In a message dated 2/28/2003 10:11:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Of course, it is worth noting that Israel and Palestine had forged a more > or less stable, peaceful relationship until a certain US President tried to > get them to do something, and indeed tried to get them to do it in time for > a US election. The result of this process was the complete destruction > of the peace process as it then existed, and essentially > the return to > square one. Uh you are joking about this. It was wrong to upset the balance of power by attempting to broker a true peace treaty that both people could live with? You actually think that this was a stable viable situation? Clinton actually got a treaty that would have established a basis for peace. Oslo was crumbling both sides had begun to ignore it and tensions were getting worse. Had Arafat accepted the plan we would have peace. He did not despite real concessions by Israel. (Palestine would have gotten >90% of what it wanted and the plan would have conformed to goals set after the last war). The fact that Arafat turned it down showed that he had neither the power nor the inclination achieve peace. Given this how could the situation have remained stable. Hardline right wing Israelis would have continued to push for new settlements and tension would have inevitably risen to the point of a new outbreak of violence. The support for Palestine from other Arab states would have occured and we would have been right in the same place. Clinton is bad if he A)he does nothing or B) does anything
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
