|A False Stability
||[Jul. 24th, 2006|10:33 am]
'George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker were seen as heroes by some Palestinians; Bill Clinton made the quest for Middle East peace a centerpiece of his legacy project. Bush aides say the times were different then and the vaunted progress under Clinton turned out to be what one called "a false stability."' |
-- Time Magazine
This is just one of the many reasons why we're fucked. Bush & his minions prefer an ugly war to a fragile peace, because it's more true.
Do you think it's possible that the area could need to, for lack of a better term, get this out of its system? If Israel is able to take out - or at least cripple to the point of being irrelevant - Hezbollah, do you think it will change the dynamics in the area enough that some breakthroughs might be made over the next couple years?
There's obviously no easy answers to the situation because Isreal isn't leaving and Palestine & the Muslim community won't acquiesce while Israel still exists, but I don't know what else can happen to potentially solve the issue except war at this point. I'm not sure there's a mediator on the planet capable of permanently solving this problem.
I can't countenance trashing a sovereign country, killing hundreds of innocent bystanders, and displacing over 1/2 a million people as 'getting it out of your system.' I don't know how to solve the problems of the Middle East, but I know that if you kill someone's brother, you've made an enemy for life. Killing people into being reasonable has never worked.
Israel can't cripple Hezbollah, not permanently anyway. And they're not stupid; they know that unless the turn all of Lebanon into fused slag they won't begin to affect Hezbollah. They're just increasing Hezbollah's prestige in the region. From the point of view of your average Lebanese person, Hezbollah is the only force resisting Israel's destruction of Lebanon.
The only thing that will make peace in the Middle East is for someone to get interested in actually making peace. That means negotiating with people that neither side wants to negotiate with.
Maybe I'm falling prey to stereotypes, but I think Arabs and Israelis are past masters of making deals. If they could get to a cease fire and cool off for a while, and actually negotiate, then maybe things would change.
But that isn't happening, and I suspect that one reason is that peace in the Middle East would allow a new party to the globalization table. If Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt formed a regional economic group to counterbalance the US, China, and the EU. It's in everyone outside the Middle East's best economic and political interest to keep them fighting each other.
The idea that the US is in any position to mediate is a cruel joke as well. We can't supply Israel with weapons and then mediate their disputes with their enemies. Bombs killing Lebanese civilians are just your tax dollars at work.
The whole situation seems....intractable. I wonder if somehow - for the sake of argument, this obviously isn't feasible irl - America or the EU was able to convince Germany to give up a portion of their country to relocate the Jews out of Israel and give the area back to Palestine, if that would actually solve the problem or if it would just make things worse. This isn't a realistic scenario for a number of reasons, but at this point a shot in the dark is about the best one can hope for.