> You say negotiations will work, but after all these years they
> haven't, and today the situation in the Middle East is worse than
> it's ever been. Vast amounts of precious America resources are
> pouring into the area like we have it to spare; we've compromised
> chucks of our heritage, and now we've got a major military
> involvement in the area.
More precisely, I'm saying that the only solution that will work will
be a negotiated one. This was in fact the case with Israel and Egypt.
Reaching an agreement will be difficult, as we've seen, but it's more
likely to be accepted than something imposed from abroad.
And even if we weren't supporting Israel, we'd still be propping up
governments of various oil-producing states eslewhere in the Middle
East.
> American money and military presence in the Middle East helps
> Israel, but hurts America. We're being divided, losing friends, and >finding out war in that area isn't the cakewalk many thought it
> would be. These things are not good for America, and they would not
> be going on if the Israel/Palestine conflict had been resolved.
As long as Israel exists, do you really think that an agreement with
the Palestineans would make everyone in the Middle East sufficiently
happy with Israel that there would be no threat? Did the Scud attacks
in Gulf War I have anything to do with Palestine? To the extent that
this war is about Israel's safety, I doubt that the existence of a
Palestinean state would make the Israeli right or its friends here
feel any less threatened by those non-front line nations like Iran
and Iraq who have worked against Israel all these years with such
weapons as Scuds and Hezbollah (unless, of course, these states were
also to make peace with Israel).
-Jerry Wolper
jwolper At swanzoco .DOT com
©2003 jwolper (AT) swanzoco DOT com |
