Given Saddam’s past support for suicide bombers, terrorism, wars against Israel, and his popularity with fans of despotism, isn’t it time for the US to cash in this victory with a peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis?
The Israelis argue–justifiably, IMO–that Syria, Iraq,* and Iran, among others but those three especially, sponsor terrorism. Therefore, without guarantees that the state-sponsored terror will stop, Israel has no reason to come to an accord.
Never before has the US been in a better positon, geographically, strategically, or politically to monitor compliance by the Israelis, Syrians, Iraqis, or Iranians. That seems pretty obvious.
Without turning this into a dissertation, which suck as debate topics, let me summarize:
Has the US action in Iraq changed the geopolitical situation enough to make a Palestian-Israeli peace deal more likely or enforceable?
Personally, I think Bush needs to immediately turn his attention to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. He’ll be negotiating from strength, for now. If he does not address that issue soon all the terrorism predictions will certainly come true.
*Now an object lesson for terror sponsoring nations.
The Iraq war has changed nothing, anywhere. Not in the Middle East, not in the EU or the United Nations, not in the position of the US in world politics.
This war will make no real impact on the world.
Just like the first Gulf War, which also made no difference.(If we had let Saddam take Kuwait,and maybe Saudia Arabia,too, it would just have been replacing the Saudi dictatorship with a Ba’athist dictatorship .
The reason that the war will be so unimportant is: The US will never again invade any foreign countries, and everybody knows it. Most Americans were hesitant about this war, and only let it happen because Sadam was such an easy target of hate-almost like a comic-book villain.Bush was, with difficulty, able to present him as a danger to America. But the various mullahs of Iran, or unknown leaders of Syria are too vague to grab the imagination of the American public as a direct threat.
So the US is not in any new position of power after a great victory. It will turn out to be the opposite. A year or 2 from now, we will see that nothing has changed in the Arab world: no other dictatorships will be toppled, no Arab countries will attempt to cool their anti-western hatred, Osama Bin Laden will still be their great hero.
And the Palestinians will still prefer violence over a peace treaty. They had a good deal when Arafat and Israeli prime minister Barak sat on the White House lawn with Clinton. But they preferred to use violence. So if Bush manages to coerce another White House lawn “peace” ceremony, it wont be any more effective than Clinton’s peace plan. You can’t persuade ruthless dictators to change their policies .And all 22 Arabic countries are ruled by dictators.
The bolding didn’t cut and paste. Anyway, what? What happens when Syrian-based Iraqi Baathist death squads start sniping our troops. If, of course, something as unlikely:rolleyes: as that should happen.
The Palestinians just lost a major source of funding and inspiration, I think. If Saddam is as dead as everyone is acting, the geopolitical situation just changed, a lot. Whatever might happen as a result, you can’t honestly say that things are pretty much status quo.
So far we are 2 for 2 and that sends a clear message. Before Iraq and Afghanistan, the leadership in these countries believed that they could fight America with terrorist attacks and that we would never respond with anything more than token bombing of some tents in the desert. The relative ease with which we overthrew the Taliban and Sadaam will definitely make any other country think twice before they sponser terrorism (unless they are as stubborn and foolish as Sadaam and the Taliban).
That doesn’t really address the Palestinian issue though.
I have heard the Palistinian issue tied to this a number of times in the press. However I do not think the Iraqi’s celebrating in the streets feel “Wow, this sure is great for the Palestinians!”
I think Bush is in a position to really make serious strides toward peace in Israel/Palestine. I think it is vital that we act as benevolent liberators, with an exit agenda in Iraq so that we put the “conquering” myth to rest ASAP. If we are seen as developing a permanent base of operations out of Iraq, Arab opinion will plummet.
Not many Americans have direct relations with Arabs in the Middle East. The only ones I know personally are living in NYC and in my experience they love American culture and freedoms. I thik we have to remember that the “opinion” we get from the Arab street is rarely the truth as told by a free person unafraid of repercussions. If my knowledge of human nature is correct, while you may hear venom from the official mouthpieces of the Middle East, a lot of the “Ali Arabs” (in lieu of “Joh Q. Public” - forgive me) are wondering if this freedom thing might be kinda nice in Syria-Saudi Arabia-Lebanon-Palestine).
The Israeli/Palestinian issue will not be affected. There are too many Palestinians who want ALL of Israel (and Israelis who want the same thing) and they’ll be fighting forever. I don’t think the money given to suicide bombers’ families made that much difference. Hamas or whoever will find plenty of impressionable youngsters willing to die for glory
Well, there might be one of two Bush’s, and I’m not yet sure which one is real.
The old Bush didn’t give a flying fuck for anything to do with the Mid east and was as much hand-in-glove with the pro-Israeli lobby as he was Big Oil / Power / whatever – one might think he had no policy because the US pro-Israeli lobby didn’t want the US to have a policy. Which suited Mr Bush just fine.
The post 9/11 Bush is different. This one is more confident in overseas matters, potentially more proactive diplomatically and may even have an agenda of his own – unlikely but … In addition, this one owes Tony Blair big time and the price of Blair’s support is Bush’s support for the ‘Middle East Road Map’.
In short, it’s Blair pushing Bush not Bush himself. And Blair is starting to be characterised as an “enemy” of Israel so he must be doing something right ….
‘The biggest of Israel’s enemies’, they call him [Tony Blair] with a certain self-conscious exaggeration at the prime minister’s office. Blair is an enemy because he is pressuring President Bush to publish the road map as a signed, final act, the opposite of Sharon’s conception, who sees the road map as a preliminary draft, an aspiration.”
Ultimately, one images the whole ‘road map’ is doomed as initiatives always have been in the past. But this time the dynamic has changed; Arafat’s power has waned and there is a new Palestinian PM. Unfortunately for Tony Blair, this is a first term US president and he needs the pro-Israeli lobby on board for next years re-election campaign. That will always take precedence.
So I guess, in very simplistic terms, it comes down to, how much can Bush repay / give Blair without pissing off the pro-Israeli lobby ? Answer, it depends on the new post 9/11 character operating from the White House.
Thing, is, you do need money for a terror campaign. Sure, its a cheap way of fighting war, but it still costs money. Moreover, the terror organizations in Palestine must have money to provide the social services so they can keep control of the street. For them, terror is a lucrative source of foreign funds. Taking out Saddam enatly nipped that in the bud. If we bring enough pressure on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, then the flow of money stops altogether.
Where do the Europeans think this road map came from? :dubious:
I see things differently. The pro-Israel lobby has absolutely nowhere else to turn in US politics, at this time, and Blair’s political future seems a lot less stable that Bush’s. If Blair can get Bush to run with this road map, it does a lot to counteract the blow in public opinion he took for supporting the war. Many in Europe seem to think that was a bad thing, I hear…
America - there is public distrust of both Arafat and of Sharon while still apparent sympathy for the populations that each represents. Israel retains more sympathy now, less so last March with the incursions, more so this year with constant images of Palestinians supporting Saddam. Just because the Palestinians have a new PM, Arafat’s power has waned? We’ll see. Just because Sharon has made public comments to the effect of not enacting this road map (he’s the right-winger) does it mean he hasn’t begun to? We’ll see. So I think that’s the key: to see something from this new PM. Sharon is more manageable on our part.
“The Palestinians just lost a major source of funding and inspiration, I think”
Not at all. Saddam gave some money to the families of suicide bombers but that was basically a publicity stunt with relatively little money. Most of the money that goes to Palestinian extremist groups comes from elsewhere from the Muslim world. A lot of comes from private sources and is very difficult to control.
One thing about George Bush, if you haven’t noticed, is that he works great as the manager of a team of people who hold wildly divergent opinions.
What many saw as ‘infighting’ in the Bush White House between a dovish State Department and the hawks like Cheney and Wolfowitz is in fact Bush’s preferred mode of operation. He likes to hear all sides of an issue. He likes to have foils to keep him in check. He gets to hear all viewpoints when making his decision. This is the exact opposite of a dictator like Saddam, who surrounds himself with yes-men who feel him what he wants to hear.
Looking at the Bush-Blair relationship in this light, it is extremely effective. Blair is much more of an internationalist than Bush. He is going to push hard for Bush to do the non-military things in the Middle East that need to be done, such as brokering a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The successful invasion of Iraq gives Bush and Blair a lot of clout in the middle east right now. Arabs respect strength. Bush and Blair have shown themselves to be strong. That gives them a good negotiating position.
However, some problems just can’t be solved from the outside. The end of Iraq changes the political situation in the Middle East dramatically, but it’s not clear that that will be enough to create peace between Israel and Palestine.
But, CyberPundit, all I’m contending is that money to the families of suicide bombers was a significant source of funding. Sure, there is money flowing from private individuals or other states to terrorists. I mentioned that in the OP.
I would argue that five figures in US dollars is a substantial sum for a poor person in the occupied territories, particularly someone feeling feeling hopeless about prolonged unemployment. One might feel compelled to commit suicide for one’s family.
If anyone has seen the news today, CNN is reporting finding a school in Baghdad stocked with suicide belts and vests. Interestingly, they are also saying that the design is identical to the ones used by Palestinian suicide bombers.
There are many ways in which the successful war in Iraq has changed the Palestinian problem.