Dabum, re:
<<Clinton in essence, with his actions, said I get achieve success in the Middle East or no one does. He used scorched earth politics in my opinion.>>
Maybe, but what do you base this on? I think that in light of the smugly distant foriegn policy that Bush/Cheney adopted on taking office, Clinton was right if he believed that the best chance for peace was in the closing days of his administration. Of course the Palestinians were wrong if they thought that having oilmen in the Oval office was going to give them more leverage.
You may have noticed that Bush is not an isolationist any more. He is more actively engaged in the internal affairs of other nations than Clinton ever was. The difference is that he is involved in telling them what to do and how to do it, and the threat of force is his persuasion. I agree that there are times to do this but only at the edges. Time will tell whether he restrains his use of our power.
If the Israelis and Palestinians engage in an old fashioned mafia type war where they kill off all the war mongers, there will be no one left. That's the kind of war that makes war mongers out of everyone and involves the rest of the middle east. It's a map changing war.
With Arafat, if it were better for him to be gone, it's likely the Israelis would have sent him long ago. The alternative must, therefor, be worse. Until the Palestinians are ready for a moderate, Arafat is a good choice. The percentage of that population that is youthful is huge, the clerics are radical, the money comes from radical supporters and I don't see a moderate stepping in after the removal of Arafat.
Things can get worse before they get better but don't forget that the only thing stopping the Israelis from rolling over the Palestinians is world opinion, the power of the other Arab nations and moral considerations. If they go too far where does it stop. They have nukes and who knows what else. They are one of the strongest nations in the world militarily, they just can't handle the flesh eating bacterial attacks they have had to live with.
I'm not anti-Israel. I am a strong supporter. Sometimes that means that you have to stop someone from going too far in the wrong direction. We should establish parameters that are known to both sides and that make sense. I haven't seen that and the article that started this discussion seems to suggest that no one did that early on and that we paid a price for it.
I am not comfortable with my analysis on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. It is far to complex for me to venture strong opinions given my limited knowledge. I am, however, suggesting that the administrations handling of this and other foreign affair issues is troubling and suggests amateurism. Just because they initially reacted properly to a terrorist attack does not mean they have the vision and intellect to create a policy that leads to a safer, saner future. At this time much of the world is saying they do not and the reasons for that view are not difficult to find. Ed |
