Nadine, when was the last time an American president had the fortitude to fully put a leash on Israel and force a peace between the Israelis and the Egyptians?
Say what? The Americans didn't force the peace, they just helped work out the deal. Sadat on his own decided that he couldn't afford a war and had better make a peace. Sadat started the ball rolling by offering to come to Jerusalem, and his offer was accepted -- by Menachem Begin, not known as any kind of big dove in Israeli circles.
No external party has every forced a peace in the Mideast, or ever will be able to, short of full military occupation.
You must understand this. This is also why it is important to figure out the leaders' real strategic goals before you waste time on peace processes.
And I notice you have avoided answering my question -- why do you say we have a right to hector Israel about the imperfections in their democracy, but no right to hector Egypt about its total lack of democracy and human rights? Either you are for human rights, or you are for the rights of other cultures to run their affairs any way they please, no matter how deplorable the result may be from a human rights perspective. You can't be for both. Which is it? Or is it your policy to just hold Arabs to lower standards?
If you wish to criticize the only friend the Israelis have in the Middle East, go right ahead. But bite the hand which feeds you once too often and a rude reality is awaiting.
I have news for you -- this works in two directions. Turkey and Israel are the only friends WE have in the Mideast and, happy news, they also happen to have the most powerful armies as well, especially if you estimate functionality and don't just count gear.
It's the same way the two billion dollars of American foreign aid to Egypt is buying peace and a moderated tone against Israel.
Then it's definitely not working. Have you read Al Ahram lately. A while back it ran a column saying, Hitler we love you, but you should have finished the job. This your definition of a moderated tone?
Jordan isn't going to accept any more Palestinian refugees for the same reasons the Israelis won't: it's going to be too much of a financial burden.
Nah, if it's just a financial burden then all eyes turn to Washington. We've been paying Egypt $2b a year for over twenty years for their cooperation. We pay Jordan less than $200 million a year; they can up the ante.
Once again, that is in your humble opinion.
Well, funny me, when four armies invade another country from all sides, I consider that they started the war. The political decision of the Mufti and the other Arabs to reach any compromise with the Zionists (and to assasinate any Arab who tried) had a lot to do with the war, too. Had they not started the war, the Arabs would not have become refugees. Had they ever signed a peace after the war, the refugees could have gone home. Had they even allowed the refugees to get on with their lives instead of herding them into concentration camps on the UNWRA dole, they wouldn't be an issue now. As the saying goes, excuse me for existing.
And who is continuing and expanding the occupation?
The Tunisian occupation? The US, by not letting Sharon expel Arafat. |
