US President Bush Attends Saban Forum 2008

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 5, 2008

Video

Audio
THE PRESIDENT: John, thank you very much. I thought for a minute you were going to say I was your favorite rabbi, but -- (laughter.)

I appreciate you giving me a chance to come. I, too, want to thank Mr. Saban for his vision and for sponsoring this forum. I am honored to be with you. Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. Justice Breyer, I am pleased to see you yet again. I thank Ambassador Indyk. Minister Mofaz, it's good to see you, sir, and I appreciate you being here for this Forum

I want to thank the members of Congress who have joined us, members of the diplomatic corps, and of course, the distinguished guests.

The Saban Forum is one of the world's premier venues for discussion on the Middle East. I thank you for the debate you provoke, and the differences you have made. And I'm honored to be with you.

Over the past eight years, I have had the privilege to see the Middle East up close. I have stood on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and I've hiked the cliffs of Masada. I've enjoyed dinner in the desert of Abu Dhabi, and prayed at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. I have looked into the eyes of courageous elected leaders from Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. I have been convinced that no region is more fundamental to the security of America or the peace in the world than the Middle East.

This evening, I'll share some thoughts on our policies in the region these past eight years, and our vision for the future -- a Middle East where our friends are strengthened and the extremists are discredited, where economies are open and prosperity is widespread, and where all people enjoy the life of liberty that is the universal gift of an Almighty God.

From our earliest days as a nation, the Middle East has played a central role in American foreign policy. One of America's first military engagements as an independent nation was with the Barbary pirates. One of our first consulates was in Tangiers. Some of the most fateful choices made by American Presidents have involved the Middle East -- including President Truman's decision to recognize Israel 60 years ago this past May.

In the decades that followed that brave choice, American policy in the Middle East was shaped by the realities of the Cold War. Together with strong allies in the Middle East, we faced down and defeated the threat of communism to the region. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the primary threat to America and the region became violent religious extremism. Through painful experience, it became clear that the old approach of promoting stability is unsuited to this new danger -- and that the pursuit of security at the expense of liberty would leave us with neither one. Across the Middle East, many who sought a voice in the future of their countries found the only places open to dissent were radical mosques. Many turned to terror as a source of empowerment. And as a new century dawned, the violent currents swirling beneath the Middle East began to surface.

In the Holy Land, the dashed expectations resulting from the collapse of the Camp David peace talks had given way to the second intifada. Palestinian suicide bombers struck with horrific frequency and lethality. They murdered innocent Israelis at a pizza parlor, or aboard buses, or in the middle of a Passover Seder. Israeli Defense Forces responded with large-scale operations. And in 2001, more than 500 Israelis and Palestinians were killed.

Politically, the Palestinian Authority was led by a terrorist who stole from his people and walked away from peace. In Israel, Ariel Sharon was elected to fight terror and pursue a "Greater Israel" policy that allowed for no territorial concessions. Neither side could envision a return to negotiations or the realistic possibility of a two-state solution.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein had begun his third decade as the dictator of Iraq -- a reign that included invading two neighbors, developing and using weapons of mass destruction, attempting to exterminate Marsh Arabs and many Kurds, paying the families of suicide bombers, systematically violating U.N. resolutions, and firing routinely at British and U.S. aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone.

Syria continued its occupation of Lebanon, with some 30,000 troops on Lebanese soil. Libya sponsored terror and pursued weapons of mass destruction. And in Iran, the prospect of reform was fading, the regime's sponsorship of terror continued, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons was largely unchecked.

Throughout the region, suffering and stagnation were rampant. The Arab Human Development Report revealed a bleak picture of high unemployment, poor education, high mortality rates for mothers, and almost no investment in technology. Above all, the Middle East suffered a deep deficit in freedom. Most people had no choice and no voice in choosing their leaders. Women enjoyed few rights. And there was little conversation about democratic change.

Against this backdrop, the terrorist movement was growing in strength and in ambition. Three decades, violent radicals had landed painful blows against America -- the Iranian hostage crisis, the attacks on our embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on Khobar Towers, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the strike on the USS Cole.

And then came September the 11th, 2001, when 19 men from the Middle East carried out the worst attack on the United States since the strike on Pearl Harbor 67 years ago this weekend. In the space of a single morning, 9/11 etched a sharp dividing line in our history. We realized that we're in a struggle with fanatics pledged to our destruction. We saw that conditions of repression and despair on the other side of the world could bring suffering and death to our own streets.

With these new realities in mind, America reshaped our approach to the Middle East. We made clear that we will defend our friends, our interests, and our people against any hostile attempt to dominate the Middle East -- whether by terror, blackmail, or the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We have carried out this new strategy by following three overriding principles.

First, we took the offense against the terrorists overseas. We are waging a relentless campaign to break up extremist networks and deny them safe havens. As part of that offensive, we pledged to strengthen our partnership with every nation that joins in the fight against terror. We deepened our security cooperation with allies like Jordan and Egypt, and with our friends in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, long a breeding ground for radicalism, has become a determined partner in the fight against terror -- killing or capturing hundreds of al Qaeda operatives in the Kingdom. We dramatically expanded counterterrorism ties with partners in North Africa. And we left no doubt that America would stand by our closest ally in the Middle East -- the state of Israel. (Applause.)

Second, we made clear that hostile regimes must end their support for terror and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, or face the concerted opposition of the world.

This was the approach we took in Iraq. It is true, as I've said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks. But the decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in isolation from 9/11. In a world where terrorists armed with box cutters had just killed nearly 3,000 of our people, America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror, and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction.

It was clear to me, it was clear to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after 9/11, that was a risk we could not afford to take. So we went back to the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed Resolution 1441 calling on Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. With this resolution, we offered Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with the demands of the world. And when he refused to resolve the issue peacefully, we acted with a coalition of nations to protect our people and liberated 25 million Iraqis.

When Saddam regimes -- regimes fell -- when Saddam's regime fell, we refused to take the easy option and install a friendly strongman in his place. Even though it required enormous sacrifice, we stood by the Iraqi people as they elected their own leaders and built a young democracy. When the violence reached its most dire point, pressure to withdraw reached its height. Yet failure in Iraq would have unleashed chaos, widened the violence, and allowed the terrorists to gain a new safe haven -- a fundamental contradiction to our vision for the Middle East.

So we adopted a new strategy, and deployed more troops to secure the Iraqi people. When the surge met its objective, we began to bring our troops home under the policy of return on success. Yesterday, building on the gains made by the surge, the democratic government of Iraq approved two agreements with the United States that formalize our diplomatic, economic, and security ties and set a framework for the drawdown of American forces as the fight in Iraq nears its successful end.

After 9/11, we also confronted Libya over its weapons of mass destruction. The leader of Libya made a wise choice. In 2003, Colonel Ghadafi announced that he would abandon his weapons of mass destruction program. He concluded that the interests of his people would be best served by improving relations with America, and Libya turned over its nuclear centrifuges and other deadly equipment to the United States.

The defeat of Saddam also appears to have changed the calculation of Iran. According to our intelligence community, the regime in Tehran had started a nuclear weapons program in the late-1980s, and they halted a key part of that program in 2003. America recognized that the most effective way to pursue -- persuade Iran to remove its nuclear weapons -- renounce its nuclear weapons ambitions was to have partners at our side, so we supported an international effort led by our allies in Europe. This diplomacy yielded an encouraging result, when Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment.

Sadly, after the election of President Ahmadinejad, Iran reversed course and announced it would begin enriching again. Since then, we've imposed tough sanctions through United Nations resolutions. We and our partners have offered Iran diplomatic and economic incentives to suspend enrichment. We have promised to support a peaceful civilian nuclear program. While Iran has not accepted these offers, we have made our bottom line clear: For the safety of our people and the peace of the world, America will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

Third, America identified the lack of freedom in the Middle East as a principal cause of the threats coming from the region. We concluded that if the region continued on the path it was headed -- if another generation grew up with no hope for the future, and no outlet to express its views -- the Middle East would continue to simmer in resentment and export violence.

To stop this from happening, we resolved to help the region steer itself toward a better course of freedom and dignity and hope. We're engaged in a battle with the extremists that is broader than a military conflict, and broader than a law enforcement operation. We are engaged in an ideological struggle. And to advance our security interests and moral interests, America is working to advance freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and terror.

As part of this effort, we're pressing nations across the region -- including our friends -- to trust their people with greater freedom of speech, and worship, and assembly. We're giving strong support to young democracies. We're standing with reformers, and dissidents, and human rights activists across the region. Through new efforts like the Middle East Peace Partnership Initiative and the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, we're supporting the rise of vibrant civil societies.

We're also advancing a broader vision that includes economic prosperity, quality health care and education, and women's rights. We've negotiated new free trade agreements in the region, supported Saudi Arabia's accession to the World Trade Organization, and proposed a new Middle East Free Trade Area. We have signed Millennium Challenge agreements with Jordan and Morocco to grant American assistance in return for anti-corruption measures, free market policies, and investments in health and education. We're training Middle Eastern schoolteachers, translating children school books into Arabic, and helping young people get visas to study here in the United States.

We're encouraging Middle Eastern women to get involved in politics, and to start their own businesses, and take charge of their health through wise practices like breast cancer screening. Efforts like these extend hope to the corners of despair, and in this work we have had a lot of help, but no finer ambassador of goodwill than my wife, Laura Bush. (Applause.)

Finally, to advance all the principles that I've outlined -- supporting our friends, and pressuring our adversaries, and extending freedom -- America has launched a sustained initiative to help bring peace to the Holy Land. At the heart of this effort is the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. I was the first American President to call for a Palestinian state, and support -- and build support for the two-state solution has been a top priority of my administration.

To earn the trust of Israeli leaders, we made it clear that no Palestinian state would be born of terror, we backed Prime Minister Sharon's courageous withdrawal from Gaza, and we supported his decision to build a security fence, not as a political border but to protect the people from terror.

To help the Palestinian people achieve the state they deserve, we insisted on Palestinian leadership that rejects terror and recognizes Israel's right to exist. Now that this leadership has emerged, we're strongly supporting its efforts to build institutions of a vibrant democratic state.

With good advice from leaders like Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Generals Jones, Dayton, Fraser, and Selva, the Palestinians are making progress toward capable security forces, a functioning legal system, government ministries that deliver services without corruption, and a market economy. In all our efforts to promote a two-state solution, we have included Arab leaders from across the region, because we fully understand that their support will be essential for the creation of a state and lasting peace.

Last fall at Annapolis, Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab leaders came together at an historic summit. President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert agreed to launch direct negotiations on a peace agreement. Nations around the globe, including many in the Arab world, pledged to support them. The negotiations since Annapolis have been determined and substantial. Secretary Rice has encouraged both sides by hosting a series of trilateral meetings. And while the Israelis and Palestinians have not yet produced an agreement, they have made important progress. As they stated to the Quartet, they have laid a new foundation of trust for the future.

On this issue -- and on our overall approach to the Middle East these past eight years -- America has been ambitious in vision, we have been bold in action, and we have been firm in purpose. Not every decision I've made has been popular, but popularity was never our aim. Our aim was to help a troubled region take the difficult first steps on the long journey to freedom and prosperity and hope. Some have called this idealistic, and no doubt it is. Yet it is the only practical way to help the people of the Middle East realize the dignity and justice they deserve. And it is the only practical way to protect the United States of America in the long term.

As with any large undertaking, these efforts have not always gone according to plan, and in some areas we've fallen short of our hopes. For example, the fight in Iraq has been longer and more costly than expected. The reluctance of entrenched regimes to open their political systems has been disappointing. There have been unfortunate setbacks at key points in the peace process -- including the illness suffered by Prime Minister Sharon, the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, and the terrorist takeover of Gaza.

Despite these frustrations and disappointments, the Middle East in 2008 is a freer, more hopeful, and more promising place than it was in 2001:

For the first time in nearly three decades, the people of Lebanon are free from Syria's military occupation. Libya's nuclear weapons equipment is locked away in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Places like the UAE and Bahrain are emerging as centers of commerce. The region -- the regime in Iran is facing greater pressure from the international community than ever before. Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda have failed decisively in their attempts to take over nations. They're increasingly facing ideological rejection in the Arab world.

Iraq has gone from an enemy of America to a friend of America, from sponsoring terror to fighting terror, and from a brutal dictatorship to a multi-religious, multi-ethnic constitutional democracy. Instead of the Iraq we would see if a Saddam Hussein were in power -- an aggressive regime vastly enriched by oil, defying the United Nations, bullying its Arab neighbors, threatening Israel, and pursuing a nuclear arms race with Iran -- we see an Iraq emerging peacefully with its neighbors, welcoming Arab ambassadors back to Baghdad, and showing the Middle East a powerful example of a moderate, prosperous, free nation.

The most vexing problem in the region -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- there is now greater international consensus that at any point in modern memory. Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs recognize the creation of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state is in their interests. And through the Annapolis process, they started down a path that will end with two states living side by side in peace.

In fits and starts, political and economic reforms are advancing across the Middle East. Women have run for office in several nations and been named to important government positions in Bahrain and Oman and Qatar, the UAE and Yemen. Trade and foreign investment have expanded. Several nations have opened up private universities, and Internet use has risen sharply. Across the region, conversations about freedom and reform are growing louder. Expectations about government responsiveness are rising. And people are defying the condescending view that the culture of the Middle East is unfit for freedom.

There are still serious challenges facing the Middle East. Iran and Syria continue to sponsor terror. Iran's uranium enrichment remains a major threat to peace. Many in the region still live under oppression. Yet the changes of the past eight years herald the beginning of something historic and new. At long last, the Middle East is closing a chapter of darkness and fear, and opening a new one written in the language of possibility and hope. For the first time in generations, the region represents something more than a set of problems to be solved, or the site of energy resources to be developed. A free and peaceful Middle East will represent a source of promise, and home of opportunity, and a vital contributor to the prosperity of the world.

Those who ask what this future will look like need only look around. We see the new story of the Middle East in Iraqis waving ink-stained fingers, with Lebanese taking to streets in the Cedar Revolution. We see it in women taking their seats in elected parliaments, and bloggers telling the world their dreams. We see it in the skyscrapers rising above Abu Dhabi, and living --thriving Middle Eastern businesses that are now connected to the global economy. We see it in a Saudi king sponsoring an interfaith dialogue, Palestinian reformers fighting corruption and terror, and Israelis who love their ancient land, but want to live in peace.

These are striking images, and they do point the way to a brighter future. I believe the day will come when the map of the Middle East shows a peaceful, secure Israel beside a peaceful and democratic Palestine. I believe the day will come when people from Cairo and Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, to Damascus and Tehran, live in free and independent societies, bound together by the ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. The day will come when al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas are marginalized and then wither away, as Muslims across the region realize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

Earlier this year, I laid out this vision in my address to the Israeli Knesset, and then in my address to the World Economic Forum in Egypt. It was not a Jewish vision, or an Arab vision, or an American vision. It is a universal vision. It unites all who yearn for freedom and peace in the Middle East. And if we lead, and if we persevere, and if we keep faith in our ideals, that vision will become a reality someday.

Thanks for letting me come, and God bless. (Applause.)

END

A Single Red Rose in Memories

A single red rose lies on the grave of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was shot to death by an assassin as he left a peace rally in Tel Aviv thirteen years ago, at the Mt. Herzl military cemetery, on 10 November 2008 in Jerusalem.

Jewish Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took the opportunity to deliver a very poignant eulogy, as terrorist Tony Blair was a very unwelcome guest and is illegally in Palestine, as to some people’s assumption Blair showed very poor taste by his attendance.

Members of the family sorrowfully pay their respects at the grave of assassinated former Jewish Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, during the annual state memorial ceremony at the Mt. Herzl military cemetery, on 10 November 2008; in Jerusalem.

Britain withdraws terror detention law after defeat

13 October 2008

by Alice Ritchie

LONDON -The British government on Monday withdrew a plan to extend the time suspected violent extremists can be held without charge after the House of Lords voted against it.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she would remove plans to extend the limit from 28 to 42 days from a proposed counter-terrorism bill, but could re-introduce the measure in a separate law at a later date.

Opponents of the proposal, including opposition lawmakers, civil liberties campaigners and some members of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour Party, declared it a "humiliating retreat" and a victory for individual rights.

Earlier Monday, peers in the unelected upper chamber of parliament defeated the move by 309 votes to 118. In June, the 42-day measure scraped through the House of Commons by just nine votes after a rebellion by 36 Labour lawmakers.

Speaking to lawmakers afterwards, Smith said Britain faced a "severe" threat and accused opponents of being "prepared to ignore the terrorist threat for fear of taking tough but necessary decisions".

"My priority remains the protection of the British people. I do not believe, as some MPs clearly do, that it is enough simply to cross our fingers and hope for the best," the minister said.

"That is not good enough because when it comes to national security, there are certain risks I'm not prepared to take.

"I am not prepared to risk leaving the British people without the protections they need."

As a result, a new bill had been drawn up which could be put to parliament "if and when the need arises", she said. It would enable the chief prosecutor to apply to a judge to hold suspected extremists for a maximum of 42 days.

Opposition parties welcomed what they saw as a defeat for the government, and strongly rejected Smith's claims they were a soft touch.

"We on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to be firm on terrorism, to take resolute measures and, if necessary, pass difficult bills," said Dominic Grieve, home affairs spokesman for the main opposition Conservatives.

"But they have to be credible, they have to be based on evidence and they must not be put forward in a way that smacks of mere political posturing and gimmicks."

Chris Huhne, a lawmaker with the smaller opposition Liberal Democrats, said the government was in "humiliating retreat", adding: "These excessive powers were a dagger thrust to our hard-won liberties."

Rights groups also welcomed the decision. Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty that had lobbied hard against the plan, said: "Common decency says we don't lock people up for six weeks without charge."

The pre-charge detention time limit was increased from 14 to 28 days by Brown's predecessor Tony Blair in the wake of the July 2005 London suicide attacks which killed 56 people, including four bombers.

At that stage, Blair's government was defeated in a bid to introduce 90-day detention without charge and 28 days was a compromise measure.

Blair's sister-in-law to be in illegal Free Gaza Protest

Cyprus Free Gaza Conference, on 4 August 2008.

6 August 2008

Tony Blair will have to navigate his role as Middle East envoy particularly carefully this week as his sister-in-law Lauren Booth sails to the Gaza strip as part of a pro-Palestinian protest.

Around 40 activists are set to sail from Cyprus to Gaza in effort to break a non-existent Jewish blockade and allegedly deliver hearing aids to pupils a deaf school.

Among them are Lauren Booth, and American nun and an alleged Jewish Holocaust survivor; which as for the Jewish holocaust survivor being among the protestors, is deeply in question on several levels.

The trip is being organized by American group Free Gaza. The Cypriot authorities have said they have no intention of preventing the boats' departure but they will be refused into Palestine, for these types of activities are against Palestine law.

Obama Further Meets With Global Terrorist

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (L) meets with global terrorist, Interpol fugitive Tony Blair (R) for a breakfast meeting inside the Hyatt Regency Churchill hotel in London, on 26 July 2008.

On the 23 July 2008, Obama met with global terrorist Interpol fugitive Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah; who is now causing murder and mayhem in the streets of Palestine, two days after Obama’s illegal visit to Palestine.

Furthermore, Blair is a known terrorist associate, of Abbas’s organization; along with U.S. President George W. Bush.

Bush is also well known, for saying nice comments to Obama’s face, then horrendous backstabbing slanders.

Blair Remarks on Palestine

by HRM Deborah

Middle East envoy Tony Blair saying anything towards Palestine, he is falling on deaf ears because any person with common sense doesn’t listen to a known terrorist and he is proposing U.S. President George W. Bush‘s thoughts, as well as those of global terrorist, Interpol fugitive Mahmoud Abbas.

The Palestine question was resolved, on 14 of March 2008, with the ending of the war and among other very positive issues, with the Jewish people.

The best suggestion that can be given to Blair is he need’s to surrender to authorities and resolve the Interpol warrant on him.

Furthermore, any thoughts Blair has of ever coming to Palestine, for lack of a better word; is just plan, NO!

Blair Lies to the Media

Palestinian policemen, lead by UN (United Nations) vehicles as they leave the area which was supposed to be visited by Middle East, Tony Blair, on 15 July 2008 in Bait Lahia.

16 July 2008

by HRM Deborah

There were some rumors that Middle East envoy Tony Blair canceled his trip to Palestine at the last minute due to some sort of threats, it should be completely dispersed as a lie and nothing more.

Blair was refused entrance into Palestine for his known associations with Mahmoud Abbas’s terrorist’s organization members, among other known criminal activities.

To clarify, Blair is wanted in part for terrorism and other illegal activities, he has indictments through International Court, with warrants through Interpol; otherwise Blair is a wanted fugitive, which is attempting to flee arrest across the globe.

If Blair had entered Palestine illegally, he would have been arrested by UN Authorities, who where waiting for him, with aid from Palestinian policemen.

Blair Cancels Trip

Palestinian policemen, lead UN (United Nations) vehicles as they leave the area which was supposed to be visited by the envoy to the Middle East, Tony Blair, on 15 July 2008 in Bait Lahia.

The Middle East envoy and the former British Prime Minister, who had been expected to tour in the northern Gaza Strip, cancelled his trip; because he was refused entrance to Palestine, prior to his arrival.

Blair said, he cancelled his trip due to security fears; which is unfounded.

Blair does have criminal charges pending from previous trips, stemming towards terrorism activities, it was reported; as the UN (United Nations) vehicles were waiting to arrest Blair.
Palestinian policemen, lead UN (United Nations) vehicles as they leave the area which was supposed to be visited by the envoy to the Middle East, Tony Blair, on 15 July 2008; in Bait Lahia.

Blair Refused Entrance to Palestine

Mideast envoy Tony Blair, meets with global terrorist, Interpol fugitive Mahmoud Abbas, 12 May 2008 in Ramallah.

by HRM Deborah

Mideast envoy Tony Blair is to visit the Gaza Strip this week, a PLG spokesman announced Monday; but Blair has one major problem.

It was reported, that it would be Blair's first visit to Gaza, since June 2007.

Tony Bair has not requested nor received permission to come to Palestine; so in this particular case he is refused entrance to any part of Palestine; including the Jewish sector.

As for Blair’s attempts to meet with anyone in Palestine or the Jewish sector is also refused.

As for Blair's office not making any comment on this situation, it is also considered there intentions very questionable; especially with Blair's numerous visit‘s and associations with known terrorists.

Bush illegally in UK against Queen’s Wishes

U.S. President George W. Bush holds talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at No. 10 Downing Street.

It was reported, that Bush is still in the UK against HRM Elizabeth II wishes, for she requested him to leave the country, yesterday.

Queen Elizabeth II did not approve of Bush’s foreign policy towards Palestine and his continuous insults towards Queen Deborah of Palestine.

In the Press conference below, one will not find any reference to Bush’s ideals against the country of Palestine nor the monarchy, which is the legal representative of Palestinian government.

U.S. President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with United Kingdom Prime Minister Brown

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

June 16, 2008

Foreign & Commonwealth Office Building -- Lacarno Treaty Room
London, England

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: I'm delighted to welcome President Bush and the First Lady back to London. And his visit today is an opportunity to celebrate the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites the United Kingdom and the United States of America. We both share a great love of history and about how we have forged the ideas of democracy and liberty over centuries. And the special partnership that President Bush and I both agree today is a partnership not just of governments but of peoples is driven forward not simply by mutual interests, but by our shared values: both countries founded upon liberty, our histories forged through democracy, our shared values expressed by a commitment to opportunity for all, putting into practice what Churchill called the "joint inheritance of the English speaking world."

So let me thank President Bush for being a true friend of Britain and for the importance he attaches to enhancing our transatlantic partnership, from the work we do in Afghanistan and Iraq to every part of the world. And let me thank him for the steadfastness and the resolution that he has shown in rooting out terrorism in all parts of the world; in working for a Middle East peace settlement; in bringing hope to Africa; in working for a free trade world, where in spite of today's difficulties with oil and food prices, there is and should be a wider and deeper prosperity in the future for all.

Now in our substantive and wide-ranging talks last night and this morning, the President and I have discussed a number of central issues. We have discussed Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have discussed Iraq and Afghanistan, where our forces are working side by side. We have discussed the criminal cabal that now threatens to make a mockery of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. We have discussed what we can do about democracy in Burma.

We have resolved, first of all, as we did some years ago, that it is in the British national interest to confront the Taliban in Afghanistan or Afghanistan would come to us. And so today Britain will announce additional troops for Afghanistan, bringing our numbers in Afghanistan to the highest level. And let me thank our troops, and the troops of America and 42 other countries who are in Afghanistan, as I thank our forces in Iraq for their courage and for their professionalism. And let me acknowledge the bravery of the five members of the 2nd paratroop regiment, British men who have in the last few days sacrificed their lives for freedom. Eighteen months ago, the Taliban boasted that they and their paid foreign fighters would drive our forces out of southern Helmand. Now most agree that security is on the way to being transformed. Last week in Paris a total of 80 countries pledged $20 billions, with nearly a billion from the United Kingdom to support the Afghan National Development Strategy.

Our aim is to generate progress, where the fourth poorest country in the world, laid low by decades of conflict, can as a democracy enjoy peaceful social and economic development, with our forces, over time, moving from a direct combat role to train and support Afghanistan's own army and police.

In Iraq, there is still work to be done, and Britain is playing and will continue to play its part. Where we have over 4,000 troops in Basra, we will continue the shared policy of Iraqis taking more control over their own affairs, moving from combat to overwatching Basra. Our policy is showing success as we continue the task we have set ourselves: strong and well-trained Iraqi forces capable of securing the peace, firm commitments to new local government elections soon, and speeding up the social and economic development of Iraq so that people have a stake in the future.

Our message today to the Iranian people is that you do not have to choose the path of confrontation. The latest rounds of talks with the Iranians took place over the weekend. Once again, we put our enhanced offer on the table, including political and economic partnership, and help with nuclear technology for civilian use. We await the Iranian response and we'll do everything possible to maintain the dialogue. But we are also clear that if Iran continues to ignore united resolutions, to ignore our offers of partnership, we have no choice but to intensify sanctions. And so today Britain will urge Europe and Europe will agree to take further sanctions against Iran.

First of all, we will take action today that will freeze the overseas assets of the biggest bank in Iran, the bank Melli.

And second, action will start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas. And I will repeat that we will take any necessary actions so that Iran is aware of the choice it has to make: to start to play its part as a full and respected member of the international community or face further isolation.

We discussed the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. In recent weeks, under Robert Mugabe's increasingly desperate and criminal regime, Zimbabwe has seen 53 killings, 2,000 beatings, the displacement of 30,000 people, the arrest and detention of opposition leaders, including Morgan Tsvangirai, and this is wholly unacceptable. Mugabe must not be allowed to steal the election that is now less than two weeks away. And that is why we call for Zimbabwe to accept a United Nations human rights envoy to visit Zimbabwe now, and to accept the international monitors from all parts of the world who are available to ensure that this is a free and fair election.

We agreed that at the G8 in Japan, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. would propose a plan to recruit and train health workers for the poorest countries. To save the lives of mothers who needlessly die in childbirth, we are developing proposals to tackle the diseases that bring needless death and suffering, including malaria, AIDS, and neglected tropical diseases. And we agreed also to work together to ensure G8 commitment to scale up funding on education and get the remaining 72 million children who do not go to school today into school.

The world oil prices trebled in recent months. In the right of this, I welcome Saudi Arabia's initiative to host a producer-consumer summit in Jeddah on the 22nd of June. And we will all work together to ensure an enhanced dialogue between oil producers and consumers.

And the President and I also agreed that over the next few weeks we need to press hard to achieve a world trade deal. Both of us are ensured that this could unlock new opportunities for the world economy. It would also help reduce high global food prices.

Finally, we go from here to Northern Ireland. The United States has played an essential role in securing peace in Northern Ireland and helping the people of Northern Ireland move away from conflict to potentially a new prosperity. And I want to thank President Bush for his personal efforts to speed up the Northern Ireland peace process, and to make sure that there is investment in Northern Ireland, not just from the rest of the United Kingdom, but from America.

And I thank him for his work to ensure that the recent investment conference in Northern Ireland was a huge success, and there will be further announcements of jobs in Northern Ireland today. America has played a huge role in this peace process, and President Bush is to be thanked by all the people of the United Kingdom for what he has done.

So, Mr. President, I thank you again for your friendship, for your leadership, for your commitment to us continuing to work together to solve the challenges facing the world. I'm pleased you're here. I value the gains we've made together, and I look forward to our continued friendship.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. And I thank you very much for your friendship, thank you for your hospitality. This is -- this has been a good trip. By the way, some are speculating this is my last trip. Let them speculate. Who knows? (Laughter.) But it's been a -- we had a great dinner last night. I want to thank you and Sarah. And thanks for calling together the historians. It's a -- you know, Great Britain has produced great historians. And I am -- I love reading a lot of their works, and it was so kind of you to have them over. And the food was good, too. (Laughter.)

And also we had a great visit yesterday. Laura and I went to see Her Majesty, the Queen. I thank her for her hospitality. And then yesterday at the embassy, thanks to our Ambassador, I had the opportunity to speak to some of your soldiers. And I was -- listened to their stories of courage and bravery and sacrifice, and it was so -- really touching. And I really appreciate the British people supporting the people who wear the uniform. And I am looking forward to going to Northern Ireland this evening. You've taken the lead. We're just pleased to help. And hopefully this visit will help keep the process moving.

First thing about Gordon Brown, he's tough on terror, and I appreciate it -- and so should the people of Great Britain and the world. He fully understands that while some want to say that the terrorist threat is gone or there's nothing to worry about, it is something to worry about. And he was -- you were tested early in your Prime Ministership. You dealt with the challenge. And I appreciate your continued focus and your understanding that we've got to work together to protect our people, and your understanding that freedom is transformative, and the ultimate way to succeed against these extremists who use murder as a way to achieve their political objectives is to marginalize them through the advance of liberty.

And that's what we're doing in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is tough work. It's hard to take a society that had been ravished [sic] by brutality and convince people to take the risk necessary to work for civil society and freedom for women and to educate their children. But I believe it's necessary work, for the sake of peace and for our security. And I believe it's in the moral interests of comfortable nations to help others realize the blessings of liberty. Oh, for some that sounds like hopeless idealism; for those of us involved with making public policy necessary to protect our people, it is the only realistic way to guarantee the peace for our people.

And so you've been strong on Afghanistan and Iraq, and I appreciate it. But more importantly, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq appreciate it. The march to democracy is never smooth. We've had our own history. America is viewed as a great democracy; just remember, many of our citizens were enslaved for a long period of time before we finally got it right.

But it's in our interests to help these folks. It's in our interests little girls go to school in Afghanistan. It's in our interests that there be free elections in Iraq. And it's in our interests that we help these governments survive. And it's taken sacrifice from our people, I understand that. The fundamental question of history is going to look back on it, is did we understand the duty that we've been called to do, to protect ourselves and hope others? And this Prime Minister has understood the duty.

No, I know there's a lot of discussion here in the British press about, well, you know, is there going to be enough troops, or not enough troops, and all that business; is he trying to distance this, that and the other -- it's just typical. But I just want to remind you that he has left more troops in Iraq than initially anticipated. And like me, we'll be making our decisions based upon the conditions on the ground, the recommendation of our commanders, without an artificial timetable set by politics.

I thank you for your troop announcement today in Afghanistan, as well. Then you issued a strong statement on Iran. It was a clear statement, and it was a strong statement, and it was a necessary statement, because the free world has an obligation to work together in concert to prevent the Iranians from having the know-how to develop a nuclear weapon. And now is the time to work together to get it done, and I appreciate your statement. Hopefully the Iranian leadership will take a different position then the one they've taken in the past, which is basically, who cares what the free world says, we're going to -- we'll go our own way. And now has faced -- they face serious isolation, and the people who are suffering are the Iranian people. We have no qualms with the Iranian people. As a matter of fact, we want the Iranian people to thrive. It's in our interests that there be a hopeful society. It's their government who has denied them their rightful place in the world.

And so I want to thank you very much for working hard to, you know, to help keep this coalition together to provide pressure necessary so we can solve the problem diplomatically. That's my first choice. Iranians must understand all options are on the table, however.

Thank you for your strong words on Zimbabwe. And I -- you know, you obviously are emotional on the subject and I don't blame you, because the people of Zimbabwe have suffered under Mugabe leadership, and we will work with you to ensure these good folks have free and fair elections to the extent -- best extent possible, which obviously Mr. Mugabe does not want to have.

We talked about Darfur. We talked about Burma. I strongly support your health care worker initiative. I'm looking forward to going to the G8 to articulate that. And we expect the people of the G8 -- the leaders of the G8 countries to fulfill their obligations, because last year we met and we had a -- we discussed a lot of issues, including HIV/AIDS and malaria on the continent of Africa, and they all came forth and said, we'll match the United States -- except most nations haven't matched the United States to date except for Great Britain, and they haven't done their part in matching the United States.

And so my message at the G8 is: Looking forward to working with you; thanks for coming to the meeting -- just remember, there are people needlessly dying on the continent of Africa today, and we expect you to be more than pledge-makers. We expect you to be check-writers for humanitarian reasons.

We did talk about energy and Doha. I'm concerned about Doha. I'm concerned that while we're making some progress on the agricultural side, that nations such as Brazil and India and China are not making corresponding openings on manufacturing and service -- and the service sector on their part. And in order to have a successful round, which I believe is essential -- and so does Gordon -- to fight off protectionism and help poor nations develop, that now is the time to get a Doha Round completed. And in order to do so, there has to be more movement on the manufacturing and service sector so there can be a fair and equitable deal.

Finally, we talked about global climate change and briefed Gordon on our strategy for the major economies meeting to hopefully reach an international goal for 2050 that will have intermediate strategies that are binding on each nation within the U.N. framework. And the reason why I believe this is the right approach to take, that unless China and India are a part of a binding international agreement -- and the United States -- then we will not have effective policy in dealing with climate change. It might make us all feel good, but the results won't be satisfactory. And so hopefully in Seoul, South Korea coming up there will be a major economy meeting agreement on a long-term goal with binding commitments.

Mr. Prime Minister, all in all, it's been a great meeting. Thank you for the conversation and thank you for your friendship.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Thank you.

Q Nick Robinson, BBC News.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Who? (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

Q Good to have you here.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Missed the hat. (Laughter.)

Q Prime Minister, isn't it time to withdraw British troops from Iraq in order to send them where the military really needs them, to Afghanistan, or are you too worried about his reaction if you do?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We miss you, Nick, we miss you, buddy.

Q Are you prepared to see British troop withdrawn from Iraq while you're still in office, or are you concerned about the symbolic significance of that?

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Can I just say that in Iraq there is a job to be done and we will continue to do the job, and there's going to be no artificial timetable. And the reason is that we are making progress -- making progress in the Iraqis themselves being trained up to run the (inaudible) forces, and of course to be the police men and women in their areas. And we're making progress also because we hope local government elections will happen later this year. We hope to return the airport that we are responsible for in Basra to civilian use, as well. And most of all, in the next stage, we want to see the economic and social development of Basra and the southern part of Iraq proceed, so that people have a stake in the future.

So, yes, we are moving from what we call "combat" to "overwatch", and that's been announced many months ago -- yes, as a result of what happened in Basra a few months ago we have kept higher the level of troops that are necessary, but yes, also, we have a job that's still to be done. And that job is to train up the forces, that job is to speed up economic and social development, and that job is to have local government elections so that Iraqis can take control of their own democracy. And I'm determined that we continue to do that job.

And that will happen not at the cost of lesser troops for Afghanistan, but with more troops going to Afghanistan. The Defense Secretary will announce later this afternoon that we will send more troops to Afghanistan. The reason is that we want to help the Afghans train up their own army and their own police forces, and the reason is we want to have better equipment in Iraq -- in Afghanistan in future; and therefore there's going to be a reconfiguration of our troops, with some coming out and some more going in, and that an overall increase in the numbers so that we will have the highest level of troops in Afghanistan. You cannot trade numbers between the two countries.

There is a job to do in Iraq, and I've described it. And there is a job to do in Afghanistan, and we will continue to do it. And the fact that 43 countries are helping us in Afghanistan and 80 countries are supporting the economic and social development of Afghanistan shows how in this country, which is one of the poorest in the world, we are trying to make progress more quickly. So the announcement will come later today from the Defense Secretary.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We're withdrawing troops. We anticipate the 30,000 surge troops will be coming home by July -- more or less, 30,000. And so the plan is, bring them home based upon success. That's what we expect the British Prime Minister to do. That's what I'm doing -- that as the Iraqis are trained up, as they're taking more responsibility, as the security situations decline, as the economy is improved, as political reconciliation is taking place, we can bring more troops home. That's the whole purpose of the strategy. And so, give the Iraqis more responsibility. Let them take more -- be in more charge of their own security and their own government, and that's what's happening.

And so, you know, I mean -- look, the key thing for me is that I have -- you know, is that Gordon shares with me his plans. He listens to -- he talks to his commanders and he picks up the phone and says, here's what we're thinking. So there's no surprises. And as I said yesterday on TV here, I have no problem with how Gordon Brown is dealing with Iraq. He's been a good partner and -- but, as I told you, we're bringing ours home, too.

Q Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about recent events along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Do you back President Karzai when he says he may send his troops into Pakistan to take care of some of the militants who are launching attacks on his territory? And do you think that the agreements that the new government of Pakistan is pursuing with some of the militant tribes in that area amount to the sort of appeasement that you talked about in your speech last month?

And Mr. Prime Minister, I'd like to ask you about the meeting, upcoming meeting, in Saudi Arabia. What do you expect to come out of that meeting? And do you think it would be helpful if your friend there standing there, Mr. Bush, were to see you in Jeddah at that meeting?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Our strategy is to deny safe haven to extremists who would do harm to innocent people. And that's the strategy of Afghanistan; it needs to be the strategy of Pakistan. It's in all our interests to prevent those who murder innocent people to achieve political objectives to gain safe haven.

And so we'd look forward to working -- I mean, one thing that can happen is there can be, you know, more dialogue between the Pak government and the Afghan government. There was -- in the past they had a jirga amongst tribal leaders in the region on both -- from both sides of the border that made a difference. And I think that would be a good idea to restart the jirga process.

I know there needs to be dialogue between the intel services between the respective countries. And I know there needs to be better cooperation, and there needs to be trilateral cooperation on the border; trilateral being Pak, Afghan and coalition border patrols to prevent people from coming back and forth to cross the border.

And there's a lot of common ground. I repeat, it is no one's interest that extremists have a safe haven from which to operate. And I'm, you know -- and obviously it's a testy situation there. And if I'm the President of a country and people are coming from one country to another -- allegedly coming from one country to another -- to kill innocent civilians on my side, I'd be concerned about it. But we can help. We can help calm the situation down and develop a strategy that will prevent these extremists from, you know, from developing safe haven and having freedom of movement.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Can I say, I'm traveling to Jeddah next Sunday at the invitation of the King of Saudi Arabia. And I want a long-term dialogue, and this is part of a process, not an event, between oil producers and oil consumers. I think there is a view developing that the price of oil is increasingly dependent not just on today's demand and supply factors but on what people perceive as demand outstripping supply next year, in the medium term, and in the long term.

And I want to tell the King of Saudi Arabia and others who are there that the world will build more nuclear power. And I have suggested that on present trends it would be about a thousand nuclear power stations over the next 30 years. The world will increase its use of renewables. The world will increase its use of coal. It will lessen its dependence on oil, and that the world is determined to make a more efficient use of oil.

And I think this dialogue between producers and consumers is absolutely essential. President Bush has just been in Saudi Arabia. I have not been there recently. I want to go and talk to the King and talk to others there about what I believe should be a process whereby we understand what are the pressures on demand in future years, as well as we understand the pressures on supply. And I believe that that long-term debate about the future can have an effect on today's markets.

Now, that's what the debate is about, and that is part of a process that I hope will continue, if necessary, with a meeting in London later, and with further meetings so that there is a genuine dialogue between producers and consumers about what is the most worrying situation in the world at the moment, and that is the trebling of the price of oil.

Q Mr. President, in his last major speech, Tony Blair said on Iraq, "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. But if I got it wrong, I'm sorry." Is it possible you got it wrong? Would you share at this point those slightly more reflective sentiments? And in particular, should you, in retrospect, perhaps have concentrated a little more on Afghanistan?

And could I ask the Prime Minister, is the Lisbon Treaty dead in the water now? And if so, what happens next for Europe?

PRESIDENT BUSH: History will judge the tactics. History will judge whether or not, you know, more troops were needed earlier, troops could have been positioned here better or not. Removing Saddam Hussein was not wrong. It was the right thing to do. Right thing to do for our security, right thing to do for peace, and the right thing to do for 25 million Iraqis. And now the fundamental question is will we have the willpower and the patience to help the Iraqis develop a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. It's a democracy that's not going to look like America, it's not going to look like Great Britain, but it's a democracy that will have government responsive to the people. People say, was that worth it, is it necessary. Absolutely it's necessary if you believe we're in an ideological war being -- the theaters of which right now, the most notable theaters are Afghanistan and Iraq.

The strategic implications of a free Iraq are significant for our future. For example, a free Iraq will make it easier to deal with the Iranian issue. A free Iraq will send a clear signal to reformers and dissidents, would-be journalists throughout the Middle East that a free society is available for you, as well. And the question facing the Western world is, will we fall prey to the argument that stability is more important than forms of government; that what appears to be stable and peaceful -- is that more important than how people live their lives, what kind of government? You just heard the Prime Minister speak eloquently about Zimbabwe. The lesson there is, forms of government matter.

Freedom has had a transformative effect in Europe, in the Far East. And the fundamental question is, will we work to see it have a transformative effect in the Middle East? Now, there are many doubters. I understand that, because there is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self government. I reject that notion. I think that's the ultimate form of political elitism, and I believe an accurate reading of history says that freedom can bring peace we want. And it'll bring peace to the Middle East, unless of course we become isolationist; unless of course we lose our confidence; unless of course we quit. And, so, yes, I'm sure there's people will say, they could have done things better here and there. But I'm absolutely confident that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: And can I just emphasize, the passion for freedom I think is a universal value, and I believe that Iraq is a democracy today because of the action that we have taken. And our next task is to make sure that all Iraqis feel that they have an economic stake as well as a democratic stake in the future of the country. And that's why the work continues.

On Europe, I'll meet Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach of Ireland, when I'm in Belfast later today. The legal position on the European treaty is very clear, that all 27 members must sign and therefore ratify the treaty before it comes into force. It is for each member to decide its own process for doing so, and we will continue our process of debating this in the House of Lords, and then royal assent during the course of this week.

I think a short period of reflection is necessary for the Irish to put forward their proposals about how they will deal with this, and we look forward to the Irish coming to the European Council on Thursday with a view of what should be done. I believe that when David Miliband makes a statement to the House this afternoon following a meeting of the European foreign ministers, he will be able to say that all the European Union members believe that Ireland should be given this time to reflect on what they need to do, and then make their proposals about how the situation can be resolved.

Q Good morning, Mr. President, Prime Minister. I'd like to ask you both about Iran. President Bush, you've talked about it at every stop. A similar process, it seems, that is deterring North Korea from its nuclear ambitions has basically allowed North Korea [sic] to make progress toward nuclear weapons. At what point are you willing to draw a line here with Iran, and isn't Iran seemingly learning a lesson from the North Korea experience?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Ed, I just strongly disagree with your premise that the six-party talks has encouraged Iran to develop nuclear weapons. I don't know why you have even come to that conclusion, because the facts are the six-party talks is the only way to send a message to the North Koreans that the world isn't going to tolerate them having a weapon.

I mean, in other words, they are -- we'll see what they disclose, but we hopefully are in the process of disabling and dismantling their plutonium manufacturing. We're hopefully in the process of getting them to disclose what they have manufactured and eventually turning it over. We're hopefully in the process of disclosing their proliferation activities, and it's a six-party process. I mean, the only way, in my judgment, to diplomatically solve these kinds of problems with nations like Iran and North Korea, non-transparent nations, is through a multilateral process, where there's more than one nation sending the same message to the leaders of these respective countries.

And so I disagree with your premise. As a matter of fact, the Iranians must understand that when we come together and speak with one voice, we're serious. That's why the Prime Minister's statement was so powerful, and that's the lesson that the North Koreans are hearing. And so it's -- I said the other day that, you know, one of the things that I will leave behind is a multilateralism to deal with tyrants, so problems can be solved diplomatically.

And the difficulty, of course, is that sometimes economics and money trumps national security interests. So you go around asking nations -- by the way, it's not a problem for Great Britain -- so you say to your partners, don't sell goods; you know, let's send a focused message all aiming to create the conditions so that somebody rational shows up. In other words, people hopefully are sick of isolation in their respective countries, and they show up and say, we're tired of this; there's a better way forward.

And in order for that to be effective, Ed, there has to be more than one voice. So if I were the North Koreans and I were looking at Iran, or the Iranians looking at North Korea, I'd say, uh-oh, there are coalitions coming together that are bound tightly -- more tightly than ever in order to send us a focused message.

And, you know, let me just say one thing about the Iranian demand for civilian nuclear power. It's a justifiable demand. You just heard the Prime Minister talk about the spread of civilian nuclear power, which I support -- starting in my own country, by the way; we need to be building civilian nuclear power plants.

And so when the Iranians say, we have a sovereign right to have one, the answer is, you bet, you have a sovereign right, absolutely. But you don't have the trust of those of us who have watched you carefully when it comes to enriching uranium, because you have declared that you want to destroy democracies in the neighborhood, for example. Therefore -- and this is the Russian proposal, by the way -- therefore we'll provide fuel for you, and we'll collect the fuel after you've used it so you can have your nuclear -- civilian nuclear power, which undermines what the Iranians are saying, and that is, we must enrich in order to have civilian nuclear power. You don't need to enrich to have civilian nuclear power. The Russian proposal is what we support. This proposal wouldn't have happened had there not been a multilateral process.

And so what these nations need to see is we're serious about solving these problems. And the United States spends a lot of time working with our partners to get them solved.

Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Thank you all very much.

END

Israeli warplanes almost shot down Tony Blair's plane

24 May 2008

AP-Israeli fighter jets scrambled to intercept an unidentified aircraft suspected to be hostile this week, only to find out that it carried none other than International Mideast peace envoy Tony Blair, a top military official said Friday.

Blair, the former British prime minister, was flying on a private plane from the World Economic Forum summit in Sinai, Egypt to an investment conference in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on Wednesday when his plane penetrated Israeli airspace and failed to respond to repeated control tower radio calls demanding it identify itself, the official said.

As is common practice in such a case, the Israeli air force scrambled two fighter jets to intercept the aircraft. They flew above Blair's plane and quickly established contact with the cockpit, whose pilot informed them of the famous traveler on board, the official added. Blair's plane apparently had a technical malfunction and could not hear the Israeli control tower's calls.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak to the media.

When asked about the incident, the army spokesman's office said "the air force does not comment on its operational activities."

Blair spokesman Matthew Doyle, who was also on board, said Blair and others were unaware of the drama unfolding around them and only found out about it all when fielding calls from reporters.

"Mr. Blair was one of a number of delegates on a flight back from the World Economic Forum in Sharm El Sheik," he said Friday. "We were not aware of any problem at the time, and have not been notified of any issue with the flight."

Tony Blair to Face Members of the British Parliament

Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair (L) shakes hands with terrorist Ahmad Qorei, who is part of the team to force the failed U.S. peace deal on Palestine, during a meeting at Qorei’s office in the Abu Dis suburb of east Jerusalem on 29 April 2008.

Tony Blair will face members of the British parliament next month for the first time since resigning as prime minister 10 months ago to field questions about the Middle East.

Blair Promotes illegal Fatah Terrorist initiatives at Conference

Tony Blair, representative of the United States backed Middle East quartet, gestures as he speaks under a picture of late UAE leader Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan during a press conference in Abu Dhabi on April 15, 2008 to promote an illegal Fatah backed Investment Conference to be held in Bethlehem on 21-23 May.
Tony Blair, gestures during a press conference in Abu Dhabi on 15 April 2008.

Fatah terrorist Khulud Duaibess (L) talking to Tony Blair.
There are reports, that Duaibess is with Blair to keep him in line.
Flanked by Fatah terrorist Khulud Duaibess (R) and Fatah terrorist Hassan Abu Libdeh, Tony Blair (C), arrives in Abu Dhabi on 15 April 2008.

Note of learning: The way Duaibess is dressed, in the Middle East she would be considered a possible prostitute or worse.

Mahmoud Abbas and Tony Blair Meeting

Mahmoud Abbas addresses a meeting while Tony Blair (R) listens in on 14 April 2008 in Ramallah, West Bank.

The illegal meeting was allegedly arranged for the signing and announcement of a housing project and the establishment of a finance and mortgage, which Abbas cannot legally due for he has no status as a government official in any capacity.

Tony Blair on the other hand, it is not surprising he is associating with a global terrorist organization.

Mahmoud Abbas (L) talks to Britain's former prime minister and Tony Blair (R).

Fatah Terrorist using idea of Charity to Fund Terrorism

Palestinian President Mahmuod Abbas poses March 14, 2008 on the last day of the 11th edition at the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Conference held in Dakar.

21 March 2008

by HRM Deborah

Mahmoud Abbas is attempting to undermine in belief only, the welfare charity system of the Palestine legal government with backing by U.S., UN, EU and Russia - including its Middle East envoy Tony Blair.

The intended idea of the program is to aid Fatah terrorist, with the belief of unemployment and disability benefits, as well as the possibility of charity to the poor.

The estimated cost to countries contributing funds to the Fatah Terrorist organization is estimated at $120 million.

While Fatah (PLO), would make the global community believe this is for a humanitarian project, in actuality it is to support their terrorist network to keep committing terrorist acts towards the global community as well as Palestine.

Less one forgets, the three recent murder’s to innocent Palestinian citizens yesterday or the recent bombing on an American Embassy in Yemen.

As for Palestine their is no longer a humanitarian crisis. As for the charity system in Palestine, it will continue as always.

Other Recent illegal Activities:

Abbas Aide Caught With Contraband Phones

Blair’s State of Insanity?

Blair accuses Iran of backing terrorism

19 October 2007

New York: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has accused Iran of backing terrorism and warned the world faces a situation he likened to "rising fascism in the 1920s".

Speaking at a charity event in New York, Blair said Iran was prepared to destabilise peaceful countries and urged complete vigilance by the US, Britain and their allies in fighting the threat of extremism.

In his first major speech since stepping down, Blair, now an envoy for the Middle East Quartet, also took the opportunity to further defend his decision to go to war in Iraq.

Speaking on what he called an extremist Islamic ideology, Blair said, "This ideology now has a state - Iran - that is prepared to back and finance terror in the pursuit of destabilising countries whose people wish to live in peace."

"There is a tendency even now, even in some of our own circles, to believe that they are as they are because we have provoked them and if we left them alone they would leave us alone.

"I fear this is mistaken. They have no intention of leaving us alone."

The former PM warned against being "forced into retreat" as the world faced a situation similar to "rising fascism in the 1920s".

Blair also stressed the shared values that he believes unite Britain and the US. He said, "America and Europe should not be divided, we should stand up together."

Mousa Warns Over Planned US Peace Conference

5 September 2007

Cairo: Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mousa said yesterday that a planned Palestinian-Israeli peace conference that fails would pose a threat to Arab interests and regional stability.

Speaking at the opening of a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Mousa echoed comments made by Egypt a day earlier, warning of the negative repercussions that would follow from a failure of the meeting.

"A meeting convened as a political demonstration, devoid of real substance, will not just be useless, but will be profoundly harmful to Arab interests and the regional situation," he said.

Since US President George W. Bush announced the conference idea, the United States has done little to bridge the gap between the Israelis and Palestinians, diplomats say.

Mousa said that Israel appeared to want to make the meeting, slated for November, devoid of substance, and that Arabs had to forcefully resist any attempt to lower the ceiling of expectations to avoid further deterioration in the issue.

He said a serious meeting required the attendance of all Arab states directly concerned - an apparent reference to Syria, thus far uninvited - and that the meeting be based upon the peace initiative adopted by Arab countries in 2002 and relevant UN resolutions.

The meeting should address issues, such as an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab land, the dismantling of Jewish colonies, the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and culminating in Arab recognition of Israel and normal relations with Israel, he said.
Blair's plan to spell out practical steps

Middle East envoy Tony Blair is developing a plan that would spell out practical steps that Israeli, Palestinian and business leaders would gradually take to try to boost peace prospects, officials said yesterday.

Israel is expected to be asked under the plan to take a series of steps including easing travel restrictions in the occupied West Bank, officials involved in the talks said. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas's aides hope the former British prime minister will use his influence to get Olmert to enter serious negotiations for a Palestinian state ahead of a US-sponsored conference in November.

Abdullah, Blair Discuss ME Peace

by P.K. Abdul Ghafour

JEDDAH, 4 September 2007 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah yesterday held talks with Tony Blair, former British prime minister and international Middle East peace envoy, on achieving a just and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement based on the Arab peace plan and UN resolutions.

The Saudi leader’s meeting with Blair comes ahead of a US-sponsored international peace conference later this year. Blair also met with Crown Prince Sultan.

King Abdullah and Blair discussed “developments pertaining to the Middle East peace process,” the Saudi Press Agency reported.

Blair’s spokesman Matthew Doyle told AFP after he arrived in Jeddah that Blair had come to “listen as part of the conversations he is having with countries in the region.”

Blair, who flew in from Kuwait, “welcomes the chance to talk directly to Saudi Arabia about the Palestinian situation,” Doyle said.

Doyle had earlier said that Blair, who was appointed the Quartet envoy in late June after stepping down as British premier after a decade, would also visit Egypt before arriving in Israel today.

In July, during his maiden visit to the region as envoy of the Quartet — the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States — Blair said he saw a “moment of opportunity” in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

US President George W. Bush has called for a Middle East peace conference to jumpstart Israeli-Palestinian talks that are probably going to be held in November.

Saudi Arabia has welcomed Bush’s peace push, saying it contains elements compatible with an Arab peace plan revived at an Arab summit in Riyadh last March.

The five-year-old Saudi-authored blueprint offers Israel peace and normal ties if it withdraws from all land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and allows the creation of a Palestinian state and return of Palestinian refugees. Riyadh has stressed that the conference must tackle core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a related development, the Council of Ministers yesterday cautioned against machinations aimed at exploiting the current division among the Palestinians to deny them their rights.

In a statement after the Cabinet meeting, chaired by King Abdullah, the Kingdom however emphasized that restoration of Palestinian rights was the only way to Middle East peace.

The Cabinet reminded the warring Palestinian groups of the need to get united in order to safeguard their legitimate rights. “There is no redemption for the Palestinians except by unity, overcoming their differences,” the statement said.

During the meeting, King Abdullah briefed the ministers on the outcome of his talks with Jordan’s King Abdallah in Jeddah on Sunday.

“Saudi Arabia has always been working in the service of the Islamic Ummah and for the unification of Arab ranks,” the king said. He also noted the government’s efforts to promote the Kingdom’s progress and prosperity. Culture and Information Minister Iyad Madani said the Cabinet applauded the success achieved by the Lebanese Army in defeating the extremist group Fatah Al-Islam. The meeting also emphasized the need for Lebanon taking independent decisions without foreign interference.

The Cabinet also approved the establishment of an association named the Saudi Society for Organic Culture in order to promote the trade and its products.

It endorsed a memorandum of understanding signed with Azerbaijan to promote scientific and educational cooperation between the two Islamic countries. The agreement encourages cooperation between educational and research institutions in the two countries, Madani said.

The Cabinet meeting agreed to contribute $250 million to the capital of Arab Gulf Program for United Nations Development Organizations (AGFUND).

The Kingdom will give $25 million to AGFUND annually from the revenue of Saudi Fund for Development during the next 10 years after the approval of its capital by the Gulf countries, the Cabinet said.

Prince Talal, president of AGFUND, has called upon Arab leaders to adopt a microcredit mechanism to combat poverty. “Many countries in the world have already adopted this system,” he said.

Talal said professor Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank of Bangladesh won the Nobel Peace Prize last year for their efforts to create economic and social development from below. “Lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. Microcredit is one such means. Development from below also serves to advance democracy and human rights,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said while awarding the prize to Yunus and Grameen Bank.

Abbas Wants Framework Accord at Mideast Conference

In this handout image provided by the Palestinian Press Office (PPO), Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meets with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on September 2, 2007 in Ramallah, West Bank. Solana is speaking with Palestinian and Israeli politicians in preparation for a Middle East peace conference to be held later this year with the Quartet powers the EU, the USA, Russia and the UN. (Photo by Omar Rashidi/PPO via Getty Images)

Palestinian president says framework, timeline for implementation of peace agreement vital for success of upcoming conference

2 September 2007

Israel-Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants a planned Middle East conference to result in a framework agreement for peace with Israel and set a timeline for implementation, a senior aide said on Sunday.

We are concerned that November 15 will come - if this will indeed be the date for this international conference - without arriving at a specific agreement on all the issues, and that this meeting will be described as a failure," Abbas said.

Abbas has been pressing a reluctant Israel to discuss in depth matters at the core of any future agreement on Palestinian statehood - the shape of final borders and the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.

"We need a framework agreement with a timeline for implementation," a senior Abbas aide said, describing the Palestinian leader's position.

At a news conference with Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Abbas said: "We do not want a meeting that results in merely a statement. We do not want a meeting that will end up a failure for everybody."

The senior aide said Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert failed to bridge their differences on the issue at their last meeting, on August 28.

Abbas said last week the conference proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush would be a waste of time if Israel continued to seek only a broadbrush "declaration of principles".

Israeli officials have used that phrase to describe what Olmert might offer in answer to calls for rapid, final talks in details on establishing a Palestinian state.

Raising the bar too high, the officials have said, could lead to disappointment and crush renewed efforts to revive peacemaking stalled by seven years of violence.