'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas
by Arnon Regular, Ha'aretz [Jerusalem, Israel] June 27, 2003
"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
—George W. Bush
Road Map in the Back Seat?
by Al Kamen, Washington Post
June 27, 2003
Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this:
"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
So who needs to find WMD or a link with al Qaeda when the orders come from The Highest Authority?
Two calls to the White House for clarification went unreturned, but colleague Glenn Kessler did some digging. The Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians' meeting to Kessler and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker.
The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this:
"God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."
Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.
But one thing seems consistent: The election season is going to be a huge distraction from the Road Map, something the White House has always insisted would not be the case.
Selected minutes acquired by Haaretz from one of
last week's cease-fire negotiations between
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and
faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
the Popular and Democratic Fronts, reveal some of
the factors at play behind the scenes in the
effort to achieve a hudna.
Abbas opened the session after
hearing scathing criticism from
faction leaders for his Aqaba
speech in which he defined
their activities as
"terrorism." He began with a
broad review of his two
meetings with Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon and the Aqaba
summit.
"After seven days we did not reach agreement in
Cairo on either the hudna or the united
leadership. These points were later discussed
in contacts in Gaza and in my view, the two
points are the ones that should be on the
table."
Abbas said: "The descriptions of what happened
at Sharm el Sheikh and in Aqaba are vague in
parts and in some parts are inventions, so this
is an opportunity to talk about what happened
since the PA accepted the road map on December
20," he said. "Despite our reservations we
decided not to make them an obstacle, believing
that the road map was a life saver for a tiger
whose head was caught in the neck of the
bottle."
Abbas said "we were told that [President George] Bush is committed to the establishment of a
viable Palestinian state beside the state of
Israel, so based on our saying that we are
ready to try that experiment, that is what was
determined."
He explained to the faction leaders that with
regard to the first phase of the road map,
there was an agreement with the Americans that
"the Palestinians would speak publicly about
their commitments according to the map and then
the Israelis would do the same thing." From
there, he moved on to describe what happened at
the summits. He said that Bush told the Arab
leaders that he is fully committed to a
solution based on his vision speech from June
24, 2002 and is ready to move forward "if there
is help on your part."
"The Arabs supported him and I said we are ready
to fulfill our commitments as they appear in
the map," said Abbas. He said the discussion of
the start of the implementation of the map
dealt with Gaza, where he said that Palestinian
Authority institutions "are 75 percent
destroyed, while in the West Bank they are 100
percent destroyed."
He emphasized that at that stage he made clear
to the participants at the Sharm summit that
"we need time and capabilities to stand on our
feet. And I explained that I had already spoken
with Ariel Sharon about reaching a hudna
between all the Palestinian factions."
According to Abbas, "Bush exploded with anger
and said `there can be no deals with terror
groups.' We told him that they are part of our
people and we cannot deal with them in any
other way. We cannot begin with repression,
under no circumstances, and I made clear to
Bush that Sharon already agreed with that."
He said that he presented Bush with the
deliberations about the hudna that he had with
Sharon in Jerusalem after he was appointed
prime minister. He explained to Bush that the
dialogue between the Palestinian factions that
began in Cairo and continued in Gaza were on
the verge of completion. He said that Bush said
"a case-fire is not the whole story" - Bush
meant that a hudna is only the start of the
process of disarming the groups.
Abbas outlined the political contacts during the
Aqaba summit and said he added the prisoner
issue at the three-way session with Bush and
Sharon. "I told them the prisons are the
election district for a campaign of calm in the
Palestinian territories." He said Bush then
turned to Sharon "with the following words,
`look what you can profit from this, that
holding onto the prisoners only creates
tension.'"
Abbas said: "We were asked what we need if
Israel withdraws and we said `that there not be
raids, chases, assassinations or house
demolitions, because that kind of activity will
destroy everything.'"
Abbas tried to placate the faction leaders by
telling them that Palestinian Security Minister
Mohammed Dahlan had raised the exact same
issues with John Wolf, the American monitor of
the road map. He tried to explain that in the
wake of the failed attempt on Abdel Aziz
Rantisi's life, the PA was now insisting on an
end to the assassinations.
He went on to explain his speech in Aqaba. "We
did not speak of our rights but only of our
commitments. Bush was impressed by that and
mentioned the prisoners and settlements in his
speech." On the matter of the right of return,
Abbas said "that right appears in all the
previous initiatives, and is not under
discussion now. Bush asked, if that's the case,
why mention the settlements now, and I told him
the settlements are happening now. The Israelis
use the excuse of natural growth and I told
them that according to U.S. statistics, 33
percent of settlements are empty. We said the
growth should happen westward, and not on our
territory."
Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak
with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said
nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except
the Americans.
According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush
said: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East. If you help me I will act, and if not,
the elections will come and I will have to
focus on them."
in·san·i·ty n. 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders
b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
Like the URL says, this website is about unknown news.
Our news comes only from mainstream, professional journalists or (rarely) other sources we trust entirely, with no nuttiness and no interest in the same news you see everywhere else.
What we believe
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions?
We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think.
A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
We assume our readers are well-informed before they click here, so we focus on news that's generally unknown or under-reported. We're generally disinterested in such non-news as reports on what politicians might do, may do, or should do, and we don't usually mention the murders, kidnappings, house fires, auto wrecks, celebrity crap, wacky fluff, and other nonsense that's pushed real news right out of the newscasts.
Disclaimer for dummies: Our front page is free from nudity, but we make no promise on profanity. If your surfing is monitored this site might not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
We always welcome comments from readers, and we're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives, so please don't be shy. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly, so consider yourself invited to speak your mind. Our email address and other info is on our contact page.
Please don't email us unless you're sending an original communication that you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. If you add us to your mailing list or chat group without asking us first, or if you send "Dear friend" newsletters, or "link exchange" form letters, or if you send a press release every time you add a post to your blog, you're a spammer and we'll soon block your emails. Also, as a matter of security, we don't open emails from strangers which include attachments or have any kind of programming imbedded, and we recommend a similar policy for others. If you're sending us an email, please send it in plain text only.
Our RSS feed of Unknown News headlines is updated whenever we update the site. Click the orange button for more information, or just get the feed at http://unknownnews.org/ RSSfeeds/dailyRSS.xml.
(Enormous and eternal thanksto Doug at mistersquirrel.net, for setting up our RSS feed.)
Our privacy policy has a page of its own, but the short and sweet version is: We're in favor of privacy. We make no effort to track or identify anything about visitors to our website. We never share, trade, or sell email addresses. We never send spam. We never send email, except in response to readers' queries. We never send (or open) attachments of any kind, and we delete un-opened any emails received with attachments.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. When we publish incoming emails, we edit out the sender's last name and email address — if we slip up (or if you want your full name and email address published) please let us know. Of course, if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish it with all the details and leave it on-line forever.
