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

What's the game, Mr. President?

  1. Oct 30, 2003 #1
    As kat suggested this can better be a separate thread.

    I am very concerned about what's Bush up to. It seems there is a hidden red line ... . I really hope there is none.

    I start with a quite neutral view.

    Interesting on BBC news website:
    (1) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his country has no plans to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3217581.stm

    This is IMO a good point for Sharon: He confirms that he will not kill the chosen President of Palestine. Whaw, that really seems a gift.

    But also: Israel's treatment of Palestinians is causing a humanitarian crisis, the country's chief of staff General Yaalon has said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228843.stm) causing a fury in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office.

    and:
    (2) Hamas leader talks strategies . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3224989.stm.

    Insights about the logic used by Hamas. Is this that 'right of revolution'? (thread: can a normal person become a terrorist?)

    We see that from both sides a lot of emotions are involved, and both claim injustice.
    Both go for 'an-eye-for-an-eye'.
    What can stop this spiral of violence?
    What is the hidden agenda of each? Does Likud really goes in long term for a Great Israel (then Syria is also a target to occupy in the future)? Does Hamas want to destroy Israel completely? -

    Now what is the long term goal of the Likud party (Sharon's): Check this map.
    http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/eretz/future.asp .
    Does it includes Iraq? I think so.

    Now look what one of Bush religious fathers Pat Roberson states:
    http://www.patrobertson.com/teaching/TeachingonIsraelTerritory.asp
    "Every place on which the sole of your foot treads, I have given it to you, just as I spoke to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory."
    ....
    Pat Roberson: And why is America in favor of Israel? Because we have a great history of biblical belief -- Judeo-Christian -- and we believe God gave the land to the descendents of Israel.
    It was not given to Palestine, it wasn't given to so-called Palestinians. It wasn't given to Saudis or the Syrians.

    It was given to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Joshua. God said, You step on it and conquer it and I will give it to you. We are looking at a time dating back 3,000 years. This has been the land of Israel. And it belongs to them. And God is not going to let anybody take it away from them."

    Is this what pushes Bush? Does he risks young American lives to make the dream of Zionist fundamentalists come through or to realize some prophecies of the Bible? http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3025
    So ... what's the real game Mr. President?
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 30, 2003 #2

    megashawn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    and that certainly is a good question. I still hold the position that any person who upholds a belief system that ends in total annihalation of life on earth should not be in charge of the (one of the) greatest military on it.
     
  4. Oct 31, 2003 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Setting aside for now that there has never been a country called "Palestine" for anyone to be president of, Arafat lost an election and lost the leadership role of the PA. That he has refused to cede his position is evidence of his true nature - not interested in peace or democratic processes, only his own power.
     
  5. Oct 31, 2003 #4
    Re: Re: What's the game, Mr. President?

    Indeed, this is not the issue here:
    But:
    (1) There were elections. Yes or no? Jim Carter was a controller.
    (2) Did Arafat loose? I remember he won. Please correct me.
    (3) I seems to me that Arafat is accepted in his 'country' or 'territory' (if you prefer) as the leader. He appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers.
    De jure and de facto he is the leader if Sharon don't accept it or not.
    IMO Sharon has no legitimacy to decide who is the leader of the Palestines.

    You mean that Sharon's true nature is to be interested in peace or democratic processes, not in his own power? I think he proved to handle and feed a conflict model, not a consensus model. When did the intifade started?

    I believe that if Rabin still would live the whole region would be much more peaceful then today.
    Of course we will never know. But a lot of my Jewish friends believe that too.
     
  6. Oct 31, 2003 #5
    wanttoknow.info site

    The wanttoknow.info site provides for free rare news information. (normally you pay for such info).

    Here the link to an article on: The Secret War; Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its 'black world' of covert operations - The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; Oct 27, 2002; William M. Arkin;

    Check: http://www.wanttoknow.info/021027latimes .

    The LA Times (quote):

    ....
    Rumsfeld's influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified "outbrief" -- a briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies -- that the global war on terrorism "requires new strategies, postures and organization."

    The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.

    Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

    Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk," the briefing paper declares.
    ....

    (end of quote).

    Other interesting page: Was 9/11 Allowed to Happen?
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up
     
  7. Nov 1, 2003 #6
    Just for grins...
    The next time you pass a used book store, go in an see if you can find an atlas published before 1948. Have a look at the chunk of land between Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
    Just for grins.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2003
  8. Nov 1, 2003 #7
    Thanks HAVOC451. Always open for information. Since I almost never pass a used bookstore can you give some more insights or details?
     
  9. Nov 1, 2003 #8
    I have two old maps that call that place "Palestine." Now, that may or may not mean that "Palestine" was a country, but it does suggest that those people didn't invent themselves.
    I feel I should add that I do not in any way support the notion that strapping a bomb to ones person and boarding a crowded bus is an acceptable means of making the point that Palestine existed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2003
  10. Nov 1, 2003 #9
    Re: wanttoknow.info site

    This sounds like a conspiracy theory designed to take over the world by causing terrorism...which is actually what some neocons, Like PNAC supporters and members Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. Back in 1997, they and other neocons decided that the best thing for America to do was to remain the world's lone superpower by any means necesary. Taking over Iraq's oil fields is just a start.
     
  11. Nov 1, 2003 #10
    For those who want know more about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict here is a link to a UN-site (with maps!): http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
    On one of the pages: The Council has set forth the basic principles for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, known as the "land for peace" formula, by its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Since then, the Security Council_ has, inter alia, on numerous occasions expressed concern about the situation on the ground,_ declared null and void the measures taken by the Israeli government to change the status of Jerusalem, called for the cessation of Israeli settlement activity, which it determined to have no legal validity, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem and_ called for the return of Palestinian deportees. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/security_council.htm

    Thank you Havoc451 for pointing on the importance of maps. After googling some seconds I found these:
    A map of Palestina (1898): http://www.rubylane.com/ni/shops/curioshop/iteml/col5193 , and a lot of old maps of the region can be found on: http://www.geographicus.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=PME

    If so a scary development!

    Of course ... I am sure nobody on PF supports such actions. But I am also sure that these bomb-people don't do it for fun and are probably motivated by experiences that we will not find in a MCDonalds in LA or looking to comic movie in a ranch in Texas.

    The strange thing is that Pat Roberson refers to the 'Old Testament' instead of the 'New Testament' which brings a God of Love through his son Jesus. In Christianity the NT is much more important than the OT. The NT shows compassion, love for your neighbor, peace, ... . Probably Pat Roberson prefers the OT God of Fear. Is that the reason why Bush divides the world in 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' in his speeches?
    IMHO it are (still) humans who have written the OT and NT texts (including the phrases about that promised land) for "their own people".

    Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.

    Oh my God! This is going the un-christian way. Jesus! Light please on this All Saints day.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2003
  12. Nov 1, 2003 #11

    kat

    User Avatar

    I think you need to do more then just pick and choose your maps to support your theories. The word "Palestine" had a use equal to that of The Levant. That aside, if you really want to even begin to grasp the area then you should delve into Syria, and why the ottoman empire considered that portion to be Southern Syria. How that effects the area and what Syria's own intentions are considering that they do, did and probably will continue to consider this area "theirs".
     
  13. Nov 2, 2003 #12
    It's not a matter of picking and choosing a map to support one side or the other. The maps tell a story. A story of a place called Israel that was once called Palestine, and if you go back far enough you find that the same land was once before called Israel. (If there were any Cananites around today we might have three side fighting here.) So both sides have claim to the land and neither side is willing to accept the others claim.
    The terrible thing is that inspite of all the killing, neither side has reached a point where the horror of it makes the people in power stop and re-think. Hamas would kill every Israeli if it could. Sharon would gleefully bulldose every man, woman, and child in the Gaza strip into the Mediteranian sea if he could. Tit for tat, eye for eye.
    No matter what the rest of the world does, there can be no solution to this nightmare untill the killing stops. The killing wont stop untill one side has had enough and can convince the other that they have had enough as well.

    So, where does Bush's game come to play in this?
    Is Bush's support for Israel evidence that U.S. foreign policy is fronting for the Zionist dream of a greater Israel?
    With folks like Perle involved, I can see why some people think it is.
    Pat Robertson's intrest is nothing less than armageddon to hasten his bizzare take on the second coming of christ.
    Actually U.S foreign policy in the region has been been consistant if not single minded for fifty years. It's all about the oil. Who lives and who dies, who rules and who suffers, has little to do with it.
    I don't think U.S foreign policy in this area is geared toward the benifit of humanity.
    But, that's just my opinion.
     
  14. Nov 2, 2003 #13
    I agree completely.
    But Likud hard-liners goes for the Biblical Israel, like the radical murder of former Israel's Prime Minister Rabin.
    For some US political and religious people in US these are the 'good' guys, all backed by misrepresented Christian values, from which "Permission to kill" (like James Bond) became a highly appreciated Christian value ... in political and TV-entertainment sense, and mixed with family values, treasured relationships with the Almighty, hard work brings success, everybody's worth, etc.

    There was a point in time where each party was on speaking terms. Camp David and further. Arafat and Rabin ... . I know there were still problems but there was good WILL ... and pressure from US(!).
    If we would put such 'good will' on a balance I believe Arafat would be the winner. Not because he is good man but because he has nothing to loose anymore, he can only win something. His motives may be "staying-in-power", proud, ... whatever ... but I believe his real power is that he sees himself like a founding father that want to take care of his people, a symbolic duty. He accepted "Land for Peace".
    Sharon on the other side became in power by creating - during a demonstrative walk to that mosque - the intifada. That was intentional. A 'good' chess move. By creating insecurity for his 'own' people he won the elections. Sharon doesn't showed good will, he thinks in terms of power like Machiavelli. Sharon's motto: Land for Nothing (because it's ours for already 3,000 years ... and nothing will stop 'ME').
    Be sure: In Sharon's mind 'HE' rules USA, and Bush is only HIS puppet. Pure Machiavelli. A very intelligent guy!

    .
    No, I believe USA has a key role and has also a 'Christian' responsibility to really push peace. I mean US really has the KEY. In global politics USA loses every day more face, and US is not seen as a global police man but as a out-law cow-boy. But US can regain respect if it acts with 'grandeure'.

    That's my opinion too.
    Thanks.
     
  15. Nov 2, 2003 #14
    The point, I think, is not the political borders, but the fact that people who have lived on that land for centuries were removed from their homes in order to create a fake country for the Jews to call home. The religious idea is secondary to the idea that people can be forcibly removed from their land by declaration of nations half a world away.
     
  16. Nov 2, 2003 #15

    kat

    User Avatar

    Well, perhaps the point should be then, (if you were really interested in the truth of the area and the politics both religious and national) would be that there were 22 "fake" countries created in the area during the same time period and that plenty of jews were also removed from their homes in those other "fake" countries. In the cases that religion is secondary, it is secondary to the declaration "All of Arab land must be only and always Arab". The point is also your "political" borders go far deeper then the "politics" you would like to attribute them to, in fact Syria has been very passionate about them..to the point where they are responsible for more deaths and a far more oppresive imprisonment of palestinians then the Israeli's ever have been. So, if it's "truth" you're in search of then one would suppose you would also be interested in the WHOLE picture and not the limited one so far portrayed here in this bungled mess of conspiracy theories.
     
  17. Nov 2, 2003 #16
    Why don't you calm down, kat? Or is that Israeli flag you have tattooed on your arm talking to you now? I noted the same sort of thing when discussing the future of Iraq, which was cobbled together by outsiders as well. The main difference for me, is that my tax dollars go to fund Israeli brutalities. I was too young to pay taxes in the 80s, when America funded Iraqi brutality, sent the CIA to train Afghan terrorists, etc.
     
  18. Nov 2, 2003 #17
    Kat, I am interested in that whole picture and that 'truth'. Please start.
    I will appreciate to understand what you consider as 'that mess of conspiracy theories'. Can you be specific point by point? Thanks.
     
  19. Nov 2, 2003 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    Stop accusing me of being upset and irrational when I present an argument you don't like. Dialogue takes a response to comments made. Your habit of going off on a personal tangent are not condusive of that.
    tasteless
     
  20. Nov 2, 2003 #19

    kat

    User Avatar

    I'll post in depth explanation tomorrow when I have more time and haven't spent 6 hours watching football playoffs in the cold wet New England weather. We were creamed by kids that looked like neanderthals.....but my daughter was pronounced the top cheerleader in her all stars team. Odd considering I've always been somewhat an anti-cheerleader type of person....:wink:
     
  21. Nov 2, 2003 #20
    Kat,

    about conspiracy: are these people also involved in creating conspiracy theories just like those 100,000 Israeli remembering Rabin on the Rabin Square?

    http://www.phr.org.il/Phr/Pages/PhrArticles_index.asp?Cat=143

    Interesting website of "Physicians for Human Rights - Israel". This organization was established in 1988 in Israel as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, dedicated to promoting and protecting the right to health.
    Quote:
    The situation in the Occupied Territories is of great concern. Israel denies the application of human rights conventions, despite having effective control of the territory, and moreover contests the applicability of the Fourth Geneva convention, which contains the specific provisions of protection of civilians in an occupied territory. These claims are unacceptable, and the vast majority of the international legal community, including prominent Israeli experts on international law, all agree that Israeli actions must conform to these provisions, and Israel cannot evade the obligations it has signed on to undertake.

    Human Rights are violated regularly within Israel too. Migrant workers, refugees, women, prisoners, and members of minority groups, are not afforded the protection and treatment expected according to international human rights standards. Even children are not immune from violations – Israel employs different criteria when defining who is a child, depending on the nationality of the individual. Thus, an Israeli is a child until the age of 18 and Palestinian childhood ends at the age of 16. The children of migrants were only considered children until the age of 14, in regards to receiving free gas masks. These discriminatory definitions are in contrast to international law, and have severe adverse effects on the lives of the children. "

    That webpage also contains links to all international laws and conventions.

    About those 100,000 people and this motivated organization: I deeply respect them. They have ethics.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?