May 01, 2004

"Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, pres

More courageous citizens whose names will be scrawled
on the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes. And it is a
disgrace that you have to read about it in the
Financial Times of London instead on the front pages
of America's major city newspapers.

Guy Dinmore, Jean Eaglesham, Financial Times: Inspired
by the attack of their British colleagues on Tony
Blair's foreign policy, more than 20 former US
diplomats have so far signed a letter to President
George W. Bush protesting against his pro-Israeli
stance. "Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends," the letter says.

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1083180186465

Former US diplomats send protest letter to Bush
By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Jean Eaglesham in
London
Published: April 30 2004 1:15 | Last Updated: April 30
2004 1:15

Inspired by the attack of their British colleagues on
Tony Blair's foreign policy, more than 20 former US
diplomats have so far signed a letter to President
George W. Bush protesting against his pro-Israeli
stance.

The letter accuses Mr Bush of reversing long- standing
American policy in the Middle East by endorsing the
demands of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister,
that Israel retain big settlements in the occupied
West Bank and deny the right of return to Palestinian
refugees.

"Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial
assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its
harsh military measures in occupied territories, and
now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are
costing our country its credibility, prestige and
friends," the letter says.

The letter was drafted by Andrew Killgore, former
ambassador to Qatar, and Richard Curtiss, former chief
inspector of the US Information Agency. The letter was
to have been sent to the White House today, but an
organiser said it was being held to give more former
envoys the chance to sign.

Former ambassadors to Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have signed
so far.

Others include John Brady Kiesling, one of at least
three US diplomats who resigned last year in protest
against the war on Iraq, and Greg Thielmann, until
recently a senior State Department intelligence
analyst who has accused the Bush administration of
twisting intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes and
alleged ties with terrorist groups.

The letter begins by applauding the 52 former British
diplomats who attacked the UK prime minister, and ends
by calling for a reassertion of "American principles
of justice and fairness in our relations with all the
peoples of the Middle East".

"A return to the time- honoured American tradition of
fairness will reverse the present tide of ill-will in
Europe and the Middle East, even in Iraq," it says.

While the former UK diplomats made the headlines at
home, the American letter has stirred little media
interest so far.

It is already well known in Washington that numerous
past and present officers of the US State Department,
especially Arabists, are distressed by what they see
as the cost in the region of Mr Bush's intimate
support of Mr Sharon. For this reason the White House
has effectively sidelined the State Department over
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was Britain's most senior
coalition representative in Iraq until his retirement
last month, revealed on Thursday that he had been
consulted over the letter attacking Mr Blair's Middle
East policy.

The former envoy, however, stressed that he was not
consulted on the final draft and said he disagreed
with its "unbalanced and confrontational" stance on
Iraq. But the fact that he was approached over the
explosive missive was seen by some critics as evidence
of deep-seated establishment unease with the UK's
postwar strategy.

Posted by richard at May 1, 2004 10:43 AM