Injustice of Middle Eastern conflict - Bush's plans

DadaKopf

So, as the Palestinian Intifada charges along, with often excessive Israeli reprisals, it seems the conflict is escalating despite press reports of Ariel Sharon's measured military responses, cooled US involvement and a suggested reopening of peace talks.

The truth is that, in spite of current measured Israeli reprisals for Palestinian aggrerssion, things will not hold - the violence and injustice is almost certain to increase and may even spread to the greater arab region. The Arab summit, the first for 10 years, has achived little other than to settle leaders' differences over the Gulf War and to nearly unanimously declare support for the Palestinian Intifada against Israel. If this mututal support solidifies, tensions may seriously reach dangerous levels for world peace. The recent actions by George W Bush and his government have made some decisions which raise concerns about the American attitude toward the region.

Bush has publically claimed that he wants a democratic regime in Iraq during his term - he wishes to oust Hussein and most likely, put in a sympathetic puppet government with which to control the oil, much like in Kuwait. We all expect that, let's face it, but what's more insidious is the secondary motive; the likelyhood is that the US will manipulate Hussein into actions which will promote military aggression and possibly war for the sole intention of removing public attention from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, distracting the moral world conscience. When that happens, the war-lord, Ariel Sharon, will be free to return to his old tricks or unrepentant military aggression, which he has been careful to minimise in recent weeks [it's difficult to see whether he's being genuinely progressive or waiting for a dissipation of public scrutiny].

The plan is simple, fight the foe with your army, funded by foreign donors with an eye to destroy the enemy's already shattered economy - deny them their right to self realisation by crushing their ability to live a humane life, economically, institutionally and politically. Since the Intifada, Israeli weapons have pounded the Palestinian infrastructure and people's own dwellings; Palestine has been losing up to £20.5 million a day and unemployment has spiralled to 30% while the country is shattered by shellfire and showers of Israeli bullets. Meanwhile, Israel enjoys their first surplus budgets in the history of the state and Tel Aviv citizens live a normal life, realtively free from any discomforts or worries.

We're all aware of Bush's withdrawal from this crisis [one to which Clinton's invlovement must be fully commended] - please don't lose sight of what's going on despite of any future deflecting strategies.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 30-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 30-03-2001).]

Belisarius

Hrm...this ones aimed at last nights post I think ,

I get what yer on about , though I do think its a bit Machiavellian for Bush , but as ever time will tell . Your analysis of the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is bang on . The campaign of terrorism on behalf of Palestine is nothing compared to the Razing of anything of value under way by the Isreali security foces.

---

Shrewgar!

DadaKopf

I just find that many of the developments of Bush's administration will prove to be pretty dangerous in the future.

Bush has declared, on part of his political machine, that any decision affecting the rest of the world will be on America's terms - America will act in situations that suit it and profit it. This is repugnant.

First Bush declares political disinterest in the peace process thereby giving Sharon and violence on both sides a green light (sticking up two fingers at justice) and now Bush has rejected the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it wouldn't be profitable for America to do so. When has profit and ethical responsibility ever been a question of profit? It's a depressing day when a country which is responsible in part for scores of conflicts in history and one quarter of the world's CO2 emissions adopt the position of: "**** you, you're not the boss of me"?

Moreover, a US ruling has allowed the anti-abortion website to publish doctor's names, 7 of who have been murdered - a dangerous move given his public anti-abortionist stance. Is this to by construed as permission to target doctors who administer abortions?

The disinterest in the Balkans (the desire to withdraw troops from the region) only adds to the disintegrating relationship between the US and Europe and the rest of the world but watch out because he's going to invite China over to play soon enough.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

bugler

The US has always been primarily about self-interest,perhaps just not to this degree.
As for the abortion web page,I can understand the decision,freedom of speech etc.I realise that the info present can be used to track down said doctors,but its a minefield.If you can't put up doctors names (whatever the motivation)then what can u put up? It could have had huge implications for Americas constitional right to free speech,which we all know,dubya treasures so much.While I understand the verdict,the judges reasoning was a bit dodgy.Claiming that violence has always been a part of US society is not exactly solid foundations for a ruling...

DadaKopf

Well, first off, it's almost a given that every country acts out of self interest but often times, that interest extends to those of other countries, with mutual responsibility as a prime motivator - such as Kyoto.

The point I was making is the obvious turn Bush's USA is making away from responsible intervention into egocentric, self important and self serving political policies, almost reversing much of the last 10 years' worth of Democrat rule. It shows a completely arrogant streak in the Republicans' psyche if they're turning their backs on responsibility in favour of out and out personal gain and (from a European standpoint at least) childish irresponsebility.

This is why the abortion list for doctors is so curious; indeed it's permissable to publish certain information under the provisions of law but the stance was curiously amoral. It's ok to give out detailed personal information on the web and you just have to accept that anti-abortionists might maim or murder these doctors. It's just an illustration of crazy, illogical and rediculous feats of rational acrobatics that this new administration is making.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Paladin

Yer right.
America is far too arrogant without a decent president to keep them in tow. In fairness Clinton wasnt too bad, but George Bush, well, its just scary to think a maniac like him has so much power.

DadaKopf

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 04-04-2001).]

DadaKopf

Just to continue my first post, I read a tiny report from Reuters in the Irish Times yesterday. Speaking at the Arab Summit, currently taking place, the leaders of Kuwait informed the press that they still fear Iraqi invasion at any time, given the language which the Iraqui delegation has been using.

Amid inches and inches of column space dedicated to Milosevic and China was a small, 80 word piece about, perhaps, the next stage in US policy.

Raise awareness of Iraqi aggression towards Kuwait, force Iraq into an act of defiance and hey presto! Gulf War II! And for the same price, you get unrestricted military aggression from the Israelis in the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Am I overreacting?