Camp David Peace accords set up by Jimmy Carter. Same goes with the money and weapons that go to Egypt that no one talks about.

Well I think technically, agreements of the past can be undone by the governments of the present. It's just bad practice, since it tends to undermine the legitimacy of agreements going forward.

In case some of you haven't noticed, Bush isn't a Jew, he's an American. He's sworn to promote and advance America's best interests, not Israel's. If America's interests differ slightly from Israel's, I'd expect him to back the plan that's most advantageous to us.

This is a 3-way deal. Even though the US is thousands of miles away, it will be expected to give something in order for the other two parties to come to an agreement. The best way to minimize what the US has to shell out, is to maximize what we ask of the other two. This is politics - you always ask for more than you really need so that you have something to throw away during negotiations.

[Hollis]

yes, but some of Israeli forum members apparently believe in anti-jewish world conspiracy...
Did Bush stop financing Israel?
Did he cancel military equipment aid?


When your above quote is taken in context with a previous statement of yours;

"Zionist, you should be presented in a museum as a life object of XIXth/XX century ideology.
"Our land", "our nation", "our capital", "our sacrifice", "our blood", "we the victim", "holy X,Y" it really resembles those ideas which led Europe to 2 terrible wars."


Would suggest staying about from this type of topic or your stay here will be short, Your Bias is noted.

[timetraveller]

Give me a brake, it's not like the Brits followed that declaration. It first of all gave both banks of the river to the Jewish nation, the western bank of the river is today's Jordan and it was given by the Brits to the Ha'shemit king not a long while after the declaration. Later, the Brits again and again limited Jewish immigration although their own research committees (known as the White Books) found the Arabs guilty of starting all the bloody clashes.

There was no time both sides lived in peace and it didn't kickoff one day, when the settlers arrived they worked land bought by the Jewish Agency and they were robbed by Arab gangs, so they created an armed organization called Ha'Shomer Ha'Tzair (Young Guard) that protected them from the Arabs.

In 1920 there were clashes started by the Arabs when they were fighting against the French army in the North, they attacked Jewish settlements there. Later that year an Arab mob in Jerusalem attacked the Jewish neighborhoods when it returned from the Nebi Mousa celebrations, 6 Jewish residents were killed, 200 wounded, property was stoled and synagogues were set on fire. Both Arab and British policemen aided the mob. Only on the third day the British stopped the riots but blamed the Jews for it and arrested some Hagana commanders that were released 3 months later.

Then in 1921, the Arabs attacked again this time in Jaffa, after the 1st of May communist parade. During the 5 days of the clashes 47 Jewish residents were killed, 140 injured. The Brits again found the Jewish residents guilty, blaming them for protecting Tel Aviv (and dismantling the armed guards of the city), limited the Jewish immigration, and given the western bank to king Abdallah that founded Jordan.

In 1929, again after the Jewish residents asked to put benches in the Western Wall so that old people could also come and pray the Brits refused and the Jewish residents demonstrated against this, in response an Arab mob armed with knives and batons attacked the Jewish neighborhoods of the city. The riots expanded to Hebron where 67 Jewish residents were killed and their property stolen. The entire Jewish community of Hebron vanished after living there for centuries (some were saved by Arab families that helped them escape from the city). Gaza Jews also had to escape from the city under the cover of the British soldiers and were never allowed back. Thanks to the Hagana and Beitar activists, Tel Aviv and Haifa repelled the attacks. Overall, 113 Jews were killed and 339 wounded.
These riots created the IZL that unlike the Hagana believed that they can no longer sit with their arms crossed and they must fight back. The Brits again limited Jewish immigration and forbid any land buying by Jewish people although this was against the mandate given to it by the League of Nations (the Brits later backed off and apologized to Weizmann).

In 1936 started the Arab revolt which was the biggest mistake of the Arabs, the rest is written here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine


Yes an Interesting read but it only tells one side of the story ...

[LRPV]

yes, but some of Israeli forum members apparently believe in anti-jewish world conspiracy...
Did Bush stop financing Israel?
Did he cancel military equipment aid?

I don't know why your post was 'red-carded', but I would contend that some Israeli and some Jewish members believe there exists an international movement to extinguish the State of Israel. There is certainly fact rather than conspiracy on that point.

This is not a case of the "world" but sections of it. Google "free palestine" and you'll get the picture...



Edit: Just read post by HOLLiS. Now I understand the "red-card".

[Atlantic Friend]

Being pro-common sense woumld be nice, instead of pro-Palestinians or pro-Israel. It is in both the Palestinians' and Israelis' best interests to come to mutually acceptable terms - which i'm afraid mean Israel is a legal nation and the Palestinians do have rights.