But it also require the will of the US. If only Bush had 10% of his commitment to build a democratic Iraq, to solve the Israelian-Palestinan conflict it would be a peace of cake.
What wishful thinking. Wasn't Clinton's commitment enough for you? What did he achieve?
An American President can offer political capital, money, elbow twisting. He cannot force the Israelis to commit suicide, or force an Palestinian leadership that is becoming a wholy-owned subsidiary of the Mullahs in Tehran to lay down its arms when the armed struggle is its entire existence.
But I can understand that the Palestinians are frustrated to the bone, and I also understand the arrogance of the Israelis to do whatever they like, because the US will back them unconditionally.
That's how they see it. But the Pals, like all the Arabs, have a world view which says "what HE does to ME, is grossly unfair and horrible. What I do to HIM, well, that is fair and great news."
Actually, the Israelis are operating under a great deal of restraint, mostly from themselves, but also from America, whose good will they cannot afford to lose. If you don't think so, try on this mental picture: Reverse the power positions. Give Palestinian arms to the Israelis, and Israeli arms to the Palestinians. What happens next?
Do you see any Arab leader anywhere apologizing for Al Qaeda?
If Bush want to win the hearts and minds in the Arab world, solving this conflict is by far the most effective way of doing this.
The same leaders throughout the Arab world and Iran who say daily that the Israeli/Pal conflict must be solved first, before anything else can be done (for some reason, that 'anything else' always includes domestic reforms as well) have a rather large incentive for making sure that it NEVER gets solved, haven't you noticed?
Hint: follow the money. Who has been smuggling arms and weapons to the Palestinians? Who pays Fatah and Hamas and PIJ? |
