And, Klein is right, much of the present blame can be placed on the failure of the Bush administration to engage.
...on the theory that Bush's engagement could have made Arafat have the ability to take the deal, assuming he ever wanted to take it, a very big 'if' indeed? Care to explain your thinking? The intifada was already going when Bush took office, if you'll remember.
On the theory that:
1. There was time, even after 9-11 for the Bush administration, in those repeated attempts at Palestinian-Israeli deals, to push Sharon to offer political negotiations and that there was far more flexibilty on the Palestinian side than your comment suggests. There is a constant line that Arafat is a terrorist and can't be trusted in negotiations. That line simply reduces all the complexities of the Palestinian situation to one, in which the demonic is placed on the Palestinians, the angelic on the Israelis.
2. Sharon's refusal to negotiate with Arafat is one of the serious problems, at the moment, that is to offer a political place to discuss any future arrangements. Without that, the only response of either side is to continue the cycle of violence.
And, given the tone of your questions, let me pop one back at you. Care to explain why, in your view, only the Palestinians are at fault?
As for my own views, you've seen them typed here often enough. |
