... news... opinion... bush report... gorewatch... comedy... site map... us...

...The Israel Dialogues Ha'aretz and the Jordan Times provide up-to-date news. The Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority offer their views on events in Israel and the occupied territories. The UN news service Middle East section provides news and posts UN Security Council resolutions. The US State Department posts information on its efforts to promote peace in the region—click here and here. Documents relating to the peace process are published by the Israeli government, including the Tenet plan, the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. The State Department posts the Mitchell report. Note: For letters representing the views of their individual writers on both sides of the issues in the Middle East, see The Israel Monologues. Our comments on the following letters constitute Bush Watch's editorial position on the subject, and these letters may have been edited for privacy, civility, clarity, brevity, or readability. Presenting both sides has merit in the case of a franchise dispute however, Israel had attacked Egypt without warning (1967); has been an Agressor-Occupant of Palestine; has engaged in extra-judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, torture and deportations and has violateed international law and U.N. Sanctions. Presenting both sides is, for Israel, not unlike trying to convince people that Charles Manson was really a good guy just having a bad day. Syd Harris, Wisconsin This was a very useful and necessary site until recently. Nobody was (or still is) as outraged about Florida as me, or about the pilfering of the national treasury by this low rent Radio Shack salesman who claims he was elected. But your new focus on Israel and the Palestinians (where reasonable minds differ, and nobody has the moral highground), and the lame attempt to seem even handed on your part by putting in a pro-Israeli position article now and then ( obviously for show) seems to buy into the lockstep anti-US/anti-globalization BS that the right uses to show how kooky the left is. You want to preach only to the choir, go ahead, but your strength in the past has been keeping your eye on the congregation....Too bad- with all the major media outlets being owned or controlled by corporate interests, this was a place to go for legitimate news. DyingLikeFlies @@@@@ Thanks, Syd and Dying, for your letters, which came in at around the same time. Together, they reinforce our call for a lasting peace accord based upon the views of both sides. Syd, I don't think the double negative simile helps to clarify your point. Dying, "now and then (obviously for show)" is not facutally correct nor is it a fair analysis of our intentions. Let's all keep our wits about us in the days to come as we move into the political spin phase in Washington. best wishes, Jerry Politex Please don't let Bush Watch become a forum for unbalanced Palestinian sentiments. I realize that many media outlets are pro-Israel, but many of my favorite liberal sources have come to equate being pro-Palestinian with being fair. Dave Hardison Orlando, FL @@@@@ Thanks for the warning, Dave. By presenting both sides of the story, Bush Watch hopes to avoid being unbalanced, because lasting peace and stability can only come through the cooperation and understanding of both sides. best wishes, Jerry Politex Politex, Your links to the articles, your presentation of the Israeli monologues and dialogues, is the closest thing to a fair and balanced approach to this issue that is out there. The fact that you are attacked by both sides validates that fact. Johns Huntsville AL Dear Mr. Politex, How dare you have the audacity to so brazenly favor Israel/Palestinian! I have noted with amazement how polarizing this ME sh!t is. I have long held that no side in this conflict is without blood on their hands. It refreshing to see a neutral media outlet just giving us the stories. Thanks. Michael W. Ryan @@@@@ Thank you, Michael, we're trying to present both sides of the ME story. Of course, there are many more stories than we can post on a daily basis, but we try to select some of the best and most representative. Frankly, we hate to be talking about being "fair and balanced," but the letters coming in from both sides of the issue have convinced us that we needed to articulate what we thought of as obvious. As you know, given FOX and Bush, himself, when folks start to tell you how honest they are, it's usually time to hide the silverware. best, Jerry Politex Hello Mr Politex: I visit your site a few times a month when my blood presure gets too low. However, I must concur with many of the letters you've received lately criticizing your "even handed" treatment of the Middle East crisis. I think the average American is way ahead of the average pundit, press or pol, on this issue. Israel is behaving like an outlaw regime....Evenhandedness in light of such circumstances is really just denial of the truth. I fear that the USA will have hell to pay because of it. Kindly, Bruce Frigeri @@@@@ Mr. Frigeri, other than yours, I haven't received any letters criticizing my desire to present both sides of the ME story, just letters suggesting I'm being biased, one way or the other. As you know, my position, previously stated, is "we're just trying to represent both sides of the issue because, sooner of later, both sides of the issue will have to be represented in a lasting peace agreement, and we're just fooling ourselves if we ignore what's being said by the other side, whatever side we're on." This position, by the way, is represented in the Washington Post today in former sec. of defense William Cohen's op-ed piece, and appears to be the editorial policy of many of my news and opinion sources. To call my desire to present both sides of the story "a denial of the truth" is to deny the truth of your own position, as well as the position you oppose. Are you willing to go that far to make your point? thanks and best wishes, Jerry Politex Dear Mr. Politex: Here's a novel ideal. How about publishing stories from the Palestinian point of view [you know, objectivity, etc]? Your's would be the only news source to do so.... Best regards, GaryS @@@@@ You mean like our link today to the Washington Post's Why Israel Must Stop The Terror by Bandar bin Saltan or our link yesterday to the New York Times' Why Suicide Terrorism Takes Root by Shibley Telhami? We believe we're providing stories and opinions from both sides because both sides need to be understood for a meaningful and lasting peace. thanks and best wishes, Jerry Politex Dear Politex, Why is Bushwatch so hard on Israel? I'd agree that the settlements have to be dismantled, but Israel was willing to agree to that at the last Camp David meeting. I don't think it's fair to equate suicide bombings of civilians with military attempts to capture combatants. Also, I think it's clear that Arafat himself supports the suicide bombers. The TIME magazine article you cited on April 4 was much more even-handed than your squibb suggested. At this point, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Israelis to believe that the Palestinians don't want Israel to exist under any circumstances, under any borders. Sometimes even Republicans are right! [no pun intended] I think the Middle East situation is confusing to many liberals because the Republicans lie and distort on so many issues [Artic Drilling, the environment, Social Security, taxes, Daschle Democrats, the Supreme's Selection of Bush II ...] Therefore, if the Rs support Israel, then the Palestinians must be right. Please consider additional sources on Israel. You're doing absolutely great on everything else. Diane Anderson Chicago, Illinois @@@@@ Diane, like some other letter writers to Bush Watch, both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, I have difficulty with selective criticism of what we link to. Yesterday we linked to pieces by conservatives Will and Kelly, and my ear-drums are still ringing from the criticism, although those folks didn't have a thing to say about Chuckman's other side of the coin story. Your criticism is pretty much the same, but vice-versa. In other words, we're only hard on Israel if you ignore the pro-Israel stories and only call our attention to the con-Israel stories. And vice-versa. We're just trying to represent both sides of the issue because, sooner of later, both sides of the issue will have to be represented in a lasting peace agreement, and we're just fooling ourselves if we ignore what's being said by the other side, whatever side we're on. Re the suicide bombing story by Telhami, which I assume you're referring to, It might be better to write to the New York Times about it, since that was where it was published. We just linked to it, and our headline was a direct quote from the story, which was why we put quotes around it. In other words, we didn't say it nor did we take the piece from what is considered to be an anti-Israeli source. As for the link to the story in TIME, we took pains to indicate that the quote that we used for the headline is from a description of the article by SLATE, another source that is not ordinarly considered to be anti-Israeli. Again, the quote is not our squibb, it's SLATE's take on the TIME story, which is why we indicated same, because that's where we found the link. Finally, your observation that conservatives appear to be pro-Israeli seems to be true, while it also seems to be true that many liberals are pro-Palestinian. (Of course, many Jews are liberal, too, and most voting Jews voted for Gore.) I can't agree, however, that the liberals who are pro-Palestinian have simply become confused because they don't want to be on the same side as the conservatives. You'll have to come up with a better explanation than that if you have any respect for liberal opinion. thanks and best wishes, jerry politex Wonderful! The Mideast is burning; the rest of the world condemns the Israeli offensive, and the EU declares America's peace plan a failure and plans to step in. Israeli tanks are CRUSHING AMBULANCES and the IDF is tying up and blindfolding doctors and nurses and ambulance drivers. Meanwhile, you're posting articles on the war by George Will and Michael Kelly. Keep up the good work! I always turn to Bushwatch to get the latest from Kelly and Will. Incredulously, Mary R. Seattle @@@@@ Mary, Bush Watch doesn't want to be preaching to the choir on any issue, particularly not on the ME issue. Why aren't you complaining about the stories we posted today that I'm sure you are in agreement with, such as Chuckman's "Of War, Israel, And Islam" (04.03.02 www.bushwatch.com)? Are you only willing to read the stories we post that represent your point of view, but want us to stop posting stories that you disagree with? Believe it or not, we're going to have to get a good sense of what both sides say and what they need in order for any peace plan to work. As for the George Will piece, try reading the headline again..."Pugnacious Pundit Says Keep Arafat In Room Without Electricity Or Cell Phone. [Then Have Bush Castigate Him For Not Controlling The Terrorists.]" (04.03.02 www.bushwatch.com). Who's the "pugnacious pundit"? George Will, of course. Why is the second sentence in brackets? Because that's our editorial comment. As for the Kelly piece, don't you think Kelly is as pro-Israeli as Chuckman is pro-Palestinian? That's why they were placed together in the same section. thanks and best wishes, Jerry Politex for the industrial strength version... Bush Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex.

sign up for 20-50 daily bush news headlines