Politics: That Worked Like a Charm
Palestinians Rally Round Arafat After Exile Threat. I'm sure that's what Israel was after.
I am dealing with an ongoing internal conflict about this matter. I have reached the conclusion that nobody is right, and that almost everyone involved is largely in the wrong.
I am disgusted that American political candidates aren't allowed to say the word "even-handed" with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without getting attacked, but the City Council in one of our largest cities can consider a resolution reading "in remembering the victims of Sept. 11 we also remember and acknowledge the truth as to who the perpetrators themselves claim to be, that is, Muslims, carrying out the will of the Deity of their religion known as Islam."
I believe suicide bombings are vile, abhorrent things, and I would never defend their heartless terror. I also don't believe in tomahawk missile assassinations and destroying homes to advance a cause.
I do believe that there needs to be some new thinking about Israel and Palestine and the United States. But I don't think the Bush administration's approach -- to advocate for Arafat's removal but otherwise sit largely mum while both sides slowly kill themselves -- is effective either. There is a strong belief that America has a job to do here, and if you compare the job Clinton did with the job Bush is doing, Clinton's approach was the clear winner. The players came to the table with Bill Clinton. With George Bush, the table is buried under rubble and behind a soaring brick wall.
Nobody ever thought for a second that Clinton was abandoning Israel in this approach. The Bush administration has redefined the standard for behavior toward Israel, so that now only open animosity toward Palestine is viewed as strong enough. Under Clinton (who, incidentally, hasn't done everything in his power to destroy the U.S. diplomatic infrastruction, like Bush has), everyone knew what the story was, but at least we didn't bother with name-calling. American diplomacy in the last two years has destroyed a lot of progress and weakened the structure for any future work for a long time.
Now, can't we admit that this was a failure, and that it needs something different, maybe something that worked better before? Something closer to Clinton's approach?
Palestinians Rally Round Arafat After Exile Threat. I'm sure that's what Israel was after.
I am dealing with an ongoing internal conflict about this matter. I have reached the conclusion that nobody is right, and that almost everyone involved is largely in the wrong.
I am disgusted that American political candidates aren't allowed to say the word "even-handed" with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without getting attacked, but the City Council in one of our largest cities can consider a resolution reading "in remembering the victims of Sept. 11 we also remember and acknowledge the truth as to who the perpetrators themselves claim to be, that is, Muslims, carrying out the will of the Deity of their religion known as Islam."
I believe suicide bombings are vile, abhorrent things, and I would never defend their heartless terror. I also don't believe in tomahawk missile assassinations and destroying homes to advance a cause.
I do believe that there needs to be some new thinking about Israel and Palestine and the United States. But I don't think the Bush administration's approach -- to advocate for Arafat's removal but otherwise sit largely mum while both sides slowly kill themselves -- is effective either. There is a strong belief that America has a job to do here, and if you compare the job Clinton did with the job Bush is doing, Clinton's approach was the clear winner. The players came to the table with Bill Clinton. With George Bush, the table is buried under rubble and behind a soaring brick wall.
Nobody ever thought for a second that Clinton was abandoning Israel in this approach. The Bush administration has redefined the standard for behavior toward Israel, so that now only open animosity toward Palestine is viewed as strong enough. Under Clinton (who, incidentally, hasn't done everything in his power to destroy the U.S. diplomatic infrastruction, like Bush has), everyone knew what the story was, but at least we didn't bother with name-calling. American diplomacy in the last two years has destroyed a lot of progress and weakened the structure for any future work for a long time.
Now, can't we admit that this was a failure, and that it needs something different, maybe something that worked better before? Something closer to Clinton's approach?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home