A Good Article on Bush's Policy Struggles Coming From Within on the M.E. Issue

Good article. All those pro-Bush people who told me Bush's inexperience in foreign policy didn't matter since he was surrounding himself with top people should give that a look -- you still need someone strong enough and experienced enough to be the man where the buck stops, and Bush simply isn't.

Right, Poxy, which will make Cheney the President by default, as I was saying the minute he was announced as Bush's running mate.

Powell, the voice of moderation in this administration, must not resign, or be shown the door, lest the government become Israeli-apologists 24/7. This region is as close to descending into all-out war as I've ever seen, and I sincerely believe that Powell is the only man in Bush's inner-circle capable of keeping this from happening.

Strictly speaking, I should've been out there two years ago, but I'll be out there for the opening of AOTC.

I just sent you an email, rather than cluttering up the forum with my travel plans. Even though I know you're all terribly interested.

Interesting article. However, there is a fallacy at it's heart. It is not President Bush's job to bring peace to the Middle East. The USA can do it's best but ultimately only the warring parties can forge a lasting peace...

(when all the Jews are dead )

The article isn't stating that Bush can bring a lasting peace to the region, but criticizing him for not being able to settle on a consistent policy. Of course, only Israel and the Palestinians can make for a lasting peace, but our role as a broker in the region is of vital importance. I certainly wouldn't leave this job to the U.N. (that is, if you have any interest in seeing Israel remain on the map).

Then you should have stopped listening to Bush a long time ago.

Hey, I may not be able to write a concerto, but I can sure tell when a piano is out of tune, and while I may not have the magical solution to the Middle East problem, I can sure tell when the current one isn't working.

I didn't run for president, so it's not my job to bring peace to the Middle East. It's not necessarily Bush's either, but it is his job to have a foreign policy and stick to it.
Wasn't this exactly the same process that started all this trouble in the first place? Except then it was to create a Jewish homeland? I notice how your solution completely eliminates those directly affected by the decision from participating in it. Not the way to peace, if you ask me.
Great, little West Berlins all over the Middle East. Besides, you think the Palestinians would like those areas being run by the UN any better than them being run by the Israelis? The only difference is then you'd have British, Germans, French, and Americans being killed by suicide bombers instead of just Israelis.
Whether or not they're actually involved in the process....

Edited due to my sudden complete inability to use the quote function correctly....

So rather than not criticize our elected leader's generally useless foreign policy, you jump forward with a final solution. Beautiful. Better to be genocidal than constructively critical.

To date, I agree with Tom Friedman in the NY Times; perhaps we, the U.S., should intervene with forces on the Israeli border, supported with big ol' temporary buffer zones, while we apply vigorous diplomatic pressure against both sides to hash out between them what would be an acceptable map that includes both Israel and a Palestinian state. Again, as Burke said, only these two parties are capable of establishing a lasting peace; ergo, they should create the map.

I'm not crazy about the idea of U.S. forces in the region, but this situation is seriously hampering our continued war against terrorism, and if it takes something drastic, yet decidedly *not* homicidal, so be it.

Then any solution is doomed to failure. If neither side is represented, how can they possibly feel bound by any decision?

And really, whose fault is it that the Palestinians have no real governmental structure? Kinda hard to have one when you don't even have an actual country and what living space you do have is constantly being annexed by your neighbor.

Putting American troops in that region as "peacekeepers" is a good way to get American troops massacred. That would be one ugly decision.

Bush's foreign policy or lack of it is not the issue. No one has had any success in that region since the Camp David accords. Shifting the blame from the one's responsible (Israel, the Palestinians) frankly gives too much weight to the US as global peacekeeper and too litle weight to the individuals and groups that are responsible for there being no discernible peace in the Mid East.

Its a complicated issue, and one that I think any President would strugle with. His position hasn't changed, he's always supported Israel. Like any negotiation process however there has been give and take.

As we speak, Israel is planning to withdraw from Ramallah and are agreeing to a joint detainment with Arafat of the Palestinian militants inside.

Oh, and Jabba, sorry, but your deal makes no sense.

U.S Forces are both not wanted and not needed in that region. It's not our war.

[cynicalinflection]
And in case nobody has noticed...the "war" on terrorism appears to be over. No stated goals has led to no discernable results.
[/cynicalinflection]

And as for the use of the word "genocidal": The definition of genocide is the systematic elimination of a race.

That doesn't apply to what the Isrealis are doing. They aren't doing what was being done to them. They're aggressive...they're not genocidal.

The use of "genocide" was in response to jabbadonut's nuclear solution, and not in response to the Israelis actions.

As for what's not needed in that region, if you put the question to either side in this conflict at the time being, the likely answer would be "Jews" or "Muslims". Which is why our presence, even if only diplomatic, is essential; otherwise, there will be full scale war.

The logic of guarding the Israeli borders with US troops is that, by dropping in a third party that at least intends to be impartial, we could likely, with the aid of buffer zones, keep the peace while the two warring parties sit at the table. If, through the approval of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, our presence in the area is recognized as one with purely peacekeeping intentions (and broadcast as such through the government controlled media), this will allay the anger of the Arab street, and will cause any attacks on our forces by Hamas et al to be viewed as sabotaging the peace effort.

Sadly, I'm skeptical that this would even work, as it just seems that the overriding Palestinian sentiment is to get it *all* back, meaning everything before even 1967. Until they begin to show a willingness to compromise, and the Israelis abandon the stick-in-the-eye expanding settlements, there will be only more bloodshed.

I saw this proposed on C-SPAN this morning by the author of "Power Plays" and, although it sounded a bit wacky at first, actually sounds like not such a terrible idea.

Build a wall.

They have on in Gaza, which Netanyahou apparently points to as a good thing as it has kept the suicide bombers out. But really, Israel isn't going to kill all the suicide bombers even if it actually tried, so they might as well protect themselves as best they can. A real, guarded wall could maybe do wonders.

A Wall is just a tall borderline. It will be crossed as well. It would cost a lot of money -where do you think that would come from, hmmm?- and it wouldn't stop the problems.

And just how happily will the Palestinians accept a forced solution from a group of countries representing a culture they feel is decadent and against the precepts of their religion?

I'm sorry, but the UN or any other group of nations can't play the role of the principal wading in to break up the two schoolyard bullies. It's more complicated than that, and any solution that fails to acknowledge that fact will not succeed in the long run.

I hear the French build excellent defensive walls.

Jabba, while dancing around in left-field, may have a point: the world created this situation, and we may-well be forced to 'mandate' a solution. Of course, any coersion used would be subtle, unlike UN occupation. And speaking of the UN, I highly doubt any solution would pass through that stinking mess of veto powers.

However, if a solution could be mandated, I think two things would be absolutely necassary: one, that no seperate Isreali and Palestinian states exist; two, that symbolic names be replaced.

In regards to one, it is inherent that any lasting peace solution be hashed-out at a local level. An agreement will only last if one nation-state exists, as the two sides appear unable to agree upon any 'national' borders. Dividing such a nation into locally created regions would take the decision making out of the standard hands. Furthermore, this republican solution would increase flexibility and finesse in creating regions. Granted, this wouldn't be easy(what is?).

As a single nation, it would necassary to absolve symbolic names. The new Nation would not carry the title of Palestine or Isreal, though regions named Palestine and Israel might exist within.

Of course, such a solution is hopelessly utopian.

Names for the new region formerly known as Israel:

"Israel" and "Judah."

Where's King Ahab?

How about Canaan. I'm sure giving the new nation a name other than Israel or Palestine wouldn't hold water. One could only dream. Peace too appears to remain a dream, so long as one state baring either title continues to exist.

And I don't understand your King Ahab point. I've no idea what you're referencing.