Ted,
why was it necessary to make this decision now? What was the L.Party hoping to accomplish? Did they think they were generating a lot of good will?
It's just words, so there is no immediate consequence, but it's kind of an expression where things stand now. Which is: while there was some time ago a prospect of Palestinian autonomy headed by Palestinian Authority turning into an independent Palestinian State, this prospect no longer exists.
I am not quite sure how Bush imagines this Palestinian state.
Forget about how he imagines a Palestinian state......this move on the part of one of Israel's major parties pretty much deep sixes America's Mideast policy. I am not sure what anyone can do it at this point.
I didn't take any polls, but my impression is that there is close to zero percent support for Palestinian state inside Israel, and Likud leadership is not out of step with the country. I think what Sharon would have preferred was for his party to keep quiet, and just pay lip service to the "peace process", while fully knowing it is dead. Kind of like Clinton and Kyoto treaty. Clinton knew it was dead in the Senate, but kept paying lip service to it, to keep the Eurocrats content.
If it weren't for the fact that what happens in the Mideast could screw up things here, I would say ignore them, cut off all aid to both of them, and let them duke it out. This is becoming "stupid is as stupid does". Like most blood feuds, over time neither side makes much sense.
Agreed. The world is a very small place these days. A friend of mine kept talking about Afganistan (and I mean almost daily), for about a year prior to 9/11. My response was that I feel sorry for the people there, but unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done about it, and since they are on the other side of the globe, it's too far to have any impact on us. As we now know, I couldn't be more wrong than I was about this.
Joe |
