|
|||
Build more settlements in the West Bank. That's just great. Every rational solution for the situation that anyone's proposed involves pulling all the existing settlements out of the West Bank, and here they are making that as difficult as they possibly can. Last week a US diplomat who was trying to mediate a problem in one of the African nations finally told both sides that if they didn't accept his latest offer, he would decide that nothing further could be done, and would pack up and go home and leave them to their own devices. I sometimes wonder what would happen if we were to tell both Israel and the Palestinians something along these lines: If you have not signed a peace agreement by December 31, 2001, the United States will pull all diplomatic personnel out of the region, suspend all economic aid to both of you, and wash it's hands of the whole thing. Ultimately you guys have to solve this; we can't do it for you. Each of you has been appealing to us for solution to this in hopes that we'd pressure the other side to give in; well, we're not going to, so you better start negotiating in good faith for a change. You've got six weeks; I suggest you use them. Satisfying though that might be, it's not realistic. First, there are just too many voters in the US who feel strongly about the state of Israel; no elected President would risk angering them all. Second, the result would not be a settlement; it would be conflagration. With both sides hardening their positions, no settlement would be forthcoming and the result would be all out war. (discussion in progress) "Oh, and by the way: if you haven't signed a peace agreement by July 31, 2002, we're going to nuke Jerusalem." I do believe that would motivate them -- but it's not possible. Update 20011121: Here's an example of what I'm talking about: both sides want the US to solve this because both sides want the US to bully the other side into making concessions. Screw that. |
|||
