Associated Press
Washington, July 16 – Declaring a “moment of choice” in the Middle East, President George W. Bush said Monday he would call Israel, the Palestinians and others in the region to a peace conference aimed at restarting stalled talks and moving faster toward a Palestinian state.
Such a session could result in Israelis sitting at the same conference table as countries such as Saudi Arabia that do not recognize Israel diplomatically.
Bush said the conference, open to countries in the region that support a two-state solution to the long Israeli-Palestinian standoff, would be headed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
He also pledged more U.S. financial support for the moderate Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas and called for the convening of a group of donor countries to increase international financial aid, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.
In an appeal directed at the divided Palestinian people, Bush drew a contrast between what he said life would be like under an Abbas government and under the rule of the Islamic militant group Hamas, which gained authority over Gaza in June. Abbas now controls only the West Bank.
“This is a moment of clarity for all Palestinians. And now comes a moment of choice,” Bush said in a speech intended to signal a new resolve on the part of his administration to help restart the stalled peace process.
“Iraq is not the only pivotal matter in the Middle East,” Bush said.
He said that many changes had come, “some hopeful, some dispiriting,” in the more than five years since he became the first U.S. president to voice full, open support for a separate, independent Palestine alongside Israel.
He said Abbas and his new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, “are striving to build the institutions of a modern democracy” while Hamas “has demonstrated beyond all doubt that it is devoted to extremism and murder.”
Only the Palestinians can decide which of these two paths to follow, Bush said.
His remarks drew taunts from Hamas.
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said, “Bush’s statements come in the context of garnering support for Abbas to fight Palestinian legitimacy, represented by Hamas.”
“We affirm that all promises made by Bush are false promises. The promise to form a Palestinian state is old. It will not be implemented. The opposite, instead, has happened. Instead of two states, he has divided our people into two governments,” said the Hamas spokesman.
Israel welcomed Bush’s remarks. “We share his vision of two states and the need to support the moderate Palestinians who believe in peace,” said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. “Moving forward in the peace process demands zero tolerance for terrorism,” Regev added.
Bush voiced strong support for Abbas and his moderate government. He noted that the United States has pledged more than $190 million (€137.8 million) in direct assistance to the Palestinians, most of it already approved, and that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a quasi-governmental unit, was making another $228 million (€165.4 million) available in loan guarantees.
Bush also announced that his administration would “make a direct contribution of $80 million (€58 million) to help Palestinians reform their security services.”
Administration officials said that Bush weighed recommendations from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in deciding whether to pledge additional sums.
Blair was recently named as special envoy to the region by the “Quartet” of Mideast peace makers – the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia. Blair will meet with Rice and her Quartet counterparts in Portugal on Thursday.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said, “With all this assistance, we are showing the Palestinian people that a commitment to peace leads to the generous support of the United States.”
The conference would be a dramatic way to try to jump-start the peace process, a rare session among Israel and some Arab states that do not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel.
Bush said the conference would include only “nations that support a two-state solution, reject violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and commit to all previous agreements between the parties.”
The administration did not indicate where the conference would be held.
In addition to Egypt and Jordan, which do have formal relations with Israel, it seemed possible that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen might attend. Bigger question marks were Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
“We wouldn’t be launching ourselves on this enterprise if we didn’t feel some confidence that there is a willingness in the region to embrace the path to peace,” said Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, the State Department’s top diplomat for the Middle East. “We believe that this is a moment for everybody to push the go button and try and make this work.”
Bush called on Israel to remove unauthorized outposts in Palestinian territory and end settlement expansion. And he urged Israel to continue releasing tax revenues to the Palestinian authority.
At the same time, the Palestinian government “must arrest terrorists, dismantle their infrastructure and confiscate illegal weapons,” Bush said. “They must work to stop attacks on Israel, and to free the Israeli soldier held hostage by extremists. ”
Bush said that in terms of creation of a Palestinian state, there is “a level of consensus never before seen on this crucial issue.”
Separately, Bush called King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Monday afternoon, said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
The president urged them to “continue to provide full support” to efforts by Abbas and Fayyad in working with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “to make progress toward the realization of the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security,” Johndroe said.
Bush also called Abbas to discuss his Middle East speech and to “reiterate his support,” Johndroe said.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 16, 2007 at 6:47 pm
As much as I hate to admit it, Hamas has one point—they are the true democratic government of the Palestinian people. Bush says that this is the time for the Palestinians to “make a choice,” but they already made it—and they chose Hamas. From that, it seems that the Palestinians don’t really WANT peace with Israel; and I can’t help but think that, if a deal is made here, it will wind up just like it did when Israel gave up control of Gaza: the Palestinians will take the land, then begin to slowly attack what Israel still owns, because they will never accept Jews living anywhere near them.
On the other hand, it is interesting that so many other Arab countries seem to finally be able to accept that Israel isn’t going anywhere, so might as well go the Egypt-Jordan route. So, I really don’t know what to think about all this. Can something be worked out? Maybe, with the Fatah-led half of the Palestinians (though it should be noted, they’re so horribly corrupt and, when it suits them, pro-terrorist that I’m not sure how that will work out). But mostly, I’m kind of pessimistic about all this.
God bless.
posted July 16, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Excuse me? WHO called for a Middle East Peace Conference? The hypocrisy never ends with this administration. Do all the parties involved need to work on getting along together? Absolutely. Is George Bush anyone’s idea of a viable peace broker? I don’t think so.
posted July 16, 2007 at 8:02 pm
It would be so nice IF this were even possible…peace in that area. However, I have absolutely NO CONFIDENCE in the person, AKA “W” who is orchestrating this. Rice is going to lead this conference? She will do as “W” tells her, and we all know how helpful his advise is.
Guess “W” is trying to improve his pathetic image in the world, by organizing a Middle East Peace Conference. The image isn’t going to be improved on bit, but if the parties actually do agree to just sit in the same room? That would be nice…but I don’t think anything would come of that either.
posted July 17, 2007 at 1:25 am
The only hopeful thing is that Bush is a lame duck and might conceivably be more interested in an actual effective peace than in sucking up to the pro-Israel lobby like most US politicians of both parties do. But that would be hoping for way too much, I think.
posted July 17, 2007 at 10:22 am
I guess W doen’t understand that sometimes when other folks play by the rules even you make, you still lose. I may disagree with Hamas on almost everything, but they won the election. Hey, it’s no different over here! So the test of a leaders strength now is not to try and change the rules, but to accept the consequences and make somethng good and or useful out of the stiuation. I know, I know, it is W thats pushing this. But I can hope.
His sudden interest in “peace” tells me there may be something else at work. If I were any of these envoys or ambassadors, I would be very careful about any “petitions” that Cheney may ask them to sign – there may be a sheet of carbon paper and an oil contract underneath.
If W wants a legacy I have a suggestion. Let’s give him a big old granite rock with the name of every US citizen who died in Iraq carved deep into it.
posted July 17, 2007 at 11:31 am
While I agree that this is likely a political move to save his legacy…come on, guys. I think that if Bush cured cancer next week, you all would still find a way to criticize him over it. @@
God bless.
posted July 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Sorry Joey, but what has Bush done that would cause us to give him any benefit of the doubt??? And as you say yourself, if his motives aren’t even in the right place why should we start now?
posted July 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I’m just saying, why insult Bush for trying this? It won’t make anything worse and it could, potentially, make things better. I just don’t get those who criticize Bush for EVERYTHING, as though he was so totally, completely evil that no action he ever does could be even the tinniest, tiniest bit good, like he was the most cliche and badly-written supervillain ever. (I’m thinking back to a month or two ago, where people here were criticizing him for donating billions of dollars to fight AIDS, for example.)
God bless.
posted July 17, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Joey,
In no way do I think W is completely evil, like some nefarious genius plotting in the dark shadows of the White House sub-basement. That would be Carl Rove. Nor do I think that if he cured cancer he would be faulted – he simply would not be believed. However, if there was a big enough buck to be made from it, Cheney would be there with his hand out. No, W is almost sad in his inability to present something whole and helpful with making it look like someone else’s ulterior motives are propping it up. Certainly we have great expectations of the president and of the presidency. The frustration is that not only are our expectations not met, his actions seem to fall far short. He is coming off more and more as the minion of another malevolent force that is greedy and self-absorbed. No one wants to rally around a minion!
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Joey,
Why does “W” get critized even for his AIDS $$? HOW LONG DID it take him to EVEN try and help? Then he was picky as to who would get the money. They had to meet his religious requirements…don’t teach about condoms, abstinence only etc. All his pathetic efforts now to do something anywhere to help anyone are seen for what it is ….desperation…since fortunately he is out of office in 2009, January 20. Not soon enough.
Is he evil? Depends on your definition. Is he totally incompetent? Yes, probably hasn’t had an original thought in his whole life. He isn’t his own man…Dick and others are pulling the strings. They are the “evil” ones. He isn’t the brightest bulb on the Xmas tree of life, that’s for sure.
He has messed up from term #1 and for some reason, he was voted into office a 2nd time…something I have NEVER understood….what did he do after 9/11 to make it seem like he was competent? Nothing that I noticed. He really wasn’t elected the first time.
Jestrfyl,
Love the granite rock idea. Can we drop it on his head(do you think he would notice?) after we have it engraved with the dead Americans he is responsible for?
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I agree with Joey. President Bush has made mistakes – we all do – but I believe his unpopularity is more the result of the bias of the liberal media, and the political strategies of Democrats who fan the flame in order to make gains for their own party than it is the result of those mistakes. I, too, do not have much confidence in the ability of radical Muslims to make peace with Israel. But more logically thinking moderate Muslims have already demonstrated their willingness to do that, and I think President Bush is doing what good leaders have always done: encourage peace where they can, but be ready to defend freedom when they have to. That is what I believe will eventually be President Bush’s legacy. And, one more thing. If we are still in Iraq in 2008 and a Democrat captures the White House, don’t expect our military to get out right away. The current anti-war activity of the Democrats, in my opinion, reflects their desire to capitalize on the unpopularity of the war to make political gains. It is not based on a desire to do what is right, or what is best for our country and for the rest of the world. One thing is for sure. With all the second-guessers and critics around, why would anyone want the job of president?
posted July 17, 2007 at 5:06 pm
WindsorsChild: Oh brother, give me a freaking break! Sorry, that’s all I have energy for today. Maybe someone else can jump in here an dissect your many misconceptions.
posted July 17, 2007 at 6:12 pm
WindsorsChild,
You honestly think “W”s unpopularity is due to the liberal media??? Who would that be? and the Democrates too? WOW! No, not even they could make up the stuff that “W” has proven from day #1 of his term….that he can’t operate without Dick and the crew pulling the strings.
I agree, we probably won’t be out of Iraq in a hurry after the next president is elected, but I’m sure in my mind that the Democrate that is in office next will start the process. “W” wants us to have patience while our troops are dying, for nothing, all because he wanted to hurry to “save Iraq” from the big bad Saddam…and, Oh Yes, get the bad guys who hit the Twin Towers.
posted July 17, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“I believe his unpopularity is more the result of the bias of the liberal media, and the political strategies of Democrats who fan the flame in order to make gains for their own party than it is the result of those mistakes.”
WC, you must have had to say things like that every day when the Republicans were making life hell for President Clinton and not only all the things he did were complained about, but various things he never did but they tried to connect him to.
In other words, Bush has had it quite easy and the “liberal” press has given him a pass for a lot of his presidency, to the detriment of us all. It would seem to be because the White House reporters and political commentators are more interested in being popular with officials and powerful people than in doing real journalism. And who has more powerful people available to them than Greed’s Own Party.
posted July 17, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“HOW LONG DID it take him to EVEN try and help?”
Pagansister, I think you need to check your facts; the recent AIDS donation was actually the second one of his presidency, he also gave $15 billion several years ago. So, not as long as you seem to think.
I’m not saying Iraq isn’t a mess, I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t screwed up a lot of stuff—I’m just saying, does the fact that Iraq is a mess and he’s screwed up a lot of stuff mean absolutely EVERYTHING he does is bad? If peace comes to the Middle East from this conference—not likely, but if it does—does that make peace in the Middle East bad now, since it came from Darth Bush? If Bush dives into a lake to save a drowning puppy, will a new lobby of Drowning-With-Dignity animal rights’ activists emerge? I mean, really, is he THAT bad?
God bless.
posted July 17, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Bush’s AIDS aid to Africa is at best a mixed blessing. It’s not that much in a year, and of what there is a lot of it is used to fund abstinence only programs. Some is counter-productive. It’s hard to fight AIDS if you’re afraid to say “condom”. As is usual, he got a lot more credit than he was due. Check
this article.
posted July 17, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Joey,
Happy to hear that “W” gave $15 billion a few years ago. Missed that one. Did he require abstinence only for that one too? Probably.
“….really, is he THAT bad?” In a word, YES!
If peace came from this Mid-East conference, would that be bad? Of course not, that would be a huge SHOCK!
NIxon opened up China, but most folks only remember the he had to resign due to Watergate.
posted July 17, 2007 at 10:52 pm
From a July 17 AP story:
“July 17,2007 | WASHINGTON — The White House said Tuesday the international meeting on the Middle East proposed by President Bush should not be viewed as “a big peace conference” and it’s too early to say where or when it will be.
Spokesman Tony Snow at first described the meeting as an international conference, but several hours later he backed away from that portrayal as being too ambitious.”
The story goes on.
posted July 18, 2007 at 10:25 am
WindsorsChild,
“We all make mistakes”
Yes, true, but I am fairly sure that none of my mistakes (and I hope none of your own) have cost thousands of lives, dismantled not only a government but and entire way of life, unleashed the raging hounds of war between religious factions, and jeopardized the lives of many more countries. What bothers me the most is that the best we have gotten is a presidential “Oops” – which is all this conference is shaping up to be. Unless we (he) confess (es) and makes some sort of meaningful amends than these little gestures are simply more fluff – and not even gauze to protect our “wounds”. The “liberal” press did not do this – it is a mess of his own making.
posted July 19, 2007 at 10:57 am
A “Peace Conference”???
What the HECK would George W(armonger) Bush know about PEACE???