With such friends...

[Vic]

State Dept. report: Weakening of PA increased attacks on Israel

By Nathan Guttman, Ha'aretz Correspondent and Reuters

Ha'aretz
Last update - 23:45 21/05/2002

WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department on Tuesday said that Israel had made Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority less effective by destroying its security infrastructure, and it absolved Arafat and his senior associates of responsibility for attacks on Israelis in 2001.

According to the annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001" report, IDF operations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank damaged Arafat's ability to reign in terror, and contributed to an increase in terror attacks against Israel. The attacks sometimes faced criticism from the United States. "Certainly the military activity there did do a great deal to damage the security capability and the security apparatus of the Palestinian Authority," Taylor said. The report went on to state that weakening the PA had assisted Hamas and other terrorist organizations in rebuilding terrorist infrastructure.

In its report the State Department said members of Arafat's Fatah movement had taken part, however, in attacks on Israel through the Tanzim organization and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

It said Tanzim was "made up of small and loosely organized cells of militants drawn from the street-level membership of Fatah." "Some Tanzim militants also were active in Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade," it added. "That's not a secret, but we have not been able to determine or to make final judgment on how far up and who in the PA may be or could be and had been directing this activity," added State Department counterterrorism coordinator Frank Taylor, briefing reporters on the report.

[...]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=166604&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Someone please tell me what's going on. Is the US State Department facing an election campaign in Norway?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
Someone please tell me what's going on. Is the US State Department facing an election campaign in Norway?
Norway would be the perfect place for the State Dept. to move to.

It's common knowledge that the State Dept. is Arabist and has been so for decades. The typical retirement plan for the top State Dept. employees involves lucrative speaking engagements at Arab institutions and "consultant" positions for Arab governments. That's why the State Dept. falls all over itself to hide Arab culpability and to rebuke Israel whenever possible.

To say that Palestinian terrorism has increased after Operatoin Defensive Shield is an outright lie. Clearly, the terrorist infrastructure has been badly damaged and the number of attacks have dropped dramatically.

As for Arafat's "security" forces, they never lifted a finger to stop terrorism. In fact, they directly funded terrorism and actively participated in terrorism themselves.

[takeo]

"the State Dept. is Arabist "

so France is not the only arabist country, we are in good company
:rolleyes:
I don't think any Arab would agree on that...

Who isn't Arabist according to you? anyone not 100% behind israel is arabist.

LOL, sometimes you can hear some funny things on this forum

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
so France is not the only arabist country, we are in good company
No, France is not only Arabist, but it itself is an Arab colony in Europe.

It is a well known fact that the State Dept. is Arabist while the National Security people and the President are typically anti-terrorism and therefore pro-Israel.

[NewsGuy]

Regarding the disingenuous State Dept. report, this is from a transcript of the State Dept.'s Daily Briefing.

Notice Richard Boucher's evasive and almost embarrassed responses. It's as if he's thinking that he can't believe his bad luck that he's stuck being the apologist for the concocted report.

But, as can be expected, the reporters aren't buying his excuses, so you'll notice how they pin him down. One of the issues is that the report was so dishonest that in order to exonerate Arafat and top PA officials from direct terrorist involvement, the State Dept. left the entire Karine A affair out of the report. Watch Boucher get nailed on this point:


QUESTION: Since we're on the topic, and this is something that's maybe related to last week, but it is relevant today, given the recent violence in Israel. But in your PLO compliance report that was released last week, you said that there was no conclusive evidence for the period that was covered that senior Palestinian leadership were involved in plotting directly some of these terrorist attacks.

This appears to contradict directly information that the Government of Israel made available to you recently covering that time period, so I just want to try to square the circle. Is the Government of Israel exaggerating their information? Are they lying?

MR. BOUCHER: I think, once again, remember what it says in this report. This report covers the period up to December 15th. It is prepared on the basis of the information we have when we prepare the report up to December 15th. So as far as responsibility beyond that point and further additional information that might become available beyond that point, we would cover that in future reports.

As far as our view of the situation, I think we have made quite clear that we see a responsibility on the part of Chairman Arafat to exercise leadership. For example, in the Karine A affair, he himself recognized his responsibility as a leader, to stop that sort of importation of arms and to take action against it. We continue to look to him and other leaders of the Palestinian Authority to exercise their leadership, to exercise their authority and stop the violence, and that remains our position.

QUESTION: If I can just follow up on that, though, the report was released last week, some five months after the December 15 period. Are you saying that any information we would have gotten after December 15th was not used in the analysis to prepare this report covering that period?

MR. BOUCHER: Any information on actions that took place after December 15th, like the Karine A --

QUESTION: No, not actions that took place. What I'm saying -- yes.

MR. BOUCHER: -- would be covered in subsequent reports. You mean, if we got information in February of this year that related to something that happened in October of last year --

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR. BOUCHER: -- would we have included it? That really sort of depends on the process of preparation. I suppose if we had information during -- at the proper moment in the process of preparation that related clearly to something that happened before, that would have been used to evaluate what happened before. But I can't tell you the exact timeline of preparation. I don't think -- certainly if you're referring to the information the Israelis might have uncovered during their recent incursions, that wouldn't necessarily have been available in time to relate to events of last year in this report.

QUESTION: The weapons smuggling, by Israeli accounts, had begun before the ship was intercepted; it was an ongoing process. And the State Department has had lots to say about Palestinian complicity --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not trying to get bureaucratic over the drafting of a particular report.

QUESTION: No, I'm just asking about the smuggling.

MR. BOUCHER: We have talked in great abundance about the Karine A affair, about the importance of the affair, about the involvement of Palestinian officials, officials within the Palestinian Authority in that matter, in that attempt to smuggle weapons, and about the need for the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian Authority to take concerted action to not only punish those responsible, but to make sure this doesn't occur again.

So I'm not trying to plead some bureaucratic cutoff. The fact is, this report does cover a particular period, but we have made no secret of our views on the importation of weapons in the Karine A.

QUESTION: Richard, is there any procedure to update Congress in the event that new information changes the conclusions drawn in that report?

MR. BOUCHER: There is, first of all, the regular reporting cycle that we can use to update Congress. But since we talk to people on the Hill all the time -- the Secretary himself goes up to testify, is asked questions about responsibility at that moment, and he answers them. So whether it's in our private consultations with Members of Congress, or in public testimony, or in our reporting to Congress, yes, we do update Congress on our current views of these situations.

QUESTION: What is the usefulness of these reports that cover a period of over -- it started about a year -- was it June 15h to December 15th? And, I mean, there are events that have happened more recently, there are events that you're trying to prevent, there are events that you've been calling on the Palestinians to take more action about. Do you think that there should be a more real-time reporting, rather than a six-month --

MR. BOUCHER: There's a real-time reporting here every single day.

QUESTION: Then what's the use -- I'm just -- what's the --

MR. BOUCHER: We are asked by Congress to present a comprehensive report on these time periods, and we do that. The usefulness is to be determined by Congress. They ask us for the report, and we report to the Congress.

We don't put out these reports to make news. We put out these reports because the Congress wants to know. In terms of reporting on the facts of the matter and the situation of responsibility and leadership in the Middle East, we report to you every day, at great length sometimes, on where these things currently stand as of this moment.

QUESTION: So is there anything -- you're dealing with a current situation right now.

MR. BOUCHER: Absolutely.

QUESTION: So what I'm -- my question to you is, is there anything in these reports that you're reporting on a year ago that is going to change how you're dealing with things that are going on on the ground right now?

MR. BOUCHER: We report to the Congress. You guys decide if we've made news or not. I'm not pretending that we're --

QUESTION: I'm not talking about making news or anything like that.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, if you want to know what our current policy is, what the current situation is, and what our current evaluation is, you come and ask us questions and we answer them. So that's -- yes, that is more up to date than what's in these reports.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

No, France is not only Arabist, but it itself is an Arab colony in Europe.

It is a well known fact that the State Dept. is Arabist while the National Security people and the President are typically anti-terrorism and therefore pro-Israel.


Haha you are so funny. Give me one reason why France would be more/less Arab than any other country in Europe. France = France and France is not Arabia.

I wish you would just stop with your childish France=Arab posts. As a webmaster, you should really consider to read some information on this before you say such meaningless things. Especially with the name 'Newsguy' (how ironic, the most biased person on this forum calls himself newsguy). It would be good for the forum if you just stop with your biased facts. Maybe you would attract people from allover the world, and not just Yankees and some Europeans who stayeven though they are always laughed at or considered to be anti-semitic.

This is an advice. Take it into account!! Really!




-Israel = anti-terrorism. Does "state-terrorism" count as terrorism?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Haha you are so funny. Give me one reason why France would be more/less Arab than any other country in Europe.
Maybe because 15% of France's citizens are Arabs? Maybe because the percent is much higher in specific districts -- enough to shape France's foreign politics and turn France into a political arm of terrorist groups like Hizbullah and terrorist regimes like Syria?

As a webmaster, you should really consider to read some information on this before you say such meaningless things. Especially with the name 'Newsguy' (how ironic, the most biased person on this forum calls himself newsguy). It would be good for the forum if you just stop with your biased facts.
Thanks for the lecture about why I shouldn't post my opinions.

Yes, I am a moderator and yes, as I have stated several times in the past, I am pro-Israel and I am "anti" the various enemies of Israel, of the U.S. and of the Jewish people.

At the same time, I also support and encourage other people to post whatever opinions they hold, regardless of whether I agree with those opinions or not. This is the reason that we are one of the most widely read discussion forums dealing exclusively with issues that relate to Israel.

[takeo]

15% is still a small minority.
And there are more Jews in parliament and government than Arabs, so does that make France a zionist country? (ah ok, i forgot, those are self-hating jews)
Yes France is the political arm of the Hesbollah and anyone criticising President Assad will be decaptivated in public in front of the Mairie...
wouldn't you first visit France before continuing to make yourself extremely ridiculous?

So yes the State Department may be a little less influenced by the zionist Lobby and more by the real information and strategic interests of the US than the security council or the presidency (in the current case that doesn't surprise me), so of course that means it is Arabist in your language. :rolleyes:

[Skogan]

Originally posted by takeo

So yes the State Department may be a little less influenced by the zionist Lobby and more by the real information and strategic interests of the US than the security council or the presidency (in the current case that doesn't surprise me), so of course that means it is Arabist in your language. :rolleyes:

That's an interesting point. The State Department has career employee's and are less subject to lobbying then the NSC or White House. In theory, this would sugest that they are more objective in their analysis.

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Skogan


That's an interesting point. The State Department has career employee's and are less subject to lobbying then the NSC or White House. In theory, this would sugest that they are more objective in their analysis.

Skogan

Or it suggests that the State dept is long a hotbed of old money blueblood Princeton grads at least in the policy positions.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
That's an interesting point. The State Department has career employee's and are less subject to lobbying then the NSC or White House. In theory, this would sugest that they are more objective in their analysis.
Or they are waiting to be hired as "consultants" to Saudi Arabia upon retirement, in exchange for a distinguish career of civil service for the Saudis while on the U.S. Federal payroll.

[Mediocrates]

Since John Foster Dulles, the US state department has had a confrontational relationship with the White House over Mid East policy. The fought Truman over recognizing Israel, they fought Eisenhower over giving aid, Dean Rusk was openly anti Israel. Even Kissinger made a big deal out bragging that he was much harder on the Israelis than the Arab states.

It seems to be part of the stasis of American foreign policy that the State dept. is not pro Israel.

Read Dan Raviv's "Friends in Deed" - an interesting and easy to read summary of the events.

[Vic]

U.S. plan includes return to `67 borders

By Aluf Benn

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=173470&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The U.S. State Department's latest draft for a regional peace initiative includes the establishment of a Palestinian state along the June 4, 1967, lines, with some minor border corrections, and a three-year timetable for its implementation.

The initiative will include a demand for structural reform in the Palestinian Authority and a declaration that the right of return of refugees will not be implemented inside the State of Israel. The United States will reiterate the position of the current administration, which calls for a two-state solution and regards Israel as the Jewish state.

The American initiative is meant to produce a political horizon as the basis for convening the regional conference, which would be the first step toward renewing the political process.

[cerulean]

I do not keep the details of all these plans at the forefront of my mind, but isn't this very similar to the "Saudi Plan?"

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
I do not keep the details of all these plans at the forefront of my mind, but isn't this very similar to the "Saudi Plan?"
It is. Hmm... so who is running the State Dept.?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Vic

It is. Hmm... so who is running the State Dept.?

Same people as running the White House - oil companies.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Same people as running the White House - oil companies.
Congratulations, Mediocrates! Perfect Marxist analysis ;)

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic

Congratulations, Mediocrates! Perfect Marxist analysis ;)

Or common sense ....

Seriously, I take this as a sign that the Saudi prince did indeed get the best of G.W. Bush at the Texas ranch meeting a few weeks ago. Either that, or Bush's dad leaned heavily on Junior to go along with Senior's Saudi friends.

Even if the plan was a good idea, which I don't think it is, it seems highly unpalatable to take this idea from terrorist supporters like the Saudis who are paying $5,333 (amount varies slightly depending on exchange values) to each suicide bomber's family. (This is in addition to the $25K from Iraq for each bomber's family.)

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
Seriously, I take this as a sign that the Saudi prince did indeed get the best of G.W. Bush at the Texas ranch meeting a few weeks ago. Either that, or Bush's dad leaned heavily on Junior to go along with Senior's Saudi friends.
GWB is rather gullible, isn't he? Or is this some great political strategy unaccessible for simple minds like mine?

Even if the plan was a good idea, which I don't think it is, it seems highly unpalatable to take this idea from terrorist supporters like the Saudis who are paying $5,333 (amount varies slightly depending on exchange values) to each suicide bomber's family. (This is in addition to the $25K from Iraq for each bomber's family.)
A similar discussion is evolving in another thread http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=594&goto=newpost , but to put the question here again: what exactly makes the US (not the Bush family as private entrepreneurs) cowtow to what is essentially a banana republic of the Middle East variety? The US can find other places for its military bases in the region and other oil sources.

And if this policy is in fact driven by the business interests of the Bush family - well, I don't want to offend anyone's patriotic feelings in this forum, but isn't letting such private involvements define political action considered a criminal offense for a head of a state?

[AmericaNumber1]

State Department says things like they are. Israel cannot seem to admit to their agenda of completely disarming Palestinians and placing them in a state of bondage with Israel. One minute they want to deny their agenda, the next they're voting down a resolution for a Palestinian State. The facts are clear: Israel wants the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem...they need the Suicide Bombings to INCREASE to justify an onslaught then an eventual construction of more Israeli settlements. Eventually, the world will be numb enough to turn the blind eye Israel so seeks. It's too bad American's are forced to finance such brutality.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by AmericaNumber1
The facts are clear: Israel wants the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem...

The only fact that's clear is that you support the enemies of the U.S. and would love to protect the very same Arab mass murderers who butcher Israeli children and who attacked America on 9/11.

The U.S. is fortunate to be able to help finance Israel's war on Arab terrorism, and should actually do more to battle its Islamic enemies itself by taking a lesson from Israel.

Just like the Arabs and neo-Nazis blamed 9/11 on the U.S., so too you are blaming Israel for Arab terrorism.

Maybe your third-rate propaganda plays well in the Arab world, but not in the U.S., that's for sure.

[Vic]

Hardly Intelligent
How the CIA unintentionally aids terrorism in the Middle East.
by Reuel Marc Gerecht

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/314qygde.asp

I think this forum needs "sad" and "sigh" smilies...

[Vic]

Speculation that Powell may quit caps bad week for Bush cabinet
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 15/06/2002)
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/15/wpow15.xml&
Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, is becoming so frustrated at being undermined by the White House that he may stand down after the mid-term elections, according to some American diplomats.

The damaging speculation sweeping Gen Powell's Foggy Bottom headquarters has been dismissed as unfounded by senior State Department sources, but it caps a very bad week for President George W Bush's cabinet.
...

But the biggest problem has been the simmering internal dispute over Middle East policy, which burst into the open when Gen Powell contradicted Mr Bush and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, appeared dismissive of the secretary of state.

Gen Powell, who led US forces to victory in the Gulf war, is a towering figure in American politics. His domestic approval ratings top even those of Mr Bush.

The Foreign Office and continental diplomats view him as the "moderate" and pragmatic face of a unilateralist Bush administration. "It's fair to say that Powell is the one we can do business with," said one British official.
...

The tensions between Gen Powell and senior figures such as Mr Rumsfeld have been exacerbated by the White House contradicting the State Department on key foreign policy issues.

Officials at the Pentagon privately accuse Gen Powell of a tendency to "freelance" and consider himself the most important figure in the administration.

The trouble began on Monday when Mr Bush gave unequivocal backing to Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and appeared to rubbish Gen Powell's proposed ministerial conference on the Middle East.

"It totally undercut what we were trying to do and was very damaging," said a State Department source. "We have spent the rest of the week trying to reassure Arab nations that the president was misinterpreted." There was also considerable State Department anger directed towards Mr Fleischer.

On Wednesday, Mr Fleischer answered a question about whether Mr Bush supported Gen Powell's stance on a provisional Palestinian state by saying the president was "listening to a variety of people who have some thoughts to share".

He added: "The secretary [Mr Powell] from time to time will reflect on the advice that he gets, and do so publicly. Which is his prerogative, of course."

Mr Bush is expected to announce next week that he is in favour of establishing a timetable for an interim Palestinian state. But a titanic battle is going on within the administration, with Mr Rumsfeld's allies saying Mr Sharon should be given a free hand.

This appears to be Mr Bush's instinct but, as a president with limited foreign policy experience, he can tend to be pushed one way and then the other by competing advisers.

Mr Rumsfeld, who is described by his enemies within the administration as abrasive and arrogant, has annoyed the State Department with his "Rummygrams" - notes that question Gen Powell's policies or offer unsolicited advice.
...

[cerulean]

I think Powell has threatened to quit, or leaked rumors to this effect, numerous times already and similar stories have appeared repeatedly.

[Vic]

Something of the kind "I'll go unless you do this or that..."?

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
Something of the kind "I'll go unless you do this or that..."?

If one is to believe the press reports (always a dicey proposition), the Pentagon advisors and the White House advisors and the State Department advisors are all at odds as to the proper strategy for the US relationship with Israel and the Arab world. Powell is terribly frustrated by this and thus threatens to quit periodically.

My oversimplified view is that the president doesn't have a strong opinion on any of this, does not synthesize all the contradicting views he is given, and thus gets waylaid by whoever last talks to him. This would be a frustrating situation regardless of one's ideological bent.

[Vic]

A bit off-topic, but I like it, pretty design :)

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Corporate Connections

Charts:

President Bush's Cabinet
President Bush's Advisors

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp