Bush pledges $50 million in aid for Palestinians Thu May 26, 6:11 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush pledged $50 million in aid for the Palestinians on Thursday and gave an unusually tough message to Israel to halt settlement expansion and other steps that could block a final peace deal. ADVERTISEMENT Standing with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a White House Rose Garden news conference, Bush said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to Jerusalem and Ramallah to consult with Israeli and Palestinian leaders before Israel's planned August pullout from the Gaza Strip. Abbas, the first Palestinian president to visit Washington since peace talks collapsed in 2000, complained of Israeli settlement activity and said he was leaving with increased confidence of Bush's active role in restarting the talks. "Time is becoming our greatest enemy," Abbas said. "We should end this conflict before it is too late." Before resuming peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has demanded Abbas do more to halt militant violence, which has broken out occasionally despite a February cease-fire. Bush said the Palestinians must help the peace process by fighting corruption and reforming their security services, but did not repeat demands that they disarm and dismantle militant organizations. Bush's announcement of U.S. direct aid for Gaza Strip projects was a sign of confidence in Abbas, who has sought money to be channeled directly to the Palestinian Authority instead of through third parties. U.S. officials said the $50 million will go into a special account the Palestinian Finance Ministry can access with agreement from the United States for housing, roads, schools and health clinics. It will come from previously budgeted, but unspent, money. Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad called the commitment "an important sign of confidence in our ability to manage in a transparent and fully accountable manner." A senior Bush administration official said if a year from now "we can show that the money is ... accounted for and being used properly for construction projects," then the U.S. Congress might approve more. The United States gives Israel $2 billion a year. Washington has approved $200 million for the Palestinians this year, and Bush has asked for another $150 million for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. But that money is typically restricted because of congressional concerns about Palestinian Authority corruption and ties to terrorism. SETTLEMENTS AND THE WALL Bush insisted that Israel must address Palestinian concerns about Jewish settlements in West Bank and the path of a barrier Israel is building in the name of security but that Palestinians say is a land grab. "A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza," he said. The wall, he said "must be a security rather than political barrier and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities." Bush also repeated his demand that Israel stop West Bank settlement expansion. And he said "any changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to," referring to Israel's borders before the 1967 Mideast war. In a letter to Sharon a year ago, Bush had said it was unrealistic to expect that final status negotiations will bring about a full return to the armistice lines of 1949. Palestinians said that promise had prejudiced the outcome of negotiations. The senior Bush administration official insisted there was no retreat from Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Sharon. The official rebuffed Abbas' call for jumping to final status negotiations once Israel's withdrawal from Gaza is complete, saying Washington preferred to follow the steps outlined in the road map. "If you had final status talks and they broke down, you would be in a crisis," he said. Palestinian officials were delighted with Bush's remarks. "I think we have achieved what we wanted to achieve in this visit. We take President Bush's public declarations as commitments. We do not ask for more," Abbas said afterward. An Israeli diplomat said Bush's remarks were "an affirmation of the fundamentals of the 'road map,' which we've accepted, as well as the principle that the achievement of a Palestinian state is contingent upon the defeat of violence." (Additional reporting by Adam Entous) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20050526/pl_nm/mideast_abbas_dc -----------------------
Good job Bush, finally. I wonder if he is doing this because of China's newfound friendship with Palestine? Probably.
Well if you remember a couple of years ago, when Sharon took over the Palestinian enclave and essentially emprisoned Arafat etc in his nearly totally destroyed compound, Bush made some "strong" statments saying "he meant what he said" to Sharon about not continuing the reinvasion. A couple of weeks later, after Sharon completley ignored Bush, the President was meekly calling Sharon "a man of peace". It is hard to say if Bush is the weak sister here, or being dishonest or a little of both.. Either way Sharon will ignore Bush's statements.
If I am not mistaken, China has always been supportive of Palestine cause. It's China's policy towards Israel that has shifted over the years, since post-Mao's Chinese government realized that sticking to principles and being pragmatic in foreign policies need not be mutually exclusive.
I guess you guys want to go back to the Clinton days, when the terrorist Yasser Arafat was treated as a respected leader, and the result of the "peace process" was the Intifada.
That would be difficult since Arafat is dead. The problem was that Arafat was the democratically elected leader. He was a crook, and unable to really make reforms needed for peace. Now we have a new democratically elected leader who has already started making reforms and progress. Both the good and bad of the above paragraph is nothing Bush nor Clinton had any say about. They must work with what they were given. What is helpful is aiding, and getting in on the ground floor of a new state in the mideast for Palestinians. The more help we give the more influence we can have. At the same time calling Sharone a man of peace is not step in the right direction. Sharone has been belligerent, and Israel has shown little signs that it will make significant changes. The withdraw from the Gaza strip would seem a good step, but when it is matched with increasing settlements in the West Bank, then it shows little real desire on the part of the Israeli govt. to take the necessary steps. Pressure not praise should be put on Sharone until he begins to comply with the road map, and other agreements and resolutions that Israel is subject to.
its funny for China is helping the Palestinians too....they are trying to get in good with the arabs.....now bush tries to throw in his own little bone.....gotta love politics.
I think the Pres. should be commended on this but I think this is a little late. Much of the money previously pledged to the Palestinians never got there. While Arafat was crooked and had his failings he was also in the impossible position of trying to build a stable society while it was underfunded and undersiege. If GW Bush is serious about helping the Palestinians then it will be a great thing but pardon me if I'm a little skeptical for now.
I was just listening to a story this morning about how the administration is upset with Israel for selling military technology to China. It's an interesting dynamic between China, Israel and Palestine.
Yup, that's how things work. Arab countries have always played both sides against each other during the Cold War -- the other side being the USSR of course -- and now they seem poised to do the same with China and the U.S., only this time it seems like some Arab/Muslim countries are serious about strengthening economic/military ties with China and reducing/eliminating their dependence on the U.S. (economically, politically, or both). Some of them are doing the same thing with the EU, especially on the economic front. Israel, however, has been trying to befriend China as well, mainly by selling them U.S. weaponry (which was sold to the Israelis in the first place based on the promise not to resell these weapons in form of Israeli-produced replicas, which use American tech, to China and a few other countries that are considered foes of the U.S.).
Read your history books. Clinton came closer to Israel/Palestine peace than any President in US history. The infitada was the result of Arafat not being satisfied with getting 95% of what he was looking for, and getting greedy. If I remember correctly, I think Scott Boras used to be Arafat's agent!
But how close do you think they really were? I mean, yes they were close to signing something historic, but that doesn't mean the violence would have stopped. I think it would have been another broken promise.
Clinton could have done something different, he could have taken a hard line against Arafat instead of treating him as a credible negotiating partner. Remember when Bush ignored Arafat, and the media was angry at the fact that he wasn't "more inolved" in Palestinian issues? I think that helped lead to Arafat's marginalization. I am not totally sure what to think of Sharon. Withdrawing from Gaza is a big step, and he is barely surviving politically by doing so.
Actually, the intifada was the result of teachings like this.... http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null
That did nothing to hurt Arafat, but it did perhaps encourage Sharone to step up his militarization and operations in the occupied territory, knowing that Bush wouldn't step in to try and make peace. I have to disagree with Rocketman Tex. The deal that ARafat walked away from was the right move on his part. It has been reported as 95% over and over, and that is now accepted. However even the Israelis later said the percentage was actually in the 70's. Further more the land that was being ceded wasn't productive. It would have been impossible for the Palestinians to have a self sustaining state under that deal. It would have been a disaster. Peace in Israel is better served by a Palestinian state that can sustain itself. It is better for everyone involved.
But at the sametime Clinton could've taken a hard line on settlement expansion which occurred even under Barak.
