So, from an Arab point of view, what constitutes the imposition of will on an enemy? I understand this conflict between Israel and the Arabs to be defined by war goals. Israel's war goals consist of winning the acceptance of its Arab enemies, in particular that of the Palestinians. Acceptance means no longer using force - or other means, for that matter - to eliminate the Jewish state. The Arab war goals, conversely, are to eliminate the Jewish state. I see this as binary - as black and white. One side wins, one side loses. Compromise cannot take place. Oslo was a grand experiment in compromise, and it failed. In the end, one side imposes its will on the other.
it seems so obvious. Maybe Shelby Steele's analysis of how guilt governs American foriegn policy applies to Israel's relationship with the Palestinians as well., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/525343/posts
One ray of hope is Pipes' information about Dubai. Pipes was absolutely correct to call the tsunami against the ports deal a populist backlash that had the effect of provoking Dubai's Sultan to move away from closer relations with the United States to satisfy his citizens' own populist backlash. It's good to see that the Sultan's still promoting principles the Arab world will need to accept to enter the 21st century. Many Arab nations are not ready for democracy-- they need to develop liberal institutions first.
Which, I guess, explains why all of four people showed interest.
Thanks for contributing.