Will the Bush Peace Plan Work?

Brain Terminal ^ | 6/27/02 | Evan Coyne Maloney

[libber-tarian]

Excerpt from A Brilliant Peace Plan, But Will It Work?:

President Bush sounded the most optimistic note by saying that with "intensive effort by all, this agreement could be reached within three years from now." That's a pretty tall order, of course. The first step is cleansing the culture of terrorism from Palestinian society. It is possible, but it not only requires that the Palestinians change, it requires a change on the part of the entire pan-Arab culture of Islamic fundamentalism that considers civilian murder a justified response to political disputes.

The real threat to peace in the Middle East comes from countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon, who are attempting to fight Israel by proxy. These nations have been a fertile source of arms and money for Palestinian terrorists, and have contributed to the mass brainwashing that has convinced a frighteningly sizable number of Arabs that the world would be better off if Israel and the United States were wiped from the map.

Although the conflict in the Middle East may have originated as a dispute over land, it has grown into something much larger. Hate's appetite is never fulfilled, and radical Islam, which was bred out of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, has found a more tantalizing target: Westernism. Make no mistake about it: the Middle East conflict and the war that al Qaeda brought to us are one and the same. That's the reason why--despite the brilliance of the Bush plan--I am pessimistic about the chances for peace.

The full article can be found on Brain Terminal.

[libber-tarian]

let's face it, (radical) islam is the enemy...

[tomakaze]

RE:Will the Bush Peace Plan Work?
 
did Neville Chamberlin's?

[Hugin]

did Neville Chamberlin's?

A poor analogy, to say the least. A more apt comparison would be the allies agreeing to end the occupation of Germany after WWII once the German people produced a new democratic government free of anyone tainted by Nazism.

Not that I think the Palistinians will do so. However the real brilliance of the plan is that it presents a clear choice on their part, and ties that choice in with the War on Terror. If the Palies do what I fully expenct and elect a bunch of terrorsits (whether the same ones or Hamas/Hezbollah crowd), then they lose their political cover and there will be no further negotiations, just the war they chose.

[MainFrame65]

My suggestion would be that we let them elect whom they please - just like the Tailban was selected in Afghanistan. And then we hold those new leaders personally and totally responsible for whatever follows from that selection - just like we did the Taliban. Of course, we let them know in advance what they are in for, so when they start exploding, they will know why.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

We will piss around with the Islamists until 100,000 Americans are dead in an attack. Israel will piss around with the Palistinians until 1,000 or more Israelis are killed in an attack. Then, we and the Israelis will do what is necessary. Anyone who believes that peace is possible between the West and radical Islam or between Israel and the Palestians should immediately stop smoking dope.

[liberalism=failure]

It's good politics, but it will never work because as pointed out the "Palestinians" are culturally incapable of acting like civilized human beings.

There are some things that probably would work--

1. Roll back the Oslo debacle--exile arafat and re-occupy the territories (this will probably end up happening)

2. Build a wall and a buffer zone around the territories allowing no one passage into Israel from the territories

3. Declare that for every injured Israeli and killed Israeli the palestinians will permanantly surrender fixed portions of the territories never to return

4. Proclaim that the territories were won fair and square--boot the worthless Paletinian SOBs out and let their arab brethren who CLAIM to love them so much absorb them.

2 and 3 aren't bad, but personally number 4 is my favorite.

[Hugin]

My suggestion would be that we let them elect whom they please - just like the Tailban was selected in Afghanistan. And then we hold those new leaders personally and totally responsible for whatever follows from that selection - just like we did the Taliban. Of course, we let them know in advance what they are in for, so when they start exploding, they will know why.

Exactly. That's the plan. It's not the dopey Clinton "please agree to take a state and stop killing Jews, and if you don't we'll make more concessions" style of negotiation. The Palies know it that's why they are screeming. They have been running a game of avoiding any responsibility for their actions. Bush let them know that's over.

[My2Cents]

Good analysis. 2 & 3 are OK; 4 is the best; but #1 is probably what will happen.

[Faraday]

The solution to the problem in the Middle East begins on the streets of Bagdad, Tehran, and Riyadh. The Palestinian Authority regime change will be one result of the success of the war on terrorism. What the Palestinians actually end up with is in some doubt.

[meenie]

The advantage of statehood is that the people in that state will be responsible for any and all terrorist attacks and can suffer the consequences as a whole. I think they should be given statehood immediately, irregardless of the results of an election.

[FreeReign]

If the Palies do what I fully expenct and elect a bunch of terrorsits (whether the same ones or Hamas/Hezbollah crowd), then they lose their political cover and there will be no further negotiations, just the war they chose.

Exactly!

[libber-tarian]

i'm afraid we'll need to end 5-10 regimes that are brainwashing children to martyr themselves

[libber-tarian]

i agree....let them have statehood, then finally israel can defend itself against a foreign attacker instead of insidious terrorists