The Roadmap, will Bush act on the israeli/palestinian issue?
Bush has clearly stated that with iraq out of the way, the israeli/palestinian conflict is next.
BBC link
Things are not very clear yet. But the goal is to establish a viable palestinian state by 2005.
Many fear however that the creation of a palestininan state might turn into a midle-east version of a bantustan. And that the americans might be playing right into Sharons hands.
However, if anyone can pressure Israel into withdrawing from the occupied territories it is the US.
Personally I think any change to the situation is good.
BBC link
Things are not very clear yet. But the goal is to establish a viable palestinian state by 2005.
Many fear however that the creation of a palestininan state might turn into a midle-east version of a bantustan. And that the americans might be playing right into Sharons hands.
However, if anyone can pressure Israel into withdrawing from the occupied territories it is the US.
Personally I think any change to the situation is good.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Who's going to pressure the PLO/PA to stop its terrorism?
Presumably the same people who'll pressure Israel to evacuate its settlements and give the land back to the people they stole it from.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Presumably the same people who'll pressure Israel to evacuate its settlements and give the land back to the people they stole it from.
Yea Clinton tried that. For it he got more terror from Arafat.
Meaning that the israelis cannot demand a total end to violence before starting their withdrawal.
Originally posted by New
One of the more exciting parts of the roadmap might be that the first step is an equal end to violence.
Unfortunately what I heard yesterday from someone I work with is that Sharon is taking the hard line with this issue supposedly said he was going to start sending settlers into the Arab parts of Gerusalem.
The info was given to me by voice, but if I get a link I'll post it. If someone else has a link please feel free to add it.
Originally posted by Scott
Yea Clinton tried that. For it he got more terror from Arafat.
Did Arafat send snipers in to kill civilians throwing rocks? Funny, it was the Israelis who ultimately admitted to doing it. Not only that, they originally stated they were using only rubber bullets when in fact they were also using live ammunition to snipe individuals out of a crowd.
Arafat is good (in a bad sense) if he pulled this one off.
Bush has more credibility than Clinton--his successful use of force, and refusal to back down makes that clear. People may not LIKE that kind of credibility, but he may be able to ask and enforce requests that more diplomatic presidents found impossible to fulfill.
Originally posted by mrmister
"Yea Clinton tried that. For it he got more terror from Arafat."
Bush has more credibility than Clinton--his successful use of force, and refusal to back down makes that clear. People may not LIKE that kind of credibility, but he may be able to ask and enforce requests that more diplomatic presidents found impossible to fulfill.
I think the US and the UK will have a key position to promote a peace plan for the Palestinian and Israel issue. One little reported issue in the Iraq situation is the fact that SH can no longer support the families of the murder bombers of the terror side of the palestinians. With this being a result of the Iraqi war I suspect leverage to Israel to respect this new reality that SH is no longer a player against the security of Israel. Israel is in part due to pay a debt to the US and UK for this. I would hope Israel would see that middle east peace is due. Not a day too soon. I truly hope for the best in the region.
Fellowship
Originally posted by mrmister
"Yea Clinton tried that. For it he got more terror from Arafat."
Bush has more credibility than Clinton--his successful use of force, and refusal to back down makes that clear. People may not LIKE that kind of credibility, but he may be able to ask and enforce requests that more diplomatic presidents found impossible to fulfill.
Oh I would hate to see that. The Knesset is much to beautiful to sent bunker busters against it.
Bush has more credibility than Clinton--his successful use of force, and refusal to back down makes that clear. People may not LIKE that kind of credibility, but he may be able to ask and enforce requests that more diplomatic presidents found impossible to fulfill.
That doesn't doesn't hold water in this situation. The threat of force requires a possibility that you are willing to use it. Since no one believes for a minute that Bush is about to get caught up militarily in the black hole that is Israel-Palestine there is no corresponding leverage for what would be at best a comically hollow threat of force.
Originally posted by mrmister
"Yea Clinton tried that. For it he got more terror from Arafat."
Bush has more credibility than Clinton--his successful use of force, and refusal to back down makes that clear. People may not LIKE that kind of credibility, but he may be able to ask and enforce requests that more diplomatic presidents found impossible to fulfill.
His credibility?
he will use force to get what he wants . . . they can believe that.
unfortunately people doubt the expressed moties in what he says he wants, therefore Bushes credibility as far as what he says is moot for a large portion of people on the globe
CoD said it well:
This issue is going nowhere. Bush doesn't have the conviction to really force the Israelis to do what it takes and Sharon will resist it to the last anyway even if he did. If we really wanted to we could force the Israelis to go along grudgingly, but this administration is not going to take that sort of hardline stance. Various Palestinian groups also are still far too unwilling to do what it would take for peace. Since both sides seem unable to muster anything other than the status quo I suspect that they will continue to blow each other up as long as the relative leadership remains the same.
the issue is going nowhere . . . except that it is still galvanizing people against the US, as well as, getting people killed
The Candy Club of AI.
1.: you write CCAI in a random post.
2.: The first five (or ten or hundred or whatever number you can afford) that PM (not email) you their mail adress you send a letter containing some kind of candy, preferrably something that you don´t think is common everywhere.
3.: You PM the people on the list below drawing their attention to the thread you posted in and if they mail you within two days you also send some to them.
4.: You repost the list with your own name below when enough people have responded. If there is more than five names on it you remove the first name. Just the list and nothng else.
5.: Everybody else: If you see "CCAI" in a post please don´t comment on it and if you take the offer please feel a light pressure on your shoulders to do likewise another day.
Defiant
Anders
Sure Bush can force/coerce/convince/strong-arm Sharon to go ahead with the road-map - he has the political leverage and the need to do so to show that US policy in the middle east is really geared towards fixing the hornet's nest it has become.
Bush has so many things working for him with Sharon - he probably is now in the most powerful position any US president has ever been in with regards to influencing Israel.
The problem is not what will Sharon do or whether Bush has the will to make him do it etc...
The No1 problem is that the US has very little leverage over the Palestinians. how can the US effect Hamas to stop their suicide bombings? what can the US do to pressure Abu Mazen when he takes office to be a leader and take real control of his nation? the standard Palestinian tactic - practiced by Arafat into perfection - of negotiating on the one hand while using terrorism as a proxy to try and pressure Israelis into conceding more will not be tolerated by Israel the way it was during Oslo - a single big suicide bombing can derail a new peace process in seconds.
Abu Mazen has to really clamp down on the terrorist orgs or else there will never be progress. if he doesn't - sooner or later some nutcase with an agenda will blow the whole thing to bits - the problem here is that the US cannot MAKE Mazen do this, it has no stick to beat the Palestinians with, it only has carrots - in fact no one does - only the Palestinians themselves can really make or brake this process - they have all the cards in their hands now - Bush and Sharon with all their military might are only spectators in this show now.
I am cautiously optimistic now, Mazen seems to be a relatively decent chap and Sharon has realized he will have to be flexible but who knows?? as i said - unless Mazen takes the power out of the hands of the terrorists no amount of US pressure will move this mess anywhere!
Re Sharon - I don't really think he has a choice in the matter, Israeli and world opinion are behind a compromise and so is the US admin. the only way he would be able to get out of doing what is accepted he must do is if the Terrorists 'kindly' give him justification to do so...
Until the mentality taken by [each camp] subsides - which is that the other side is made up of animals, not humans - and a more honest approach is taken ... they WILL continue to kill each other by the dozen. Peace accords, speaches and lip service mean nothing. Including Bush's lip service. The Israeli's and Palenstinians are like two punks fighting over a street corner. No cop is going to stop them from doing it other than temporarily. Either they will decide they want peace and compromise, or they'll continue to die.
and this one too
The architects of the PNAC (Wolfowitz et al) shape Bush's foreign policy. Many of them are ultra-hawkish, ultra- conservative Jews who are committed to Zionism.