Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (10092)	12/18/2001 11:08:42 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23908

Re: Where is the willingness to look at things dispassionately? Right here.... A brilliant analysis by Mohamed Hakki: Getting rid of Arafat Mohamed Hakki has a better idea ahram.org.eg Excerpt: For nearly 16 years, under Reagan and Clinton, each of which lasted two terms, Israel came to enjoy a complete monopoly over US policies in this region. Its hegemony was only interrupted during the four years of the first Bush administration, which proved clearly that only US pressure on Israel could bring results. "Had Bush not forced Israel to choose between US aid and the West Bank settlements," opines Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, "Yitzhak Shamir might have won the 1992 elections and the peace process might have withered." Shlaim refutes claims that Bill Clinton abruptly reverted to a robust Israel-first approach reminiscent of the Reagan years. Instead of providing leadership in the search for a fair and comprehensive settlement, the Clinton administration helped Israel impose its unilateral terms on the Palestinians and the Jordanians. Now Bush Jr has a unique opportunity to bring about peace in the Middle East. More than any other leader in recent history, he has a chance to impose a fair solution and put an end to this conflict. He owes no debt whatsoever to Israel or to American Jews for his presidency. His domestic popularity is unparalleled. He has no grudge or quarrel with most Arab countries. If anything, they are all helping him in his fight against terror, although its target is a Muslim country. If he insists that Israel must give up its "mad dream," as James Baker called it, Israel will have to comply. What else can it do? Turn to Micronesia, the only country apart from the US that consistently votes in its favour at the UN? Can they both stand up to America? In a recent interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Carter, remarked: "Precisely because neither side can take the final step, it would be helpful for the US, backed by Europe, to outline in detail what a fair peace would actually involve. What would be the details? Initially, I am sure both sides would not like it, but eventually they will have to say yes." This is the tack the Arab leaders should adopt. They should form a coalition with Europe and Asia and encourage Bush to take this bold step. He knows the time is right for creating peace in the Middle East, but he has left the hard work to Colin Powell. He has nothing to fear. The pro-Israeli, right-wing cavemen in his defence department enjoy no prestige, no following, and no general respect in the country. They have never been elected to anything. Even Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld publicly mocked Richard Perle, leader of this pack and nicknamed the prince of darkness because he advocates war on most issues. Indeed, Bush's war on terrorism should galvanise him to take the next step and make peace. He would thereby eliminate 90 per cent of the grievances Osama Bin Laden has cited against America. He would go down in history as the first hero of the 21st century. Such an initiative would guarantee peace and prosperity for Israel, not to mention the rest of the region. During the Gulf War, American officials searched for a polite term to describe Israel's role and came up at last with "irrelevant." Most officials thought Israel was a nuisance -- worse, an expensive nuisance. This time, Israel is trying to insert itself anywhere and everywhere it can. But it has no place in this war. It remains a nuisance and an embarrassment. It even appears willing to go in and save Pakistani nuclear reactors if Pervez Musharraf's regime falls. It is acting as if it were the superpower and the US the client state. If Bush decides to impose an American solution, what can the Israelis do? Assassinate him? Emanual Gross concluded his article thus: "Even now that I am really angry with what Arafat is doing I know that we must not try to impose new leadership upon the Palestinian people. I can still understand the dreams and aspirations of the Palestinians for an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and resolving the problem of the Palestinian refugees." If anything, this shows that Bush can rely for support on wide numbers of Israelis who want neither to pack their bags and go, as Gross says, nor to live in constant fear of suicide attacks. A leader's job and duty is to lead. If Bush leads, the world will follow. He would be the first US president to receive a Nobel peace prize while in office; and he would certainly serve a second term. _________________________