Is Bush's Financial Aid to Palestine a Gesture of Peace or Hypocrisy?

[omin]

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.

 

[member 5645]

1>Bush now want 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.



2>The solution: Leave Iraq, then invest capital in helping the Palestinians and Israelis work on settling things.
If the Palestinians accept Bush, they draw on blood money, their Iraqi brothers and sisters who are being murdered by Bush.

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.

 

[Political Prodigy]

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 http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1312212004

 

[member 5645]

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 http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1312212004

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.

 

[omin]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Gokul43201]

The US is evil if it gives money to Israel, and it's a hypocrit if it gives money to Palestine...tut, tut.

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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.
Langauge that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
Verbal communication; discourse.

 

[Gokul43201]

rhet·o·ric ( P )(rtr-k)
n.

#1.The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
#2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
#3. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
#4. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
#5. Langauge that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
#6. Verbal communication; discourse.

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 ?

 

[russ_watters]

"Hyperbole" is another useful word...

 

[kat]

Sometimes I think the word "poop" is far more accurate.

 

[GENIERE]

Bush now wants to invest a huge amount of capital ...

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.

 

[vanesch]

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.

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...

 

[member 5645]

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...

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.

 

[vanesch]

Going into Iraq (or afghanistan) doesn't prevent us from workong on a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.

It does. You have no moral authority left with the Palestinians.

 

[omin]

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.

This isn't even an oversimplification, it's a statement of confusion. What you are doing here is choosing to interpret what I have said in a way that gives you the ability to convey a cheap shot, which implies you really don't care to drive for a solution. Are really not serious Gokul?



I agree with you vanech. I especially appreciate your pithiness.

 

[kat]

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.

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.

 

[enigma]

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.

 

[kat]

It does. You have no moral authority left with the Palestinians.

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.

 

[kat]

3. The US owes investments that will lead to peace between Palestine/Israel dispute

We don't owe you crap. Nothing NADA ZIP.

 

[member 5645]

It does. You have no moral authority left with the Palestinians.

Oh really? Beforehand we did, but now we lost it?

Hrrmmm, http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1312212004

 

[member 5645]

phatmonkey,

1>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.



2>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.

1>I'm saying that we targeted whole cities as part of winning WWII, and your idea that Iraqi deaths negate the good done in Iraq doesn't match up, unless you want to tell me that bombing germany was a bad thing too. Pick a direction and stick with it. I am implying that, again, you are just looking to demonize the Iraq war with faulty inconsistant logic.

2>If we weren't in Iraq, we'd still be funding Isreal, and your version of what's happening in Iraq would still be going on in Afghanistan (I say 'your version' because it's not reality, but I'm trying to keep with your 'logic'). Somehow though, to you, these other actions wouldn't be blood money? Hey we fund Israel, we bombed Afghanistan, we are in good with the Saudis, etc. And it's just blood money because of Iraq? Admit it, you are trying to find a stand against us being in Iraq. Your logic says it should all be blood money, however I think yoru logic is wrong anyways.

 

[Bilal]

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 http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1312212004

USA has lovely relations only with our leaders. Few people believe that USA helping the Palestinian!

USA give aid to UNRWA (for Palestinian refugees), this help is to force the Palestinian refugees to forget their own homes and lands which stolen by the Israeli. It is indirect help for the Zionism which believes that western countries should provide money for Palestinian refugees to let them forget their origin homeland. Do you think billions of Dollars will compensate the tragedy of those poor refugees who lost their homeland and have miserable life since two generations?

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.

According to the the American-Israeli leadership; 80% of Palestinian (PLO, Hamas, PDF, PPF) are terrorists! So what the advantage of Palestinian State after annihilation of the nation because they are ‘’terrorists’’ in the eyes of Busharon?

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.

I do not think that Saddam killed such large numbers! He is dictator as most of pre USA dictators I the region. Most of his crimes in 80s got support of the American government.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

USA currently doing worse than Saddam in Iraq and nobody invited them to destroy this country … for example, Kuwaiti government is worse than Saddam, they banning 25% of their nation from the nationality or any rights because they are from other tribes, also they practicing slavery and cheap labor from south of Asia. Why USA did not started by Kuait to spread freedom and democracy? Also Saddam is not worse than Rahamov or Zien Eddin (the best friends of Bush).

The US is evil if it gives money to Israel, and it's a hypocrit if it gives money to Palestine...tut, tut.

USA do not give help to Palestinian. They just pay money to UN to improve the conditions of the refugees (USA support Israel to ban those refugees to return back!) , while USA give complete blessings and support for the ethic cleansing policy of Israel in Occupied land .

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.

Just force Israel to withdraw from occupied land according to UN resolutions (191, 194, 242, 338...) and build wall on the borders. Palestinian uprising started from 1987 (peaceful resistance till 1993) , why they did not create Palestinian State in the peaceful era 1967-1987? Also what the goal of illegal Jews settlements which control 60% of the land of WB and 85% of water resources?
End the occupation , remove the illegal settlements, respect UN resolutions and let the refugees to return back , then there will be no resistance … if Palestinian did not resist (which is legally according to international laws) the occupation, then none could hear about them.

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.

USA gives 6 billion Dollars annually to Israel every year (half of them military aid). They give also several hundreds millions of Dollars to UN to support the Palestinian refugees, so Israel will not be morally responsible about them. Every Palestinian refugee’s family receives 100 Dollars from UN in the end of each month to survive!
If USA let the UN (do not use VETO) to apply the UN resolutions 191 and 194, then all these refugees will return back , and no need for American aid. Simply, all the American aid to Palestinian fit with Israeli strategy and interest. Because if USA stop give aid to UN-RWA then EU will force Israel to respect UN resolutions.

USA can help the Palestinian by stop using VETO and letting the 70 resolutions of UN about ME conflict active as they did with Iraq.

USA aid Israel by:

Financially: 3 B Dollars annually
Military: the most advance technology to kill the Palestinian and to attack the neighbors. Beside that , 3B Dollars to buy weapons.

Politically: USA gave complete and unique support to Israel : In 1982 , USA was the only country in the world supported Israel after Sabra and Chatila massacre (beside 20000 victims among civilians). Thanks to USSR and France who gave support to Syra and Palestinian to stop the barbarism of Sharon in that time.

USA used the VETO 69 times to cancel anti Israel resolutions! Also it is the only country in UN who always vote against protection of Palestinian civilians.

Jenin massacre 2002: The world asked to protect the Palestinian refugees , except USA (Bush called Sharon : man of peace!) ... also USA used VETO to cancel the SC resolutions about protection of Palestinian civilian or sending international group to investigate about war crimes.

USA declared more than one time, that occupation of Iraq is good for security of Israel! (This means you can kill all the ME nation to secure the life of 5 millions Israeli. Most of them born out of Palestine and have dual nationalities!

 

[Bilal]

It does. You have no moral authority left with the Palestinians.

I agree completely, what USA is doing in Iraq made no difference between them and Israel. The American journalist (Neocons-Jews) ,Tomas Freidman, wrote recently that people of Iraq using the world (Jews) or (Zionists) to describe the American … also many people in ME confused about news whether it is from Jenin or Falluja … (checkpoints, raping and murdering the prisoners , destruction of houses, wall and fences, murdering civilians, soldiers dancing on the blood of their victims …)

1>I'm saying that we targeted whole cities as part of winning WWII, and your idea that Iraqi deaths negate the good done in Iraq doesn't match up, unless you want to tell me that bombing germany was a bad thing too. Pick a direction and stick with it. I am implying that, again, you are just looking to demonize the Iraq war with faulty inconsistant logic./QUOTE]

Main differences between Iraq and Germany WW2:

- Germany was greatest country on the earth, they started aggressive war to occupy the world, Iraq Was victim of ‘’lies’’ about MDW and ALqaeda-link. They accepted all the UN resolutions by removing their weapons, but USA-UK bombed them for 13 years causing death of 1 Million civilian. After that, they invaded the country ‘’because the god told Bush to do that) and for (the security of Israel) , beside the ‘’oil industry).
- Hitler did many crimes based on his ideology; Saddam was stupid dictator who had good relations and strong support from the American in the 80s. Simply, USA governments in 80s are responsible also about the crimes of Saddam because they did not let the UN to declare one resolution against Saddam! Even when he used chemical weapons against Kurds in 1988, the American government rejected to punish him.
- Double standard of American: Saddam is evil and Sharon is man of peace! Such policy gives no moral to American to ask about justice.
- American crimes sin Iraq worse than what Saddam did (e.g. Abu Gharib ..), simply they are in the same moral level, the only difference that Saddam has not propaganda machine to hide his crimes by few tons of lies.

AT last ((who told you that American did very well by destruction of Dresden (murdering 150000 civilians!) and using nuke against Japan?!

 

[member 5645]

Bilal,if I respond to your posts, will you actually respond to me this time, please? I do not want to spend the time again going down the list to have no response.

 

[Bilal]

Dear phatmonky,

I will reply, may be tomorrow if your post need long answer.

If you want peace in ME, just let UN resolutions active. Palestinian are under occupation without real authority on ground. Their cities are isolated by walls, check points and settlements, so how they can control the groups that attack Israel?

USA and Israel claim that the wall is to protect Israel: if this true , so why they do not build it on the border and withdraw?! Also what the goal of the illegal settlements on 60% of the land of WB?

Bilal,if I respond to your posts, will you actually respond to me this time, please? I do not want to spend the time again going down the list to have no response.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul,

there has been no attempt to avoid the war by Bush regime.

How about the ultimatum offered to Saddam Hussein, that if he turned himself in, there would be no war. If the collateral damage was inevitable, shouldn't Saddam have simply resigned and given himself up, in the better interests of his country ? But we all know that Saddam was only interested in his own power.

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.

How is this different from any other war ?

Murdering those honorable Iraqis who defend against the murder of civilians is murder.

Strange. These "honorable Iraqis" have themselves murdered a good number of (Iraqi) civilians. I wonder what those numbers are like ?

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?

I myself was opposed to the war (and still think this is a huge mess) , and it's not time yet to tally accomplishments...but sometime in the future we might know better. As of now though, Iraq won't be ruled by Saddam, Uday or Qusay Hussein.

The popular American misconception is that Saddam was a lunatic. You obviously have only put faith in the American one-sided and misleading propaganda.

Really ? And you know this...how ?

Saddam had no interest in creating war.

Hmmm...so what about the invasion of Kuwait ? And what about giving himself up to avoid this war ?

He had only the interest in making Iraq a powerful independent state and making the Arab a world not to be terrorized.

But it's okay to offer incentives for terrorists/suicide bombers.

Selling oil on the world market was Saddams intersts, not terror. Without selling oil, Iraq couldn't progress.

That's perfectly understandable. How about selling food to buy arms, when thousands of children are starving to death ?

 

[vanesch]

LOL, and we had "moral authority" before?

Well, you had more than you have now. But honestly, the problem isn't with the palestinians for the moment: they are in a state-size prison and their leaders had house arrest. The only way out of the problem is FIRST create a Palestinian state (no matter whether there are terrorists or not ; consider their victims to be the collateral damage of peace :-) ; the nasty problem is of course all those colonists, so I'd say, with international aid, they get the choice between getting some money and moving back into israel, or to stay, but as citizens of the Palestinian state. Then have a kind of Marshall plan to get the Palestinian economy up and running. Yes, there will still be terrorism, but once all that is done, I'm sure that 1) they will have less incentives to do so and 2) the new palestinian state will ALSO have as it interest that this stops. Until the Iraqi war, the US could have played a major role in this. Now I think that the Palestinians will not even come to the table when the US tries to be the negociator.

What you are asking now is that a people which is badly treated and oppressed should FIRST crack down on terrorists and then you'll see. That's bound to failure.
It is a bit like burning someone with a red iron bar, and tell him that if he stops screaming, you will stop burning him.

 

[kat]

Well, you had more than you have now.

well, honestly if Iraq does hold elections in the coming months succesfully and an Iraqi chosen government is in place, the U.S. will gain a certain amount of credibility and strength in the ME. Perhaps not with the common people but with the leadership, which in the end is where it needs to be for serious change within Palestine and other countries.

But honestly, the problem isn't with the palestinians for the moment: they are in a state-size prison and their leaders had house arrest.

I think the problems are beyond palestine and amongst their leaders as well as at least a decade of indoctrination of death cult mindset amongst their youth. The damage of this is directly the responsibility of the leadership of the community and will take a generation to cure even with the creation of a viable state. IMO

The only way out of the problem is FIRST create a Palestinian state (no matter whether there are terrorists or not ; consider their victims to be the collateral damage of peace :-) ; the nasty problem is of course all those colonists, so I'd say, with international aid, they get the choice between getting some money and moving back into israel, or to stay, but as citizens of the Palestinian state. Then have a kind of Marshall plan to get the Palestinian economy up and running. Yes, there will still be terrorism, but once all that is done, I'm sure that 1) they will have less incentives to do so and 2) the new palestinian state will ALSO have as it interest that this stops. Until the Iraqi war, the US could have played a major role in this. Now I think that the Palestinians will not even come to the table when the US tries to be the negociator.

What you are asking now is that a people which is badly treated and oppressed should FIRST crack down on terrorists and then you'll see. That's bound to failure.
It is a bit like burning someone with a red iron bar, and tell him that if he stops screaming, you will stop burning him.

Well, I see a compendium of problems here although i agree with much of it. Can we start with an outline of what you believe to be neccesary for the creation of a viable state?
Also, if the U.S. tries to negotiate and offers $$ I will place big bets against your big bets that Palestinian leaders will come to the table...even if they later undermine every bit of success they had found there.

 

[vanesch]

well, honestly if Iraq does hold elections in the coming months succesfully and an Iraqi chosen government is in place, the U.S. will gain a certain amount of credibility and strength in the ME. Perhaps not with the common people but with the leadership, which in the end is where it needs to be for serious change within Palestine and other countries.

Those elections are going to be a joke. What parties are there ? What are their programmes ? Did they inform the electorate ? Were there debates ? Come on. That will be Chechenya style elections, and I can imagine that the US will be popular with the "leadership" that will come out of it.

I think the problems are beyond palestine and amongst their leaders as well as at least a decade of indoctrination of death cult mindset amongst their youth. The damage of this is directly the responsibility of the leadership of the community and will take a generation to cure even with the creation of a viable state. IMO

I agree. However, the death cult is a result of the miserable conditions in which these younsters grew up, together with a toxic dose of religious fundamentalism (which wouldn't have had a chance if the conditions would have been better). When they regularly saw Israeli tanks destroy houses, helicopters raid over camps and so on, it is understandable that you want to fight and give your life for revenge, out of despair and maybe, in the hope that it will change something. The main problem is with the attitude of Israel, who put the palestinians in this situation. Let us not forget that it was Sharon who provoked the first intifada. He lives politically of the violence: there more violence he can provoke, the more the israeli citizens are scared and ask for revenge ; and who's there to do that ? Sharon.
But I agree that now there has been so much blood on both sides, so much hate and desire for revenge, that it will be difficult to get out of the situation, and it will probably take a generation to cool down. But that is why it is important to get those Palestinian younsters out of that miserable prison that Sharon is building, in order not to get a new generation of bombers. You will have to live with the damage from the past (including some terrorists remaining). That shouldn't refrain people from setting up a state.

Well, I see a compendium of problems here although i agree with much of it. Can we start with an outline of what you believe to be neccesary for the creation of a viable state?
Also, if the U.S. tries to negotiate and offers $$ I will place big bets against your big bets that Palestinian leaders will come to the table...even if they later undermine every bit of success they had found there.

Hey, if I have to give a working peace plan, I want to be paid for it
It seems that, apart from the colonists, that the main difficulty is Jerusalem.
Now I happen to be born in a country where there is a very similar problem (happily, no bombers yet). In Belgium, there are 2 communities (Flemish and French) which have always argued with each other (it dates back to the 13th century). So the state became a federal state, with two sub-states (called regions) Flanders and Wallony. However, the problem remained: both wanted to have Brussels. Well, a solution which more or less works, is: make it a third region!
So I propose that Israel gives up Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem becomes an independent state. A bit like Monaco.

 

[kat]

Those elections are going to be a joke. What parties are there ? What are their programmes ? Did they inform the electorate ? Were there debates ? Come on. That will be Chechenya style elections, and I can imagine that the US will be popular with the "leadership" that will come out of it.

I don't think they will be a "joke". It's a very serious matter which has and is being given serious thought and action by Iraqi's. I have friends who had the great opportunity to be able to talk and well...ask many, many questions of the iraqi's who are will be participating in running the elections. They have been traveling and observing elections throughout the world. At the time my friend was able to meet the IRaqi's, she was supervising the elections in Indonesia. Democratic elections have already been held in many of providences of Iraq already. The biggest issue will be security...registration began the day of our election...I believe parties are formed..I will be glad to look into more accurate answers for you.

I agree. However, the death cult is a result of the miserable conditions in which these younsters grew up, together with a toxic dose of religious fundamentalism (which wouldn't have had a chance if the conditions would have been better). When they regularly saw Israeli tanks destroy houses, helicopters raid over camps and so on, it is understandable that you want to fight and give your life for revenge, out of despair and maybe, in the hope that it will change something. The main problem is with the attitude of Israel, who put the palestinians in this situation. Let us not forget that it was Sharon who provoked the first intifada. He lives politically of the violence: there more violence he can provoke, the more the israeli citizens are scared and ask for revenge ; and who's there to do that ? Sharon.
But I agree that now there has been so much blood on both sides, so much hate and desire for revenge, that it will be difficult to get out of the situation, and it will probably take a generation to cool down. But that is why it is important to get those Palestinian younsters out of that miserable prison that Sharon is building, in order not to get a new generation of bombers. You will have to live with the damage from the past (including some terrorists remaining). That shouldn't refrain people from setting up a state.

This is probably a subject better suited for it's own thread. I will say this..with the hope that a response will be in another thread.. actually..first...are you saying that Sharon provoked the first or second intifada?

Hey, if I have to give a working peace plan, I want to be paid for it
It seems that, apart from the colonists, that the main difficulty is Jerusalem.
Now I happen to be born in a country where there is a very similar problem (happily, no bombers yet). In Belgium, there are 2 communities (Flemish and French) which have always argued with each other (it dates back to the 13th century). So the state became a federal state, with two sub-states (called regions) Flanders and Wallony. However, the problem remained: both wanted to have Brussels. Well, a solution which more or less works, is: make it a third region!
So I propose that Israel gives up Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem becomes an independent state. A bit like Monaco.

I'm sorry, perhaps my question wasn't clear... I'm asking what you think to be the neccesary pre-requisites for the formation of a state...any state in order for it to be a viable functioning state...