G.W. Bush wrong on the Palestinian - Israeli Issue

This US president - god or a self appointed police of the world ?

    Bush unqualified to mediate   Bush - wrong on Terrorism   Bush is god - always knows best?
by our Civic World Correspondent    To Previous  Click here to contact us  Back to home page

Bush playing god while rejoicing in ignorance and arrogance?

Bush unqualified to mediate between Palestine and Israel   Back to top
The problem between Palestinians and Israel seems complex, has a long history and requires considerable skill to resolve. At the root of it are 1) an unjustifiable claim that God allocated land to a select group to the detriment of another, thus making God racist. 2) a terrible British blunder in the time of the Balfour declaration. 3) an uncompromising Israeli attitude in disregarding the basic rights of Palestinians as humans and as a nation, her indifference to world opinion and most of all her disregard for UN decisions that do not immediately favour her. 4) blatant partiality of the USA in always favouring Israel and repeatedly misusing US veto-powers to that purpose apart from the availability of American military technology and weapons to Israel. 5) Palestinian lack of adequate planning and strategic development apparatus for their own effective role in the region. On account of point 4, the USA, and especially the Bush administration is the most unqualified to act as mediator between Palestine and Israel. Because of her lopsided interests, the USA is an integral part of the Middle-East problem and not a possible source of solution to those problems. In fact, America is a complicating force in the problems and no reasonable solution is possible so long she remains entangled in those problems. Back to top

Most past US presidents made seemingly serious efforts to resolve the Palestinian issue as attested to by the number of Nobel Peace prize awards associated with the issue and by the one-time traditional occasions of the signing of agreements by the parties amidst the lime-light of world-broadcasted handshakes at the White House, and camp David. Each such occasion was always breaking news for which most other broadcasts around the world were usually interrupted. That was the tradition up to the end of the Clinton era, thereby making the world look forward to the US as the de facto mediator and judge over the Palestinian problem. Back to top

Events since the advent of Bush show why his administration is especially unqualified to handle the problem. Colin Powell failed blatantly on each of his missions to the area because he was not appropriately equipped with a viable strategy as to the process of mediation itself, and certainly as to the contents of the issues to be resolved. Add to that the shameful quality of leadership he receives from Bush, and it is a wonder that things are not more terrible than the deplorably current state of affairs. We have read stories of ancient fights between countries from pre-biblical time to modern times, we have seen movies of conquer and defeat, but never in human history have we seen the level of humiliation, utterly arbitrary destruction of communities, that the Palestinians, in this case even refugee settlements, have endured in the hands of official Israeli soldiers.

Terrorist bombing or attacks on any scale, whether with sticks and stones or with grenades or with fighter aircrafts and helicopter gunshots, is horribly wrong. And both sides are guilty one way or the other. It is noteworthy that Britain, especially under Tony Blair, has been very silent on the Palestinian problem, given the past involvement of Britain in the coming into being of the state of Israel which created this contemporary form of the problem. As far as we know, Blair almost always agrees to whatever standpoint Bush takes and however unfair on any issue. Blair does that perhaps to seem an agreeable second-most powerful man on earth, which he is not really; or perhaps out of a personal admission of his own inability to handle the Palestinian problem. Blair needs to show more initiative and more independence from Bush to prove he is more intelligent than the arrogant Texan cowboy and to prove that he is not as gullible towards Bush as now commonly thought. Back to top

The issue of suicide bombing is quite another matter in that one needs to understand the extreme desperation that drives, not just one or two, but large numbers of ordinary people on the street, and, since the Bush-Sharon era, even ladies into mass willingness to rather die in this futile way, just to inflict a token of harm on their perceived enemy. One does not need a psychologist to understand that. Bush's arrogance, and Sharon's power drunkenness based on Israeli military supremacy, boosted by his successful enrolment of Jewish American lobby to overwhelm Bush, only make matters worse. Failing US initiative leaves Europe as the next alternative source of hope for mediation. But the hope cannot be realized so long European leaders are afraid to upset Bush and so long Israel shows little regard for European opinion. Did Sharon not bomb the very infrastructure that Europeans helped to provide for Palestinians?

The only other source of hope then is the United Nations. That this world body is severely limited by undaunting Israeli disregard is obvious in the fact that Israel refused even emergency UN workers access to Palestinian sufferers of Israeli bombardment. Nevertheless, many UN initiatives have been made for which the Secretary General and his team deserve praise but their actions were frustrated by Bush administration's veto power. This is yet another dimension of the Bush administration standing in the way of peace and pretending to be a god that knows better but effectively does more harm than good. Even in the Palestinian issue, Bush is a free-rider enjoying benefits from military spending in the region rather than leading towards a solution. American weapon industry gains from the problem and will loose a booming market if the Palestinian-Israeli issue is resolved.

On Terrorism Back to top
For Bush, terrorism seems to be identical with Talibans or otherwise with Al-Quaida or at secret moments of covet policy moves, terrorism is synonymous with Arabs and Moslems. No wonder this chaotic leadership literally wiped off America's two hundred years of achievements in the direction of liberty and democracy. Thomas Jefferson will turn in his grave if he hears what new laws Bush pushed through the senate to restrict the civil liberties of pointedly Middle-Eastern and Moslem Americans and immigrants and their assets and resources.

Even this issue of "terrorism" which stands so central to Bush's administration, is taken so narrowly that when the opportunity to tackle it at the level of the international criminal court came, Bush was the only world leader opposed to it. His arguments that label the court a political game and his claim of protection of American soldiers amount to pure libel and absolute nonsense. There is no argument for any favourite treatment of US soldiers that will not demonstration his pretence that Americans are more equal than other people, at least when it comes to international justice and fairplay. Bush rolls the world backwards to the times of George Orwell's satire "Animal Farm" in which the pigs chanted and taught chickens and horses to chant: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". The bush case is worse in that it implicitly inhibits the effectiveness of a world effort to ban tyrants and despotic leaders from the world scene once and for all. The International Criminal Court, within the auspices of the United Nations, would make despots accountable to mankind through a proper system of law. Bush is the only world leader opposed to it and he knows better than everybody else. To raise Americans or anyone, least of all soldiers, above international law is the most stupid thing any serious political leader can think of. Back to top

Previous US presidents emphasized political dialogue with unfriendly nations. Nixon's tennis diplomacy opened up China. Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy yielded results in the Middle East and in Moscow it prepared the way that ultimately ended the cold war. This arrogant W. Bush leaves no room for dialogue; for he knows better than anyone else. All the bombing by the IRA in N. Ireland, the ETA in Spain and surges of internal US armed attacks the like of Oklahoma-bombing, are not terrorist enough for Bush's attention. And Moscow knows that Chechnya is not on Bush's notion of trouble, nor are the various other trouble spots around the world. As the arbitrary self-chosen police of the world and as today's god of "terrorism", Bush has declared the governments of Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all on his list of terrorists who must be wiped off the face of the earth. To devastate these countries, their people, infrastructure, their fragile way of life and their normal state right to civil self-determination as Bush has done in Afghanistan, is, in his eyes, the way to his saintly popularity in America. He is the self-appointed police of the world, creating and seeking only issues that serve his narrow interest to the detriment of world wealth and welfare. In the process, he creates streams of refugees for the United Nations to worry about. Ever heard him express concern about the refugees displaced by his bombing? When major countries gathered to put down donations to help redevelop Afghanistan after devastation by US bombing, the Bush administration kept seeking more resources for the destruction, and only to save its face did it make a symbolic - and only a symbolic - promise of an amount that is far from outstanding and with heavy strings attached. Back to top

Curiously enough, this Bush god of "war against terrorism" is against the very gun-and weapon control that common sense would dictate as useful in America's domestically grown terrorism. When the wave of anthrax attacks started recently, Dick Cheney quickly declared it another Al Quaida "terrorist " action, without the due serious security assessment that you would expect of the world's most advanced, most equipped and most formidable secret service which of course,is in the hands of this US administration. Many Arabs and Moslems were already harassed with arrests following Cheney's proclamation. Now that Anthrax attacks turn out to be from within the US non-Arab American community, how come the Bush administration does not use the same war rashness to fight it as it adopts in fighting Moslem Arab terrorists? How come legal process is not circumvented and families are not harassed just for being genetic relations of suspects? The funds of several organizations have been seized or frozen on the mere suspicion of any "possible" link to "terrorists".

The real untold truth is that this war has more to do with oil-money than with terrorism. The bombing of New York and Washington was a terrible and wrong thing. Whoever is behind it, whether it is Bin Laden or Al Quaida, is as such terribly wrong. But for heaven's sake, does that make the Taliban government (mind you an official elected government of Afghanistan as a country) equal to Bin Laden or his personal gang? Even if we do not like that government for religious extremism or other reasons? And after so many months - now a whole year - of demolishing that country and supplanting a US-favoured political group into political power, why must innocent civilian Afghans continue to bear the brunt of Bush's search for a bunch of terrorists? If the terrorists have moved into Pakistan for instance, is Bush going to also devastate Pakistan state? What is the logic? The real truth concerning the Taliban is not so much the terrorist attack nor even their horrible style of Islam, but more the fact that they control Afghanistan's huge petroleum resources while insisting on a policy that makes those resources inaccessible to Bush's American interests. It is just like the Gulf war which was fought not so much to free Kuwait on the basis of America's commitment to democracy in the region, but because Saddam Hussein was reaching out for sizeable oil reserves in the border areas between Iraq and Kuwait. Back to top

Unite Nations peace keeping operations world wide are among the greatest achievements in human history, given the scope of the membership of the world body as a platform that offers a good alternative to direct warfare between nations. Surely anyone who takes terrorism to the level of wars must strongly support this UN-ideal? Yes, anyone except Bush who knows better than all the 189 nations in the UN; the very Bush whose only slogan is "war against terrorism". Firmly and arrogantly, he threatened to pull out the US forces that his predecessor, Bill Clinton had pledged and provided for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Bush's problem is again the priority treatment he wants so as to exclude US soldiers from being subject to the very rules of international law that will limit atrocious terrorist behaviour by despotic leaders and by the military everywhere. The truth is more likely to be the fact that after all, American soldiers are not as fair and clean in their fighting as international practice requires. Bush's objection is an outright contradiction of the very mission he proclaims so loudly - "war against terrorism". On yet another front, Bush has unilaterally revoked the test-ban treaty signed by the USA with many nations, including Russia in the move that ended the Cold War. Again, Bush knows more than others and his specific personal need for attention among his defence lobbyists weighs more than peace in the world. In fact, this Bush is a god that can do no wrong.

Bush playing god - he always knows best? Back to top
If Bush claims to know more than everyone else in so many areas that require world leadership, is he really so wise, intelligent and peace-loving as to act as a god, or what type of god is he? The automatic support he got from US allies for the war in Afghanistan came 1) out of unwillingness by Europe to seem ungrateful to the US that helped them in two world wars, 2) out of direct NATO treaty and the twisting of arms by Bush on the basis of "those who don't join us are against us and are terrorists", 3) out of the sheer suddenness of the request before individual European governments could get their involvement in a war torpedoed by their parliaments, 4) out of the expectation that by going along with Bush at the time, they were "buying him in" for collaboration on other fronts later, 5) out of their sheer ignorance of what mettle Bush is made of as a new leader, 6) simply because he is an American president with all the powers that carries with it on all fronts - trade, NATO, Security Council decisions and 7) simply out of emotional currents of sympathy upon seeing the devastating impact of the attack on New York with all the prolonged mass media exposure and the spontaneous creation of heroes on account of it.

By now however, many of these other world leaders have realized what impulsive, arrogant, self-centred politician Bush really is. They will no longer follow him as blindly as they did in Afghanistan. Even Blair, is hearing more and more queries on blindly yielding to Bush when British interests are ignored. The Bush phenomenon is not one of a god, but a pure demonstration of the errors inherent in a world system that has come to rely too much on America's dollar-driven lack of ethics when that country falls into an ignorant, yet arrogant leadership with biased notions of law and justice. He wants to play god, but is at best a self-appointed police and judge of all nations; a bad one at that. With all eyes on Bush as US president to lead the world, and his woeful failure, we must conclude that there is a big leadership vacuum in today's world affairs.

Back to top


 Back to top  To Previous  Click here to contact us  Back to home page

Copyright © 1997-2002 Civic World All Rights Reserved :.Last Revised: 21-09-2002