Friday, October 20, 2006
Boston Globe's Novel Policy Advice: Peace in Middle East
I guess no one ever thought about negotiating an "end-of-conflict peace accord" between Israel and the Palestinians before. How many times, in how many different languages, do the Palestinians have to say "no" before some people can understand that the "two-state solution" is not their aim? Didn't we try and fail with the Oslo process? How did Tenet, Mitchell, the road map, the quartet, dozens of cease fires, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Palestinian elections work out? But when all else fails, maybe we can solve the region's problems by pressuring Israel to make more concessions. Of course if the Boston Globe editors could understand the primary role Islamic jihad ideology has on the conflict, then they might realize the futility of more rounds of talks. As long as Israel exists, it can never give up enough to satisfy its Muslim enemies. Ed Lasky at the American Thinker has more:
Compel Israel into appeasing Palestinians/ Syrians
That’s apparently what the New York Times-owned Boston Globe advises in an editorial today.
The soundest way to resist the spread of Iran’s influence—which worries Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Gulf states as much as it does Israel—would be for Washington to change the status quo by shepherding Israelis and Palestinians into an end-of-conflict peace accord. Similarly, Tehran’s trouble-making reach could be curtailed, and Lebanon could be saved from having to endure another proxy war on its territory, if US diplomacy were able to guide Israel and Syria into a peace treaty.
I guess they conveniently forgot Ahamdinjad’s desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I doubt the Shiite regime in Iran cares that much about the Palestinians except to use them as cannon fodder.Yep..everything will be solved if it wasn’t for those Israelis..sounds eerily familiar.