Clinton came so close but Arafat screwed it up. That in itself should show that resolution is very attainable without him.
So now that Arafat's gone, you're going to assign all the blame to him alone?
Not so fast. You also agreed that Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt also want the conflict to continue. May I remind you that none of the Pal leaders are what you could call democrats despite the show of elections and even more importantly, they don't get their money from Palestinian taxes. They answer to those who pay them. What do those who pay them want to happen?
Ans: they want the conflict to continue. So it will continue.
Come on, you are agreeing to the facts, you just refuse to alter a single conclusion based on the facts! That is completely illogical. You know that Abu Mazen spent his whole career at Arafat's side, but is weaker and less decisive and is even less likely to defy his backers and the (non-fringe) extremists in his own party. So draw the logical conclusion.
How do you think this is going to get resolved?
It won't get resolved, unless (God forbid) Israel gets destroyed and the Jews get killed or driven out, which is the desired resolution of the Palestinians and all the Arabs. It will continue as it has continued for 60 years.
Therefore we should speak of managing the conflict, not resolving it.
When you look at really long running historical conflicts, such as Protestant vs Catholic in the European 16th and 17th century, or Bourbon vs Hapsburg in the 17th and 18th century, you will notice that they rarely get neatly resolved. They go on and on, they wear out, some deal is reached due to exhaustion, or something else happens that changes the situation. In the case of Bourbon vs Hapsburg, the French Revolution and Napoleon's campaigns put an end to the question. |
