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

News Bush's plan for peace.

  1. Jan 11, 2008 #1
    bush wants peace between Israel and Palestine by the time he leaves office. he doesn't seem to say how he wants to get that done, but he lays out some bold expectations.


    i think the USA has the influence to make these things a reality but will the costs of peace outweigh the benefits? or are people in Israel and Palestine as intent on a plan for peace as bush claims to be?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 11, 2008 #2
    Wow.. this seems like the best news concerning the Israel Palestine conflict Ive ever heard, and especially coming from an american president. AND especially coming from Bush.. This is probably the most intelligent thing he have ever done!

    And YES, I do actually think US is the most important country concerning these issues! That is because US is the biggest supporter, both by the US government, AND private institutions and people (Jewish), in favor of the israeli state. I also would believe that the Palestinians, that is the wast majority, are interested in peace. Sooner or later you would want to live in a peace.

    There is only one problem now, and that is that the US or Bush are not going to negotiate with Hamas. This is a error. Hamas should be involved! Though a strongly fundamentalist religious organization, they represent the mayority of the palestinians. And, I have to say, in the case there is really good offerings: Returning to 67borders, removing many settlements, unifying palestine, even hamas will accept.

    But, there will be extremists on both sides, Jewish and Muslim, that will not accept peace. So who would enforce the peace if it is accomplished? UN
  4. Jan 11, 2008 #3
    I read this and smile; there won't be peace over there in our life time fellows.
  5. Jan 11, 2008 #4
    Negotiate with Hamas?

    The CURRENT Hamas?

    The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!
  6. Jan 11, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If you have ever been involved in any local council / school politics you can see the apeal of this!

    Bush has what about 12 months left in office - to sort out a region that has been a global pain in the butt since civilisation was invented, no problem.
  7. Jan 11, 2008 #6
    Hyperbole? Hamas only controls Gaza, and there are still Fatah in Gaza, Hamas only eliminated the militant faction of Fatah which tried to coup the elected Hamas government. Regardless, I don't think Hamas is interested in negotiations at this point. It really doesn't matter who represents the Palestinians in the negotiations though, the important factor is that the terms reached are acceptable the majorities on both sides of the conflict.

    Anyway, Bush's "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3168462.ece"" comment in regard for the need for territorial continuity, along with other statements on the subject, thankfully demonstrate a better understanding of the issue than Clinton ever showed. The only question that remains is if Bush is willing to do what is necessary to convince the Israeli government to respect the Palestinians right to sovereignty. Granted, that is a big if, but it would do much to improve the man's legacy, so the motivation is certainly there. At this point I am cautiously optimistic.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  8. Jan 11, 2008 #7
    Excuse me?

    They rounded up as many as possible and shot them in the head, execution style. Their definition of "member of the militant faction" was VERY liberally applied, according to CNN, BBC and NPR reports.
  9. Jan 11, 2008 #8
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  10. Jan 11, 2008 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet. Pretty much every recent US President has tried. Remember the famous Arafat/Rabin handshake? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/13/newsid_3053000/3053733.stm

    Nevertheless, you are right that the US has to be instrumental - and lets face it, we're the only ones who are actually trying. But the Palesitinans don't really trust us, so what would be best would be for another 3rd party to act as mediators with us. Russia, perhaps.
  11. Jan 11, 2008 #10
    We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty. I belive it is now over 30 Security Counsel resolutions we have been the sole veto on over the decades. Hence the reason the Palestinians don't trust us, but that is something our President is well within his power to change.
  12. Jan 11, 2008 #11
    As much as it saddens me to say this, it will be very hard for the current Israeli government and Palestinian leadership to reach a true agreement. There is too much distrust among the people, and the current leaderships will lose power if they agree to necessary concessions - Jerusalem is a very problematic issue. Personally, I feel we can't afford to just sit back and let this chance pass, but I'm doubtful it will be achieved under current terms.
    As for Hamas, the most they're willing to offer is a ten-year cease-fire, after which they promise nothing.
    The general forecast is a breakdown of the process, which will bring about the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, with a high likelihood of Hamas taking control of the West Bank. If they manage to smuggle in to, or manufacture rockets in, the West Bank, the situation will get worse for everyone. That's the only reason we've gotten this far.
  13. Jan 11, 2008 #12
    I remember most vividly the descriptions from NPR, which is a radio newscast, but here are some links.



    Here's one from HRW which discusses atrocities on both sides, but does go into a few specifics about Hamas, (tried to teach a Fatah chef to fly for instance)

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  14. Jan 12, 2008 #13
    Yes, the US most probably do have the power to rectify the situation. But, Bush only has 12 months left as President. This leaves him with no time to actually get anything done. He will claim to be having peace talks, and for the situation to be improving. But, at the end of the day, all he wants is to go out on a good note, as all politicians do. They make short term impacts in a hope that they will be remembered for it in the long run, which often isn't true. Sadly, there is hardly, if any, such a thing as selfless politics.
  15. Jan 12, 2008 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If the US withdrew all aid to Israel until the Israelis negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians, some progress could be made. No US politician is willing to take this step, and our government will continue to perpetuate the Zionists' genocide against the Palestinians. Read any news feed in the US. Palestinians can be killed for being "suspected terrorists" by Israeli troops, and Israelis are "slaughtered" by Palestinian "terrorists" or "gunmen". I don't pretend to know the truth in these incidents, but the slant of the popular press is quite evident.
  16. Jan 12, 2008 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Too bad he didn't start 7 years ago when he took office, but it seems he was fixated on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

    Clinton did a very poor job, and Reagan and Bush didn't do much. However, they did allow shipments of the some of the most advanced military technology to Israel.
  17. Jan 12, 2008 #16
    Yeah, the militant facton of Fatah which tried to coup the Hamas led government. The articles explain those Fatah members were holding arms caches, and the first article even lables the ones executed as Fatah fighters, twice within the text of the article and also in the URL itself. And the third article also mentions Fatah miltiants throwing a Hamas supporter off a building as well. So, would you also argue that Fatah is not to be negotated with since they tried to consolidate control by killing off their rivals?

    Between that and the power to impose sanctions though the UN, I figure a year is plenty of time to bring resolution to the conflict. Granted, I have yet to see any indication that Bush actually intends to do anything of the sort.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2008
  18. Jan 12, 2008 #17
    Let's try, for once, to keep the discussion both on topic and free of libel, kay?
  19. Jan 13, 2008 #18


    User Avatar

    I can't see meaningful negotiations happening any time soon. The key message Israel will take from Bush's speech is that the solution 'will have to reflect realities on the ground' i.e. the Palestinians shouldn't expect back land in the west bank where Israel has built it's illegal settlements. Now that Israel has confirmation they will be allowed to keep the occupied land they stole in direct contravention of international law and ergo bad behaviour will be rewarded it is inevitable Israel will want to make sure 'the realities on the ground' favour them as much as possible before contemplating peace and so we can expect another decade or two of settlement expansion before Israel genuinely engages.

    Israel is not even attempting to be subtle about their intentions. Within days of the Annapolis summit they began new 'authorised' settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land and despite criticism from Condi Rice they have stated publicly they will continue to expand their East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements whilst continuing to support and protect their 'unauthorised' settlements.

    Bush's response to this rejection of his demands will be a measure of just how serious he is in promoting a lasting peace settlement.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2008
  20. Jan 13, 2008 #19
    Well, if it is anything like the previous decade, or two, or three, which included the Gaza disengagement, pullout from Lebanon and the Camp David Accords, I guess we can expect a decade of contraction. One thing is certain - it will not satisfy everyone :wink:

    Actually, these expansions began a while back - Israel has a formidable beaurocracy as only a parliamentary socialist democracy can, and Olmert has a very narrow path he can take considering the composition of his coalition.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944220.html" [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  21. Jan 13, 2008 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think it is a difficult situation, because both parties want the same land - all of it, and both could claim historical precedence over that last 5000 years. The status quo seems unsustainable, and it is certainly unsatisfactory.

    Perhaps some in Israel hope to wait it out and that the Palestinians will simply go away. That would seem untenable.

    Some Palesitinians hope that Israel will settle and agree to remove settlers from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to claim E. Jerusalem. Is that even possible?

    And then there are Hamas and Hizbullah, and other interested parties who seem committed to violence, which is unacceptable.

    Hmmmm. Difficult.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook