The End of the Bush Doctrine

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12365.htm ^ | Mark Silverberg

[ventanax5]

In the Palestinian territories, the U.S. knows that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will never be a serious partner for peace and that he is politically impotent. Yet, the Bush Administration continues to fund Fatah knowing the organization has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ceasing its terrorist activities, controlling the anti-Semitic hatred in its media, promoting anything resembling democratic change in its political infrastructure or becoming more moderate towards Israel. It knows that the organization is vying with Hamas to see who can field the most suicide bombers and that it continues to plot the vanquishment of "the Zionist occupiers." Yet, despite this knowledge, the Administration continues to bankroll the organization.

While Bush may have once hoped that Fatah and Hamas would compete for the hearts and minds of the Palestinians by offering to build democratic institutions, better roads, better schools and a better future, it has now concluded that both are corrupt and self-destructive, that a Palestinian civil war is imminent, and that any serious attempts to democratize their infrastructures (at least for the present) are hopeless. Taking all this into account, it views Fatah as the lesser of the two evils and so it has cast its lot with them and has already begun pressuring Israel to do so as well (as we are witnessing at Annapolis).

[angkor]

it has now concluded that both are corrupt and self-destructive

DUH

[Danae]

Yea an oh duh moment for sure.

Time to cinch the belt and do what needs to be done. Not that I expect that, but really Hamas and the Nation that supports it has to go.

[Diogenesis]

"it has now concluded that both are corrupt and self-destructive,"

It matters not. A good bet it that they will all be down on their knees again, shortly.

[Red Badger]

Palestinians corrupt?.......I am shocked........

[DustyMoment]

Sounds like Inspector Clouseau just got a . . . . . Clou!!

[rogue yam]

The policy of "realism" was based on cold, calculated political and material considerations rather than on moral, ethical or idealistic concerns. It was this approach to American foreign policy that sent hundreds of thousands of people across the Third World to their deaths in the name of protecting American national interests.

Whataloadacrap! All policy, foreign and domestic, should be based on far-horizon self-interest and nothing else. And American policy, generally speaking, cannot be blamed for the actions of foreign tyrants. If our self-interested actions also happen to prevent the deaths of innocent foreigners then that is a welcome and happy coincidence. But it is a lie to say that the victims of foreign murderers were sent to their deaths by America.

[49th]

“All policy, foreign and domestic, should be based on far-horizon self-interest and nothing else.”

If this is the case, America must then give up any pretensions of being a moral or righteous nation. Such issues as ‘right-to-life’ are dead on arrival if ethical considerations should not be brought into policy decisions.

[rogue yam]

Your definition of “self-interest” is more narrow than mine. My understanding of self-interest holds that laws against murder are self-interested. That would include laws against murdering fetuses.

[rogue yam]

More broadly, I believe that there are many ways that it is in society’s self-interest to uphold moral values. Thus I believe that pornography may be regulated and charity subsidized through tax deductions just to give two examples.