Given our most recent class discussion, I have decided to try and tackle briefly this question: Given its after-effects, was the Iraq invasion of 2003 worth it?
Because the mission has taken longer and resulted in more American casualties than many had anticipated, the quick answer is probably no. This is not to mention the problems it has caused the US in dealing with Iraq's neighbor Iran. By taking out its main counterbalancer, Iran was left free to improve its standing in the Middle East without a proximate challenger. If the old regime under Saddam Hussein were still in power, it is not unreasonable to thinks that efforts would have been made to counter the growing threat Iran poses in the region. That is not to say it's a bad thing Mr. Hussein is no longer with us and doing his thing; in addition to the suffering caused by Saddam's brutal style of ruling (which would still be occurring), it's certainly very possible that had Iraq been left unchecked, it would have eventually pursued a nuclear weapons program. However, given the illegitimate grounds on which the US used to invade Iraq (then-presumed WMDs, now-quest for oil), containing Iran has become much more difficult, if not impossible in the short term. Because the situations are quite similar, it's hard to imagine that states (outside of Israel and probably others in the Middle East) would offer their support or see the US' intentions as benign. Outside of global support, logistics would also be a problem for the US military as American troops are still actively involved in Afghanistan in addition to Iraq. Although Iran sits between those two states, it's still hard to imagine the Obama administration wanting to engage in another potentially costly conflict.
That there might be good enough to end the discussion on the matter, but I won't close the book just yet, and that is because we have yet to read the final chapter of the Iraq invasion. Because US engagement in Iraq is not yet over, I don't think it's entirely fair to call the mission a complete failure. Not yet, anyways. IF, and notice that's a big 'IF', the US can help to establish a stable, democratic government of, for, and by the Iraqi people (that can function on its own without the American troops there to hold it up), I might be able to tell you a different story, one of how the US heroically saved the Iraqi people from a vicious dictatorship and installed a new democratic government that helped it take down its old rival in Iran.
Ok, ok. So it's most likely not going to end that way, and my post would probably not be as glowing as that. But I think it would be fair to say that if we were to achieve our goal of establishing a democracy in a state that was a once an authoritarian regime (that was largely unwilling to comply with US interests), the Iraq invasion could be called at least a minor success. After all, can we really say that we expected the conflict and occupation to last a couple of months or our troops to leave completely unscathed? Maybe that was the expectation at the time (based on the outcome of Bush Sr. Desert Storm invastion), but Bush Sr. wasn't attempting to do what Bush Jr. attempted with his campaign. In other words, the US wasn't going to achieve what it wanted without setbacks and sacrifices along the way (and still won't, most likely). I'll admit that I could be saying that using hindsight (which is somewhat better than my actual sight) or it could be that I was too young at the time to remember now just how swiftly we initially defeated the Iraqis. I just don't know. Point is: something can yet be salvaged from this mess, and that would be a stable Iraqi democracy.
Easier said than done, and I agree that it will still take from now until the point when that is accomplished (if it is even accomplished). But we should try, right?! Ok, that's enough from me. Time for your thoughts. Go!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Simulation Assignment: Peacemaker?
This past Saturday, Abi Breckinridge and I (due to lack of computers) played Peacemaker, a game made to simulate the rocky relations between Israel and Palestine. Thus, we were able to step into the shoes of the Israeli Prime Minister and Palestinian President, taking turns playing each role, and had some interesting results. In short, had we been trying to maintain violence and suffering, then we would have won the game easily.
I must preface this first by saying that I have had very little experience in my life playing simulation-type games. I don't really know why; I just haven't gotten into them, plain and simple. With that said, it took me a bit of time to get into the game, but after getting accustomed to the gameplay and such, I did have a bit of fun. Although, as I alluded to before, based on the way things played out for me in the game, fun would not have been something to be had if I were to have been playing in real life. Indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just as volatile on the computer as it is in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Every move I made, whether it was a missile strike on the headquarters of Hamas or an attempt to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, got me nowhere. Sure my decisions were praised by some, but inevitably, there was just as much opposition (if not more) to each and every act I carried out.
What I learned from the game is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not at all a simple affair between simple actors and able to be solved with easy solutions. In fact, many factions have roles, and I thought the game was good in demonstrating that. I didn't just have to worry about Israel and Palestine; I had to worry about the wants of the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Fatah, the Israeli government, the UN, the US, Israeli and Palestinian police units, individuals like suicide bombers, settlement workers, and civilians, and numerous other entities. As with most things, it was absolutely impossible to please all of them at once and almost just as hard to know what kinds of acts would please each individual group separately. When I thought I knew what I was doing (like providing medical aid to improve humanitarian conditions in refugee camps), my plans never seemed to "impress" the right people, get enough funding, or just plain work. No matter what I did, it felt as though there was some group or organization who could stop it, and stop it they did.
This gridlock made me feel more cynical about the prospects for peace between the two sides. Even when playing the game on the "calm" level-setting, approval ratings quickly went down and tensions rose just as quickly. Maybe this speaks more to my ability as a negotiator of peace as opposed to the situation between Israel and Palestine, but it just felt as though no one was willing to work with the other side or even within its own camp, for that matter. Conflict is all these sides know, and that is how it'll stay (at least for the foreseeable future). Whether or not that was the lesson I was supposed to glean, it certainly seemed that way based on what happened in the game.
In regards to Peacemaker as a learning tool, I think it was pretty good. It didn't do much teaching on the history of the conflict, but I also don't think that the makers sought to do this when creating the game. However, the game did help me to learn all the factions playing roles in the conflict. Prior to playing, I didn't really realize that there were so many groups and organizations who had such significant influences on the efforts for/against peace. Not only that, but it surprised me a bit (and perhaps should not have) that those small groups of people had such conviction in their beliefs (in terms of believing what is best for their people) to undermine their leaders and the overall peace process. Essentially, the game helped me to understand that not only do the two sides disagree on who should own what land and how it should be divided but that there is disagreement within each camp in regards to how the ruling bodies should approach negotiations.
It goes without saying that this endeavor was a frustrating one, but I truly cannot begin to imagine how frustrating, even maddening, it is for those actually involved. I take my possessions and privileges as an American citizen for granted, day in and day out. But for Israelis and Palestinians, citizenship/statehood is such a huge deal. Both sides want it, but neither wants to recognize the other's right to have it. It's without a doubt a tragic state of affairs.
I must preface this first by saying that I have had very little experience in my life playing simulation-type games. I don't really know why; I just haven't gotten into them, plain and simple. With that said, it took me a bit of time to get into the game, but after getting accustomed to the gameplay and such, I did have a bit of fun. Although, as I alluded to before, based on the way things played out for me in the game, fun would not have been something to be had if I were to have been playing in real life. Indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just as volatile on the computer as it is in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Every move I made, whether it was a missile strike on the headquarters of Hamas or an attempt to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, got me nowhere. Sure my decisions were praised by some, but inevitably, there was just as much opposition (if not more) to each and every act I carried out.
What I learned from the game is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not at all a simple affair between simple actors and able to be solved with easy solutions. In fact, many factions have roles, and I thought the game was good in demonstrating that. I didn't just have to worry about Israel and Palestine; I had to worry about the wants of the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Fatah, the Israeli government, the UN, the US, Israeli and Palestinian police units, individuals like suicide bombers, settlement workers, and civilians, and numerous other entities. As with most things, it was absolutely impossible to please all of them at once and almost just as hard to know what kinds of acts would please each individual group separately. When I thought I knew what I was doing (like providing medical aid to improve humanitarian conditions in refugee camps), my plans never seemed to "impress" the right people, get enough funding, or just plain work. No matter what I did, it felt as though there was some group or organization who could stop it, and stop it they did.
This gridlock made me feel more cynical about the prospects for peace between the two sides. Even when playing the game on the "calm" level-setting, approval ratings quickly went down and tensions rose just as quickly. Maybe this speaks more to my ability as a negotiator of peace as opposed to the situation between Israel and Palestine, but it just felt as though no one was willing to work with the other side or even within its own camp, for that matter. Conflict is all these sides know, and that is how it'll stay (at least for the foreseeable future). Whether or not that was the lesson I was supposed to glean, it certainly seemed that way based on what happened in the game.
In regards to Peacemaker as a learning tool, I think it was pretty good. It didn't do much teaching on the history of the conflict, but I also don't think that the makers sought to do this when creating the game. However, the game did help me to learn all the factions playing roles in the conflict. Prior to playing, I didn't really realize that there were so many groups and organizations who had such significant influences on the efforts for/against peace. Not only that, but it surprised me a bit (and perhaps should not have) that those small groups of people had such conviction in their beliefs (in terms of believing what is best for their people) to undermine their leaders and the overall peace process. Essentially, the game helped me to understand that not only do the two sides disagree on who should own what land and how it should be divided but that there is disagreement within each camp in regards to how the ruling bodies should approach negotiations.
It goes without saying that this endeavor was a frustrating one, but I truly cannot begin to imagine how frustrating, even maddening, it is for those actually involved. I take my possessions and privileges as an American citizen for granted, day in and day out. But for Israelis and Palestinians, citizenship/statehood is such a huge deal. Both sides want it, but neither wants to recognize the other's right to have it. It's without a doubt a tragic state of affairs.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
US Balancing against Iran
The Obama Administration has plans to sell $60 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia, which is obviously intended to counter Iran's position in the Middle East. The deal includes F-15 fighter jets, helicopters, and many bombs, missiles, and other accessories like night-vision goggles and could become the largest arms deal in US history. But how will it affect the balance of power in the region? Will a strengthened Saudi Arabia subdue Iranian aspirations for regional dominance?
I see the logic of this move and think it will have positive effects in the region, but those effects will be limited. Because I believe Iran's biggest threat to be Israel (and think Iran sees it that way as well), Iran won't put a stop to its nuclear development program until that threat is removed or neutralized. For that to happen, either Israel has to reduce its nuclear capabilities (if it indeed has nuclear weapons) or Iran has to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Obviously, the former would be the ideal situation but is also the least likely of the two. That leaves the latter situation, and that option is less than desired. Washington has taken a position of supporting the rivals of Iran to balance Iranian power, but despite these efforts, Iran still wants a nuclear program to counter the Israeli threat. Does Washington need another strategy, or will policies like the mass sale of weapons to KSA or continued support of Israel eventually work?
I see the logic of this move and think it will have positive effects in the region, but those effects will be limited. Because I believe Iran's biggest threat to be Israel (and think Iran sees it that way as well), Iran won't put a stop to its nuclear development program until that threat is removed or neutralized. For that to happen, either Israel has to reduce its nuclear capabilities (if it indeed has nuclear weapons) or Iran has to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Obviously, the former would be the ideal situation but is also the least likely of the two. That leaves the latter situation, and that option is less than desired. Washington has taken a position of supporting the rivals of Iran to balance Iranian power, but despite these efforts, Iran still wants a nuclear program to counter the Israeli threat. Does Washington need another strategy, or will policies like the mass sale of weapons to KSA or continued support of Israel eventually work?
Palestinian Plan B
Back from break and feeling pretty refreshed!
Anyways, I saw this article (by Ethan Bronner) on the New York Times website and thought it was quite interesting. Evidently, while Palestine waits for the US and Israel to work out an extension of the freeze on settlement building, its leaders are working towards finding other means of gaining support for its push for statehood. Because Palestinians are becoming less and less optimistic about the two-state solution, they are turning to international bodies for support. The idea is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and an admission of Palestinian statehood. This support, if attained, would put pressure on Israel to make some kind of decision on the matter. On the other side of the matter, Israel believes this to be a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords (which govern Israeli-Palestinian relations) and reject the move. Ultimately, Israeli leadership wants Washington to take a firm stance against Palestine's Plan B.
Personally, I like the move. Firstly, I have little faith in the current push for peace and a two-state solution and think something else needs to be done. I think Palestine has just cause to be fed up with Israel and its unwillingness to negotiate or seriously consider a Palestinian desire for statehood. However, even if Palestine does get support from these international organizations, Israel is still not obligated to recognize Palestinian statehood, and some Israeli officials are saying that this move would "kill a negotiated settlement."
All things considered, will this move achieve anything for Palestine? And even if Palestine received recognition of statehood from other state and non-state actors, would a lack of recognition from Israel take something away from that?
Finally, I thought the last two paragraphs from the article were interesting. Here they are in full:
"If the Palestinians were to go to the United Nations Security Council, they might well face an American veto. Therefore they might start in the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where dozens of countries would be likely to support them.
While that would be less binding, it would also provide a kind of symmetry — dark or poetic, depending on one’s perspective — with Israel. It was in the General Assembly in November 1947 that the Zionist movement achieved success through a resolution calling for the division of this land into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Israel has long viewed that vote as the source of its international legitimacy."
Anyways, I saw this article (by Ethan Bronner) on the New York Times website and thought it was quite interesting. Evidently, while Palestine waits for the US and Israel to work out an extension of the freeze on settlement building, its leaders are working towards finding other means of gaining support for its push for statehood. Because Palestinians are becoming less and less optimistic about the two-state solution, they are turning to international bodies for support. The idea is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and an admission of Palestinian statehood. This support, if attained, would put pressure on Israel to make some kind of decision on the matter. On the other side of the matter, Israel believes this to be a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords (which govern Israeli-Palestinian relations) and reject the move. Ultimately, Israeli leadership wants Washington to take a firm stance against Palestine's Plan B.
Personally, I like the move. Firstly, I have little faith in the current push for peace and a two-state solution and think something else needs to be done. I think Palestine has just cause to be fed up with Israel and its unwillingness to negotiate or seriously consider a Palestinian desire for statehood. However, even if Palestine does get support from these international organizations, Israel is still not obligated to recognize Palestinian statehood, and some Israeli officials are saying that this move would "kill a negotiated settlement."
All things considered, will this move achieve anything for Palestine? And even if Palestine received recognition of statehood from other state and non-state actors, would a lack of recognition from Israel take something away from that?
Finally, I thought the last two paragraphs from the article were interesting. Here they are in full:
"If the Palestinians were to go to the United Nations Security Council, they might well face an American veto. Therefore they might start in the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where dozens of countries would be likely to support them.
While that would be less binding, it would also provide a kind of symmetry — dark or poetic, depending on one’s perspective — with Israel. It was in the General Assembly in November 1947 that the Zionist movement achieved success through a resolution calling for the division of this land into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Israel has long viewed that vote as the source of its international legitimacy."
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Oil as a source of stability or instability in the Middle East
In class today, we discussed oil and the effect it has on the Middle East. One of the discussion questions addressed was: Does oil promote stability or instability in the region?
For starters, there's no doubt that oil is a major source of revenue for Middle Eastern states. Oil has also been a basis for cooperation, leading to trade agreements and multinational organizations between the nations in the region. In this sense, oil has had some effect on stability. However, I would argue that the presence of oil has made the Middle East more unstable than stable. This is not to say that oil is the main cause of instability amongst states, but it does contribute.
If we imagined a world without oil, i think it's fair to say that the Middle East would be a more peaceful place. Sure, there would still be political and economical disputes amongst states. Cultural differences would still be sources of contention. But without oil, the Middle East would be reduced to a region that would be largely irrelevant within the international system, and internal struggles between and within states over what to do with their reserves wouldn't exist. The states of OAPEC wouldn't jockey for position and influence within the cartel, and Iraq wouldn't be facing the internal problems over oil amongst its ethnic groups. With that said, I think much instability is caused by foreign presence in the region, which is largely in part to their want for oil. Countries like the US are involved in peacekeeping policies in the Middle East, but their motives aren't purely altruistic. Washington is concerned about the dynamics of Middle East politics because it wants oil and it wants to obtain it as easily as possible. Thus the US tries to impose its influence and power on the region so that it can get oil. However, Middle Eastern states see this as a form of colonization and an attack on their sovereignty and therefore are aggressive towards the US among others. While directed towards the US, this is still a source of instability in the region, and the root cause is oil.
Again, even without oil, these states would still be caught up in power politics, which would lead to instability, but I think that the presence of oil contributes to that instability. Thoughts?
For starters, there's no doubt that oil is a major source of revenue for Middle Eastern states. Oil has also been a basis for cooperation, leading to trade agreements and multinational organizations between the nations in the region. In this sense, oil has had some effect on stability. However, I would argue that the presence of oil has made the Middle East more unstable than stable. This is not to say that oil is the main cause of instability amongst states, but it does contribute.
If we imagined a world without oil, i think it's fair to say that the Middle East would be a more peaceful place. Sure, there would still be political and economical disputes amongst states. Cultural differences would still be sources of contention. But without oil, the Middle East would be reduced to a region that would be largely irrelevant within the international system, and internal struggles between and within states over what to do with their reserves wouldn't exist. The states of OAPEC wouldn't jockey for position and influence within the cartel, and Iraq wouldn't be facing the internal problems over oil amongst its ethnic groups. With that said, I think much instability is caused by foreign presence in the region, which is largely in part to their want for oil. Countries like the US are involved in peacekeeping policies in the Middle East, but their motives aren't purely altruistic. Washington is concerned about the dynamics of Middle East politics because it wants oil and it wants to obtain it as easily as possible. Thus the US tries to impose its influence and power on the region so that it can get oil. However, Middle Eastern states see this as a form of colonization and an attack on their sovereignty and therefore are aggressive towards the US among others. While directed towards the US, this is still a source of instability in the region, and the root cause is oil.
Again, even without oil, these states would still be caught up in power politics, which would lead to instability, but I think that the presence of oil contributes to that instability. Thoughts?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
More on Israeli-Palestinian Talks (or lack thereof)
When I last posted, talks between Israel and Palestine had stalled due to Israel's decision to end the freeze on settlement building in the West Bank. To keep the sides at the table, the US tried to make deals with both sides, but since then, no deal has been struck and the only "freeze" that is currently in place is on the talks themselves.
At this point, I'm fed up with the two sides' inability to peacefully negotiate (and who am I to complain given the longevity of this disagreement?). I realize that neither side wants to concede to the other, but during negotiations, concessions must be made in order for any progress to occur. But to me, it appears as though no side is willing to put differences aside and work with the other.
What is more is that I don't understand Israel's apparent unwillingness to settle this issue as peacefully as possible. I respect the fact that the disputed land is part of the Holy Land, but in being so stubborn and uncooperative with Palestine, Israel is angering (and has been for a long time) the entire Arab world. It's a wonder that no major action against Israel by the Arab world has been taken (aside from launched rockets and suicide bombings). It appears as if Israel's unwillingness to negotiate is caused by the support it receives from the US. Israel figures that any attack from an Arab state would trigger an equally (or more) response from its ally in Washington, and of course, for any Arab state, that alone is enough of a deterrent. But what would happen if an Iran or Saudi Arabia attacked Israel? One can imagine that Israel would have some sort of response, but would the US respond with an attack of its own? Given its current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe that the US would jump at the opportunity to get involved in yet another violent Middle East conflict. It's a major gamble on Israel's part to continue ruffling the feathers of the Arab world, especially given those states' continued attempts to match Israel's military might. And if the situation gets even messier, Israel may find itself fighting without its biggest ally.
In my mind, Israel's best option is to reach a settlement with Palestine. But if this does not occur, what should the US do?
At this point, I'm fed up with the two sides' inability to peacefully negotiate (and who am I to complain given the longevity of this disagreement?). I realize that neither side wants to concede to the other, but during negotiations, concessions must be made in order for any progress to occur. But to me, it appears as though no side is willing to put differences aside and work with the other.
What is more is that I don't understand Israel's apparent unwillingness to settle this issue as peacefully as possible. I respect the fact that the disputed land is part of the Holy Land, but in being so stubborn and uncooperative with Palestine, Israel is angering (and has been for a long time) the entire Arab world. It's a wonder that no major action against Israel by the Arab world has been taken (aside from launched rockets and suicide bombings). It appears as if Israel's unwillingness to negotiate is caused by the support it receives from the US. Israel figures that any attack from an Arab state would trigger an equally (or more) response from its ally in Washington, and of course, for any Arab state, that alone is enough of a deterrent. But what would happen if an Iran or Saudi Arabia attacked Israel? One can imagine that Israel would have some sort of response, but would the US respond with an attack of its own? Given its current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe that the US would jump at the opportunity to get involved in yet another violent Middle East conflict. It's a major gamble on Israel's part to continue ruffling the feathers of the Arab world, especially given those states' continued attempts to match Israel's military might. And if the situation gets even messier, Israel may find itself fighting without its biggest ally.
In my mind, Israel's best option is to reach a settlement with Palestine. But if this does not occur, what should the US do?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Talks continuing between Israel and Palestine?
Peace talks between Israel and Palestine came to halt in recent days as Israel allowed a freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank to end on Sunday. While no side has officially left the negotiation table, it is clear that talks will not move forward until the construction freeze resumes. According to this article, in an attempt to jump start talks, the Obama administration is trying to secure with Israel a 60-day renewal of the freeze in exchange for various security guarantees. These guarantees include weaponry or even continued support of Israel; however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far not agreed to the renewed freeze. Furthermore, to pressure Israel further, Washington has considered a fallback plan that would include a pledge to Palestinians that the US would "formally endorse one of their central demands for the borders of a future Palestinian state."
Now, in general, I am a supporter of President Obama and his administration, but I am having trouble seeing the logic behind this proposed deal. Sure, if Israel accepts, talks would continue between the embittered rivals for 60 days (and Washington hopes longer), but the pessimistic side of me is having trouble dismissing the fact that these two sides have been talking for decades over this land dispute and with little success. So what will 60 days do for negotiations?
Furthermore, I find it unjust that we're offering Israel security guarantees in exchange for their continued cooperation. I understand that this is part of diplomacy, and without these incentives, Israel would (and still may) keep on building, leading to a Palestinian withdrawal from the negotiations. No one wants that, obviously. However, Palestine regard the Jewish settlement building as illegal and, as stated in the article, are upset that the Israelis should get anything for being "thieves". The US is already looked down upon by Arab states (and that's putting it lightly) for its relationship with Israel, and "siding" yet again with Israel by offering them support cannot help improve that perception.
In my mind, the US should take a firmer stand against Israel on the matter. After all, it was Israel that continued building on disputed land. Whether or not the Israelis see it as their right to do so is not the point. They knew that doing this would only anger Palestinians and lead to a setback in negotiations. I know that the US and Israel are allies, but it's time for Washington to put its foot down and not let Israel take advantage of our relationship. If we are going to be mediators in these talks, it can't appear to others that we're playing favorites. Now, maybe that's not what we're doing, and if I'm wrong, please inform me, but I think perception plays a big part in this. So even if Washington isn't meaning to "favor" Israel, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Palestine (or the rest of the Arab world) saw it as favoritism.
With that said, I do hope that some progress can be made through these policies.
Now, in general, I am a supporter of President Obama and his administration, but I am having trouble seeing the logic behind this proposed deal. Sure, if Israel accepts, talks would continue between the embittered rivals for 60 days (and Washington hopes longer), but the pessimistic side of me is having trouble dismissing the fact that these two sides have been talking for decades over this land dispute and with little success. So what will 60 days do for negotiations?
Furthermore, I find it unjust that we're offering Israel security guarantees in exchange for their continued cooperation. I understand that this is part of diplomacy, and without these incentives, Israel would (and still may) keep on building, leading to a Palestinian withdrawal from the negotiations. No one wants that, obviously. However, Palestine regard the Jewish settlement building as illegal and, as stated in the article, are upset that the Israelis should get anything for being "thieves". The US is already looked down upon by Arab states (and that's putting it lightly) for its relationship with Israel, and "siding" yet again with Israel by offering them support cannot help improve that perception.
In my mind, the US should take a firmer stand against Israel on the matter. After all, it was Israel that continued building on disputed land. Whether or not the Israelis see it as their right to do so is not the point. They knew that doing this would only anger Palestinians and lead to a setback in negotiations. I know that the US and Israel are allies, but it's time for Washington to put its foot down and not let Israel take advantage of our relationship. If we are going to be mediators in these talks, it can't appear to others that we're playing favorites. Now, maybe that's not what we're doing, and if I'm wrong, please inform me, but I think perception plays a big part in this. So even if Washington isn't meaning to "favor" Israel, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Palestine (or the rest of the Arab world) saw it as favoritism.
With that said, I do hope that some progress can be made through these policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)