Bush Threatens Middle East Peace with a "peace conference" -- Condoleeza soft on Hamas, like Tony

What's the background to George Bush II's threat to Middle East peace in the form of a "peace conference" to help Abu Mazen, the terrorist in a suit?

George the Second has earned fame for his pretense to be fighting a "war on terror." But when the chips are down, George follows his family's traditions. He comes from a family of Israel's enemies. Dubya's father, George I, was the patron of Jim Baker whose damage to life in the Middle East has been monumental. In the 1980s, George I, while vice president, encouraged Arafat to keep on fighting Israel in Lebanon [1982]. George I and Jim encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, thus necessitating a huge American and allied military expedition to get the Iraqis out of there. In the interim between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the start of American bombing of Baghdad in January 1991, Baker found time to help Hafiz Assad complete his takeover of Lebanon [see link above]. In other words, the final US position was that it was wrong for Saddam Hussein to take over Kuwait, an action which threatened the favorite old friends in the Middle East of the American Petro-Diplomatic Complex, the Wahhabite Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, it was OK for Syria to take over Lebanon [see link].
So much for James Baker.

George II has been advertising himself as an enemy of terrorism, fighting a "war on terror." Yet, his secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice [her first name is taken from the Italian phrase Con Dolcezza = sweetly, although Riso Amaro = Bitter Rice, fits her better] has her sympathies for some terrorists. Despite the official US position allegedly rejecting Hamas, which included some unfriendly remarks about Hamas in Bush's speech announcing the "international peace conference," Condi sees Hamas differently. Condi thinks that Hamas has been a "resistance movement" all along and now has an opportunity to become "political," just as Tony Blair was trying to promote a "political" Hamas as far back as 2002. This is the old illusion or cynical ploy that perhaps extremist fanatics can be made reasonable by having to bear the responsibilities of state power [which Hamas now holds in Gaza]. This illusion was broadcast about Hitler after his constitutional rise to power in Germany in January 1933, when the state president Hindenburg, appointed Hitler chancellor [= prime minister]. But Rice's sympathetic remarks about Hamas are a sinister foreboding of what Bush's "peace conference" could turn out to be. Just bear in mind the sinister consequences of Jim Baker's Madrid "peace conference" in 1991. It is plain that such conferences give Judeophobic empires, like the UK, the opportunity to gang up on Israel with the "peace" slogan as a pretext for aiding Nazis, in this case Hamas, just as Britain aided Hitler to get ready for World War 2 by means of the 1938 Munich "peace conference." Bush is holding out a carrot to Hamas and that can only encourage other terrorists to think that their crimes will be forgiven by the United States if they only promise to be good boys after their major crimes have been committed. Of course, taking the side of either Abu Mazen or Hamas on territorial and other issues in dispute with Israel can only encourage all of Israel's enemies to attack Israel and its people --and to raise their demands on Israel. Meanwhile, pro-Nazi "leftist" intellectuals like Ian Buruma, no`am chomsky, Pascal Boniface, Tariq Ramadan and others play the game of the empires.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: more on James Baker & US policy toward Israel, peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, etc.