Third Party & Independents Archives

Intervention in Palestine?

Yesterday, I read the following on Yahoo News: “The Bush administration has decided to ask the U.S. Congress for funds aimed at bolstering security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, sources with knowledge of the plan said on Wednesday.”
We already look bad pushing for elections and punishing the results. We’ve also lost our ability to be seen as an arbiter of the conflict. Do we really need to push things even farther?

As my mind is on Iran-Contra right now, I also found it interesting that the sources say our aid "will not include weapons or other forms of "lethal" equipment." However

A team led by Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator between Israel and the Palestinians, has been providing Abbas's presidential guard with strategic advice and has lobbied Western donors to give it funds and equipment.
European donors have provided vehicles. Jordan and Egypt have sent guns, ammunition and trainers, diplomats say.

When we aren't allowed to fund or supply, there's always another way.

Probably not coincidentally, the same day contained news that Abbas is starting to give up on the Unity government talks with Hamas.

Maybe the region's history of governments controlled by other nations and the fact that we've already raised more than $5 Million for this endeavor has caused Hamas to be a bit skeptical?

All parties of the Israel-Palestine conflict have some culpability - including all the countries that use it for their own ends. During this administration, the decisions made regarding our involvement have only made the problem worse - and it appears that's continuing.


Posted by Christine at November 30, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #197165

Interesting. I’ve heard a lot of MidEast experts say the problem is lack of US inolvement in the peace process, rather than too much involvement.

There’s an interesting passage in “Bush At War” where President Bush is brushing off Powell’s Israeli/Palestinian peace proposals. He says something like, “Things are pretty messed up over there. I don’t think there’s much we can do.”

I suspect the problem is more that we let Israel take the lead and they naturally made sure they did better than the Palestinians. The “settlement” so far seems pretty unfair.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 30, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #197171

Thanks AP - I better clarify.
I think our lack of involvement in forcing talks and good faith negotiation has been a problem.
No question. We have the most ability to get Israel to play fair.

I just don’t think this signifies the kind of involvement that will be helpful We continue to only identify with the needs of Israel.

I think we should have at least waited for the Unity discussions to run their course before we did something so high-handed.


Posted by: Christine at November 30, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #197190


This is the Bush idea of diplomacy:

Rice seeks to jumpstart Arab-Israeli peace process

IMO the headline should read:

“Rice stirs up hornets nest”!

She sucks worse as Sec. of State than she did as National Security Advisor. And that’s a hard record to break!

Imagine that resume. “Yes, I was in charge of the nations security when the twin towers were struck down”.

Sheesh! I’m surprised Bush didn’t pardon Terry Nichols and offer him the Sec. of Def. post.

Posted by: KansasDem at December 1, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #197430

The U.S. has only two roles it can productively play in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Stay out of it, or engage in it as a truly NEUTRAL party shoring up the U.S.’s potential for acting as peace broker and mediator.

Since, the Bush administration is incapable of acting as a NEUTRAL party, the Bush administration should stay out of it, leaving Great Britain and or other nations to play the neutral broker role.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #197449

The only problem with that David is that the US continues to subsidise Israel massively, despite increasing settlement in the west bank, contrary to international law. If the US continues to support Israel so massively, despite its illegal behaviours, then it cannot be said to be neutral anyway, whether it stays out or not of efforts to find a settlement to the conflict. You can’t be neutral and at the same time turn a blind eye to illegal activity while shoring up the one acting illegally.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 2, 2006 6:57 PM
Post a comment