Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Should US Be More Involved in Israeli-Palestinian ‘Peace Process’?

Should US Be More Involved in Israeli-Palestinian ‘Peace Process’? by Ivan Eland

"First, there are no other U.S. security interests that slavish support for Israel satisfies. The Cold War is over, and so is the need for the need for an isolated pro-U.S. outpost in the Middle East.


Second, U.S. involvement in trying to solve the intractable problem in Palestine – violence has been occurring there since the 1920s – merely convinces Islamist radicals that the United States is trying to help Israel legitimize the stealing of even more Arab land in the occupied territories


Finally, Petraeus’ line of reasoning assumes that the Palestine issue can be resolved. Experts have clearly delineated possible compromises on paper, but mutual hatred and distrust between the Israelis and Palestinians prevent obvious solutions
Heavy U.S. involvement and then likely failure is liable to highlight for Islamist radicals the belief that the impossibility of the U.S. being an honest broker in the conflict makes America complicit in one more continuing occupation by infidels of a Muslim land. Therefore, Islamist radicals’ stoked anger could lead to even more anti-U.S. attacks. "

Ivan leaves the conclusion, the what-to-do part, up to the reader.

I believe the matter should be given to the U.N. for resolution. The U.S. should be no more involved with Israel then any other country in the world.

The hasn't happened because the U.N. has been branded as - you guessed it - a bunch of anti-semites. Look into the track record of U.N. resolutions regarding Israel.

Does the US Government Understand the Terrorist Threat? by Ivan Eland

Another excellent analysis by Ivan Eland. He concludes:

If terrorism is to be stopped, the underlying causes have to be eliminated. In the case of Russia, it has to somehow recognize Chechen self-determination. In the case of the United States, an honest debate has to finally occur about the blowback effects from an unnecessarily interventionist and militarized U.S. foreign policy abroad. A nation’s foreign and defense policies are supposed to make its people and territory safer, not less secure.

More hype about Iran? By Stephen M. Walt

As right-on as Stephen Walt is with his book and articles on this subject, I think here he neglects to put the latest Next Big Threat, Iran, in context of the larger picture - which is the American military invasion of the Middle East and the occupation of their land, not to mention the threat to annihilate anyone who gets in the way. All of this motivated by Israel's political pressure on the American gov't to secure military authority in the region for Israel's security.

This is nothing less then the greatest fool's errand of the century! Nothing can be more stupid then running around shooting up and killing people, in a world brimming with terrible weapons, for a cause that only religious zealots support.


No comments: