The United States under President George W. Bush was prepared to take in 100,000 Palestinian refugees as part of a Middle East peace deal, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday.
“The United States was ready to take in 100,000 refugees as citizens of the United States,” Olmert said, in what may be his most revealing comments to date about negotiations with the U.S. and the Palestinians when he was prime minister.
Olmert, who led Israel from 2006 to 2009, spoke weeks after direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians resumed in Washington…
Olmert said Sunday that he is hopeful about the new round of talks.
“We have a peace proposal, and I believe that it may bring about a peace accord between us and the Palestinians in a short time,” he said.
“The mere fact that the government of Israel agreed to take direct talks even when it causes pain to the government this means that it is courageous,” he said. “Maybe it’s the beginning of an understanding that there is no other choice.”
Uh – the part about opening our hearts and hearth to 100,000 Palestinian refugees? How many members of Congress can you think of who would vote for that?
Go ahead. Use the fingers on both hands.
Just how mentally unstable and disconnected from reality was Dubya Bush?
This was part of his peace process? Something that had ZERO probability of being approved.
OH, I get it, he was a genius… he intentionally proposed something that could not possibly be fulfilled because he intentionally wanted any peace process to fail. After all, he was a fundamentalist wanting to provoke Armageddon, which could only start with a new war in Israel.
Was there ANYTHING in the Bush administration that we can look back at and say “Yes, that was a really good idea.”
Why is it an impossibility? The US takes in 100,000 immigrants every year from Arab countries.
#1 Awake – Was there ANYTHING in the Bush administration that we can look back at and say “Yes, that was a really good idea.”
Well, let’s see, how about when he “decided” not to run for a 3rd term?
@2
Why? Dude, have you seen the nutbag wingnutty issues around the “ground zero mosque” (which isn’t a mosque or at ground zero)? We can’t even build a cooking school, basketball court and interfaith (ie. Christian & Jews too) center that is started by Muslims. And we can’t have trials for any of the sheepherders turned ‘terrorists’ in New York because it’s too dangerous like they’re some superpowers. Under this frightened silly group of folks we would NEVER be able to import 100,000 Muslims (all from a ‘radical’ part of the middle east even). Are you KIDDING?
Of course we could do it, but we’re a frightened irrational nation at this point and not likely to happen.
#2 MikeN
And trading arms for hostages with Iran was a great idea too. Did you learn nothing from the Cuban Mariel experience?
Well that should get the last of the Christian Palestinians out. Sounds good to me!
What’s wrong with that? If bringing 100K Palestinians to the States would have settled the problem (a big IF) then why not? We take in about half a million people every year, anyway.
Eideard, Congress voting for or against the policy? I’m pretty sure it could be done by Executive Order. Immigration numbers are policy not law.
You forget our Presidents now rule by decree-congress “opinion” means little.
Who’d vote for it?
How about every Democrat in Congress?
Do you think a former Palestinian refugee (who has become a U.S. citizen) would ever vote Republican?
Now turn the question around: Would the U.S. accept 1 million Israeli Jews?
Didn’t Dubya also say that the Iraq war would be paid for with profits from oil over there?
Why does our current president just want to “move ahead,” and not prosecute this bass turd? He lied us into a war, broke the economy, spent like a drunken sailor, and doesn’t have to account for his illegal actions in a court of law. WHEN WILL JUSTICE BE SERVED?!?!?!?!?!
Why is it an impossibility? The US takes in 100,000 immigrants every year from Arab countries.
Nope, We expect to take in a total of 2500 from Central Asia and Europe and 37,000 from South Asia and the “Near East”. I assume that includes Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, and all the other trouble spots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States#Refugee_quotas
Getting Palestinians out of their land is not a “peace deal,” it’s letting Israel have its way. The Palestinians would never accept it, and for good reason.
I don’t mean to be pro Palestinians and against Israel, the exact same argument would work the other way around. Kicking any of those two people from the land they claim as theirs is just an aggression, not a “peace deal.”
It would only take 2 fingers to count up the number of Muslim Palestinians that would be allowed in to the USA: the thumb and the index finger, with the tip of each touching to form a big fat ZERO
Eideard is true to the standard Dvorak template by presenting one side of the issue. He conveniently avoids pointing out that the entire refugee deal hung on a very important and critical “IF”.
The agreement would only go through “IF” there was a Middle East Peace Deal.
That is a mighty big “IF”.
Rabble Rouser–Counting up the errors of the Bush Criminal Conspiracy is an admirable if not near impossible goal but it is not helped by adding in incorrect charges. Bush did not “spend like a drunken sailor,” that really is an unnecessary slur against our bell bottomed boys. No, the profligate/wasteful/pandering/Democrat Like Spending was done “like a coked up National Guard Pilot.”
We show only respect when we recognize the different missions of the various services.
Navy: to protect and control the seas.
Air Force: to protect and control the skies.
Nat Guard: to provide a safe diversion from active service to little rich boys.
Imagine having the privilege of flying a jet airplane for fee and choosing to go awol instead?
Worst Presnident–ever. I love all the talk now about “how dignified” BushtheRetard has been in retiredment. Ha. Ha. Tell me another one.
Ah Luc apparently knows the minds of millions of people and they all agree!
“It’s not that liberals aren’t smart, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so” -Ronald Reagan
liberal = wanting change
Conservative = wanting no change or a return to the past.
jman = In love with reagan. Any questions?
Great way to help Israel steal more land from the people they’re oppressing.
Somehow I don’t think they were planning on shipping over 100,000 all at once. I think the idea is that the Palestinians would have been given preference for immigration and encouraged to do so.
It’s a good idea, IMO. The Palestinians have been denied nationhood and Israel is never going to go away. Giving them the opportunity to settle in the US seems like a very friendly gesture on our part.
My great grandfather and his family came over from Lebanon and integrated just fine. I’m very grateful that he had that opportunity. I wouldn’t mind giving that same opportunity to more people who desperately need it.
Both the Arab League and the Palestinian leadership are on record, many times, as saying that they oppose immigration, because it might bring peace.
Yes, in so many words.
Eaglepep, #13. I can name one… Osama bin Laden. They would more than likely rather him hide out in the US than in Afghanistan. After all, on 9/12 they let the rest of the family fly out of the country, while the rest of the country couldn’t fly anywhere.
http://salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/11/unger_1/index.html
and
http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp
Well that would get rid of the “Mormon” problem with a few boat loads of refugees. Ok, quite a few but we’ve got room for all of them.
Let’s settle them in Utah.
The climate is comparable, hot as hell.
Instead of the Mediterranean, the would have the Great Salt Lake, same difference.
Lets resettle ’em. Why not. 🙂
Rabblerouser, when will justice be served? When they broadcast Bush’s incarceration and his forced recitation of all of the Iraquis who have died.
The list is about twenty times longer than the list or fallen on 9.11 and since on HIS orders.
I ain’t holding my breath.
bobbo,
there’s no reason for “change”
the country was founded on principals that made it the greatest in the world in less than 200 years. Those original rules and laws and size of govt were all we needed to become the greatest. Unfortunately those who’ve come after think they can “change” things to make it better(stupid hoomans) and they inevitably make it worse as witnessed by our current predicament.
So in that sense, yes, very proud to be conservative and not wanting to change
I suppose we should go back to only white landowners having the vote, hmm jman?
Why would you need to use both hands?
jman==no need to restate the obvious, just another opportunity “lost” for you to actually consider your “values.”
Yes, whatever you think the base laws of this country should be they are much better fitted to an agrarian society surrounded by unexplored lands. What in the world does that desired state of affairs have to do with the USA of today???===Absolutely Nothing.
And so you do indeed meet the definition of a conservative==brainlessly thinking the solutions needed for today and tomorrow can be found in the past.
Very stupid human.
King Alfred, I didn’t say refugees, I said immigrants.
Awake, you speak of the Mariel boatlift. Well there are that many coming in every year from Arab countries. One million since 9/11.
Oops. I don’t think Iran counts as an Arab country, but they get more immigrants every year than Israel. That’s not the choice I would make.