Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush Regime Helps Palestine?

  1. Nov 14, 2004 #1
    Bush now wants to invest a huge amount of capital in Palestine. Should the Palestinians look the Forth Horsemans horse in the mouth?

    While Bush regime murders the Iraqis, he says he wants to help the Palestinians. This is the epitome of what we call hypocrisy.

    This political move will not have as many beneficial effects as it will negative for the following reasons:

    1. Palestinians view the US occupation of Iraq simililar, but worse, than Israeli occupation. Bush regime murders the Palestines brothers and sisters in Iraq, nearly next door, and the murdering regime wants to treat them to some capital. This capital will surely be seen as blood money, under the present circumstances.

    2. A large percentage of Israelis will obviously dissagree, because this help will be seen by them to be an opportunity to transform this capital into military forms and political capital against them. It has a higher probability to be transformed this way because of the present circumstances.

    3. The US owes investments that will lead to peace between Palestine/Israel dispute, but this attempt is based upon Bush regime desperation due the murders of Iraqi civilians in Iraq rather than promoted through good faith. The investment and energy will be applied with bad timing (Bush in office and Bush in Iraq), and therefore a failure. This will serve as a basis not to invest in peace in following years in the Palestine/Israeli situation. It will be looked back upon as a very large investment that failed, and will be blamed on the attitudes of the people in the circumstance rather than the ignorant regime who applied it.

    The solution: Leave Iraq, then invest capital in helping the Palestinians and Israelis work on settling things. This way the responsiblity the US does owe to the situation would be not displaying a hypocritical attitude which will surely put both sides at an exageratted and/or prolonged disadvantage toward peace.

    If the Palestinians accept Bush, they draw on blood money, their Iraqi brothers and sisters who are being murdered by Bush.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 14, 2004 #2
    1>The allies single handidly killed 650,000 civilians in German bombings after D-day, mostly women, children, and old men (young men were already on the front lines).

    Europe was freed, the holocaust ended, and unheard of peace in Europe established- was that too the "epitome of what we call hypocrisy"??

    2>Your logic is flawed in that you only use your reasoning to say that Iraq proceeds are blood money, however you then discount the same actions in other middle easter countries so long as money comes to Palestine. Is your real goal just to demonize the war in Iraq? By your own logic, I can see no other goal.
     
  4. Nov 14, 2004 #3
    I just posted in the "arab coalition" topic something about the US helping Palestine in a way besides money. You can read about Palestine asking for help from the USA on the elections here
     
  5. Nov 14, 2004 #4
    This is a serious turning point. I can only hope things go well. I do wonder how a crack down on the Palestinian terrorists will be receieved - it is a required part of us working with Palestine to create a state.
     
  6. Nov 14, 2004 #5
    phatmonkey,

    Are you saying that...
    The Killing of 650,000 civilians...
    caused the ending of the holocaust and creating freedom of Europe?

    I'm a bit confused how you relate killing civilians with winning the second world war? Would you clarify how this works? I'm under the impression that obstructing energy from Germany was the reason why Germany did not win, rather than mutilation of Germany's civilians. Without energy, Germany could not fuel a war.

    If Palestine cooperates with Bush regime who murders Iraqis and steal their resources without trade they show a significant percentage of approval of Bush regimes actions most relevant to their part of the world. It would be hypocritical of them to accept Bush's company in their government at this time especially or any time based upon the magnitude of Bushs murderous and anti-diplomatic error toward Arabs. Getting in bed with Bush would make Palestinian leaders a sure target, which would play into Bush regimes anti-semitic Arab theory. Palestine should want be seen as betrayers of their own. They need to be patient, look to fellow Arabs for investments, and competent American leadership in four years from now, we hope.

    I do not have a necessity or a desire to demonize the war. The murderous actions speak for themselves and therefore demonize themselves without any effort on my part. I simply do not submit to the smattering words that Bush regime puts in their so-called reports and theories, which have the effect of patriotizing murder and anti-semitism, dimishing atrocity or hiding an accurate account of evil deeds the military is commanded to do. I'll call it what it is.
     
  7. Nov 14, 2004 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    omin, you can not avoid collateral damage in a war. But that does not mean you should avoid war itself (as in above example).

    You think it's better to have a million Iraqis killed by Saddam, rather than a much smaller number killed as a result of the war ? Perhaps you'd suggest that Saddam Hussein be released and reinstated in power ?

    If rhetoric is all that sells here, perhaps we should all cast off our objective skins and join in the mud-slinging.
     
  8. Nov 14, 2004 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The US is evil if it gives money to Israel, and it's a hypocrit if it gives money to Palestine...tut, tut.
     
  9. Nov 14, 2004 #8
    The US isn't evil or hipocritical, it's just misunderstood. You see American Foreign Policy is based around a capitalist ideal of Might = Right and we want your money. They will do whatever they need to move profits out of the rest of the world and into Continental USA.
     
  10. Nov 14, 2004 #9
    rhet·o·ric ( P )(rtr-k)
    n.

    The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
    A treatise or book discussing this art.
    Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

    A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
    Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
    Verbal communication; discourse.
     
  11. Nov 14, 2004 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you are not sure which connotation I had in mind, it's #5.

    Surely, it didn't seem like I was saying that omin's posts had Dickensian style, did it ?
     
  12. Nov 14, 2004 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Hyperbole" is another useful word...
     
  13. Nov 14, 2004 #12

    kat

    User Avatar

    Sometimes I think the word "poop" is far more accurate.
     
  14. Nov 15, 2004 #13

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I may be wrong but I believe President Bush was referring to the worldwide prestige and influence of the US, not capital in the monetary sense.
     
  15. Nov 15, 2004 #14

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Now if only you would have done that (help creating a Palestinian state ; I'm pretty sure the "terrorist menace" would seriously have gone down) instead of going into Iraq...
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2004
  16. Nov 15, 2004 #15
    You've got your cause and effect backwards.

    We can't create a Palestinian state without the Palestinians showing a crackdown on the terrorist so we can reign in Israel.

    Going into Iraq (or afghanistan) doesn't prevent us from workong on a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.
     
  17. Nov 15, 2004 #16

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It does. You have no moral authority left with the Palestinians.
     
  18. Nov 15, 2004 #17
    Gokul43201 " omin, you can not avoid collateral damage in a war. But that does not mean you should avoid war itself (as in above example).

    You think it's better to have a million Iraqis killed by Saddam, rather than a much smaller number killed as a result of the war ? Perhaps you'd suggest that Saddam Hussein be released and reinstated in power ?

    If rhetoric is all that sells here, perhaps we should all cast off our objective skins and join in the mud-slinging. "

    Gokul,

    there has been no attempt to avoid the war by Bush regime. Resulting in there being no attempt to avoid collateral damage. All the damage is collateral in Iraq. Murdering civilians is collateral damage. Destroying their infrastructure is collateral damage. Murdering those honorable Iraqis who defend against the murder of civilians is murder. Do you understand the cost of rebuilding? Do you understand the cost of lack of diplomacy? Do you understand what that does with the subsidized price of oil? Bush is inferior in economics. What was it Gokul that should be avoided? Perhaps the simple answer, waste of resources and making diplomacy impossible? That wasn't what avoided, becuase that would have meant avoiding war. Based upon the physical evidence of Bush regimes actions, what do you see, not think, what do you sense that Bush has accomplished that is better than what existed before when Saddam was in power?

    The popular American misconception is that Saddam was a lunatic. You obviously have only put faith in the American one-sided and misleading propaganda. Saddam had no interest in creating war. He had only the interest in making Iraq a powerful independent state and making the Arab a world not to be terrorized. Selling oil on the world market was Saddams intersts, not terror. Without selling oil, Iraq couldn't progress. If you don't understand this, you better read some history that wasn't written both those in America who have an incentive to mislead you on what was really is the superior fundamentals of the circumstance. Then use common sense logic to interpret it.

     
  19. Nov 15, 2004 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    Actually, it is capitol that is being referred to BUT it's not exactly "huge" and it's actually only a re-allocation of monies already earmarked for Palestine. I believe it's 75 million that would have gone through vetted humanitarian agencys (vetted to prevent it from transferring to terrorist organizations). The re-allocation of capitol is also dependent on the progression of the Palestinian leadership now that Arafat is gone.
     
  20. Nov 15, 2004 #19

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since 1967 the country which has given the most money to the Palestinians has been the US. That number is followed close behind by the Israelis. Most Arab countries don't even come in the top 10.

    Why are we hypocrits because we're continuing what we've always done?

    Get your facts straight.
     
  21. Nov 15, 2004 #20

    kat

    User Avatar

    LOL, and we had "moral authority" before? Palestine will change when the Arab top dogs think it's in their best interest to have it changed. Until then you can look for the status quo to remain the same.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?