Bush to Olmert: Why are you giving Syria the Golan for nothing?

"It's not for nothing," said Olmert. "It's in exchange for a change in the region's strategic alignment."

Bush shot back: "Why should you believe him?"

And Olmert was silent.

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

"Bush to Olmert: Why are you giving Syria the Golan for nothing?," by Aluf Benn for Haaretz, December 2 (thanks to Pamela):

WASHINGTON - U.S. President George Bush believes that Israel is offering Syria the Golan Heights without getting anything in exchange, according to sources briefed on his White House meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week.

After Olmert updated Bush on Israel's indirect talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad, the U.S. president demanded, "Why do you want to give Assad the Golan for nothing?" the sources said.

"It's not for nothing," Olmert insisted. "It's in exchange for a change in the region's strategic alignment."

Bush persisted: "Why should you believe him?" And to that, Olmert did not reply....

| 13 Comments
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

13 Comments

At least Bush comes across as rational.

Good for Bush in this case.

It doesn't follow though why Olmert should be encouraged by the Bush administration to trust Abbas (Condi's "man of peace") and Fatah when they continue to act like terrorists, talk like anti-Semites and make heroes out of jihadists.

Trading the Golan Heights won't bring peace. But giving up the West Bank is perhaps equally dangerous--maybe even more dangerous--to Israel's security.

Syria can whine all it wants about needing the Golan returned for their "Arab honor," but the only guarantee of peace is that Syria feels it has more to lose than gain by attacking Israel.

The day the Syrians, Egyptians, "Palestinians" or any other Arabs sense Israel could be defeated--peace treaty or not; Golan and West Bank in Arab hands or not--they will attack Israel, and heaven forbid that they win, they will engage in an orgy of slaughter, rape, celebration and thievery without the slightest pang of guilt or shame. Peace would not break out, though, as the celebrations would be interrupted as the Arabs then fight each other over the spoils. Then, with their pride restored, the Muslims--momentum on their side--will attack infidels everywhere else. A strong Israel is essential for Israel's survival, but it is also in the best interest of America and other infidel nations around the world.

Is this the same Bush who's been in office for the last eight years? He should have been using that language from the start...

It doesn't follow though why Olmert should be encouraged by the Bush administration to trust Abbas (Condi's "man of peace")
It does when you realize Condi has been coopted by the Department of State, who have been undermining Bush for years. Both Bush and Condi place too much trust in their judgment.

Both Bush and Rice are guilty of trutsing the State dept. way too much in the area of the Israeli Islamofacist battle going on. Rice has taken advice from the SD way too seriously and forced Israel into untendable positions and made them give away more Israeli security, and for what? So the islamofacists can continue to shoot missles from CLOSER range than ever before. Israel's hands are tied from striking back as they should to maintain a non existent peace with these low life scum that want every Jew dead and all of Israel wiped off the map. Bush has not been much better but in this instance he did a fine thing by showing the idiot Olmert how stupid he is being with this move with the Golan.

Israel has the means to vaporize and beat the neighboring arab rogue states but they are trapped by international hatred and opinion which can be seen by the actions of the UN and the global community. Israel needs to return to it's previous policy of striking first and worrying about world opinion later. The Bush administration has not helped in this area by calling for Israeli restraint and patience. Poppycock to that, I say! The old Israeli leaders understood their enemies much better than today's milk toast whimps that lead Israel.
Obama gives little hope to Israel and this nasty problem.

Honestly, is Olmert a part of the Indian National Congress Party?

This whole article seems like it comes out of the Twilight Zone; instead of Olmert being a corrupt Congress Leader in India giving away his country's bargaining power for nothing in return, he is now a Jewish leader in Israel.

Reminds me of the time Sonia Gandhi wanted to give the Siachen Glacier to Pakistan, but the Indian military refused to honour the request.


-Ayo Gorkhali

Where has this Bush been all this time? I will miss him for his unrelenting support of Israel. He really is the only President to have ever come out so unequivocally in its favor. Unfortunately, Condi undermines him at every opportunity. How anyone could even talk to Abbas is beyond me. She's read Hamas' charter. She's a Nazi. I'm not one to throw that word around all the time, as in 'they jacked up the price on Rice Krispies, those Nazis!,' but she really is one, which never ceases to amaze me, given how racist the portrayals of her are in the Arab media. Syria can have the Golan if they get the Sinai back from Egypt. Part of me wishes Olmert would meet the same fate as Rabin. It's horrible, but it's true.

PatriotUSA, are you single?

Jdamn, in case you missed my previous post, welcome back to good old USA. A friend posted your earth-shaking story on JW and by now many have read it. The God that Jews and Christians worship took good care of you in Mumbai.

'WHERE HAS BUSH BEEN ALL THIS TIME?"

Maybe someone sent him a copy of "Stealth Jihad"!!!!

I think the long term threat to Israel is demographics. Just like everywhere else.

Exactly what are they doing to make sure that muslims don't become a majority in Israel itself?

They are doing nothing. But there are many ways they can make Israel less attractive to Muslim Arabs, instead of falling all over themselves making life just as easy, with access to free, and advanced, Israeli medical care and schools, but without asking anything in return. Loyalty would be the minimum to be demanded. All those, including Arab members of Parliament, who show repeated and dangerous disloyalty to the state, should be stripped of all their many economic benefits, and then of other rights that the state gives them. Nor is there any reason why the Arabs should not be asked to serve, if not in the army (where there is a security problem), in alternative national service, of a kind that can be closely monitored. Failure to do so should be cause, again, for stripping people of the benfits of living in such an advanced society. The most intelligent and morally aware Arabs no doubt realize how lucky they are to live in Israel rather than in a Muslim-run country, and that is why some must be plumping for a "one-state solution" so that Israelis will provide good government, and economic benefits for the Arab Muslims who will, nonetheless, like the scorpion in the fable of the frog and the scorpion, continue to work for the transformation, and hence, destruction, of Israel from within, heedless of what that would mean for them.

Bush acting like a real republican.

I have no idea which post you're referring to, Angryamerican, but thank you.