Annapolis, Peace, Lott
Is it just me, or is it hypocritical of George W. Bush to ask others to make compromises in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when he fails to seek a compromise on issues far less important (on a global scale, at least) such as the operation in Iraq and a national health-care for poor children?
I'm all for peace talks between the two sides in the conflict (I had advocated for the now-universally accepted two-state solution back when it was still deemed treasonous to do so), but the ongoing media campaign the administration is running makes it sound more like a photo-op and political maneuvering than an real attempt to solve the problem. Listening to the analysis from guests on NPR explaining the different motivations of the attending parties helped me notice this. What I don't understand is why they would all go into a process which they expect to fail. It seems very short-sighted and sure to backfire. Unless they have plans to blame the other side, which we've seen (perhaps rightfully so, but the blame continues) against Arafat following the previous series of talks years ago.
I don't see the US solving this problem. The people here in the States are too complacent. Half don't understand the true importance for world peace, the other half refuse on religious, national, or self-serving grounds. Democrats don't know how to do anything right, Republicans are terrific making the wrong things happen. The Republicans would surely lose even more seats in congress in the upcoming elections, if only there were a third party candidate to take them back for the American people, and the world.
Speaking of hypocrites, new is that Trent Lott is going to retire. Not when his term ends, but just a little before, beating the deadline for the new "cool down" period during which ex-congressmen cannot work as lobbyists. His retirement is attributed to the loss of his home during hurricane Katrina, but he won't work to the end of his term (read "the cool-down deadline") to serve his even less well-off constituents and neighbors.
Labels: assclown, goodriddance, hypocrisy, neocon, thirdpartyplease
posted by Michael at 10:34 AM
2 Comments:
hey Michael, see this http://samsonblinded.org/blog/independence-means-obligations.htm
Palis don't even want a state
I don't find that article all that interesting. It provides little insight but plenty of unsupported accusations.
Given that it's published under a section titled "Judea, Samaria, & Gaza", I'm not surprised. The Israeli extremists in "YESHA" are hardly a rational bunch. These antagonistic madmen literally live within a stone's throw of their enemy, and argue that escalation of violence is better than the cold peace Israel shares with Egypt.
Me, I'm grateful that I could serve my 4.5 years far from the Egyptian border; and that I did not lose dozens of dear friends and family members in an avoidable war.
The never-compromise Israelis, especially those who hide behind their religious texts are cowards in many eyes. To hold steadfast to old-world ideas and refuse hope due to their fear of the uncertain is the best example of idiocy I have.
To avoid the obvious and tired reply of those called "hawks", no- I am not arguing peace at any cost. Those on the left do care about security and sovereignty. We just understand that there are many ways to achieve and maintain these, and that dialog is always possible. We rational human beings understand that we are not all-knowing, and that new solutions will become apparent through thought.
I know that those who lack this capacity will not understand, so I should probably quit now.
Post a Comment
<< Home