Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
My opinion on the matter: It better not. The Israeli/Palestinean conflict is the lifeblood of Middle East terrorism. Arabs will never accept what they consider a double standard in how the US treats the Israelis and the Palestineans. From this conflict flows 90% of the animosity the Arabs have for the United States and its allies.
Speaking of palestinean militant groups, it remains to be seen exactly what the militants want. They're saying 2 things: better living conditions for their people (attainable), and the destruction of Israel (unattainable).
|
I suspect the explanation of tribes/warlords plays into this. It's not so much a guided vision for the people but rather a bunch of power hungry individuals intent on maintaining their postitions. To a large extent, an effective peace process would remove their positions. "Conditions" and a common enemy (the U.S. and the Zionists) are lip service to gain support.
Quote:
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Sharon has any option left, as far as the US is concerned. He will be pressured into negotiating.
|
Agreed. I'm afraid though there are too many undeclared interests at odds with peace. My amateur take on it is that it's similar to Iraq in this way. Lots of power plays under the table. How do we deal with warlords besides just leaving?
Can any students of history provide examples of when nation-defining/splitting situations resulted in a clean resolution and exit? (Honest question.) Isn't it likely the warlords will be paid off, killed, get immunity, and a few generations will pass before things settle down?
The entire region is frustrating to me.