The Obama Administration Doesn’t Understand the Middle East Problem
The Obama administration truly does not understand the nature of the Middle East conflict, and the role especially Iran plays in it.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice spoke to Arab newspaper al Hayat recently, and she illustrated perfectly why people like myself – who think that a two-state solution is the only way to resolve this conflict but who understand that we have to make sure that Palestinian state will not function as a safe haven for terrorists and a proxy for Iran – fear that the new administration will not do all that is necessary to protect Israel and guarantee its safety.
She said:
Ambassador Rice: “The foreign minister, who obviously plays a very important role in the formulation of Israel’s foreign policy, has not said this to President Obama. And until they have an opportunity to have a discussion, I don’t think we should prejudge its context. That’s why I say it’s hypothetical. That said, the President has been very clear, [saying] that we don’t see any logic in efforts to delay the work to achieve a two-state solution. As he said following his meeting with King Abdullah [of Jordan], it is in Israel’s interest, in the Palestinians’ interests, and indeed in America’s interest, that progress be made as rapidly as possible to achieve a two-state solution…”
“We don’t see any logic in efforts to delay the work to achieve a two-state solution.” That is all we need to know to understand Obama’s, Clinton’s and Rice’s views. They do not understand why Israel could have a problem with a terrorist Palestinian state, serving as a proxy to a nuclear armed Iran. A terrorist-Palestinian state ruled by individuals who dream of orchestrating a second holocaust.
Troubling, very troubling.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I understand the point of not wanting Hamas to be there, but even if you killed every member of that organization right this second, what next? Then the PLO is there, and they are almost as bad. Little progress was made even when they controlled all the territory. And post-Arafat too.
Short of a politically liberal (not classical liberal) government taking hold in the West Bank and Gaza, I’m not seeing it.
I have always thought the one state approach is the best. Let the entire lands in question all be part of a one state approach in which the entire Jewish and Palestinian people are incorporated into the state for the good of both peoples.
Yes I know there are more Arabs then Jews but if done right the same voting proceedures that the United States of America used in bringing the southern states into the Union could be incorporated until the new nation adjusted.
They could be divided into several states. Israel, Gaza, West Bank etc. and each state would have both Jews and Palestinians living there. They could model their nation along the lines of the United States.
They simply have to get this hate behind them. Until they actually have hope they are not going to do anything but hate each other and kill each other and be subjected to the whims of the blowing flames of biggotry that engulfs the middle east.
Even the two state approach gives the Palestinians poverty. A one state approach aided by the world in rebuilding the lands of the palestinians could give them all a new life and schools, homes and markets. Roads, bridges and libraries. And most of all it would give them the chance to have their own lands free from terror.
Call me a dreamer but Ive always believed that it could work.
Doomed: A solution that I think is even more unlikely than two states.