Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing, there is a fascinating article on him in the latest Atlantic Monthly.
I don't disagree with you, but once he "renounced" (yeah, I think it was bullshit, too) terrorism, leaders of both Likud and Labor in Israel spoke to him, so why was it not ok for Clinton to?
|
Clinton pushed a peace plan that likely would have assured Israel's destruction. His motivation was his legacy, not Israel. The leaders of Likud and Labour made a calculated and probably nauseating decision in no small part because the US was pushing it and to some extent Israel's survival depends on us.
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
For better or for worse, he was regarded by the Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza as their leader. Any effort to come to a peaceful resolution would have to involve him.
|
so any effourt to come to a peaceful resolution of the War on Terror will involve the US have negotiated discussions with bin Laden?
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
The Oslo Accords were done directly beween Rabin and Arafat without any meaningful US involvement (other than "sure, you'll love Oslo, Yitzak"). Bill's contribution was to lean on AIPAC not to scuttle the deal. He followed up with Barak and Arafat after the election, but Arafat blinked when he had the chance to be a hero (and Barak apparently knew he would).
|
I look at the article but reality caues me to pause on any thought that the US was not the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
And terrorists can go on to form political parties and become responsible leaders -- ask any neo-con about how wonderful Menachem ("I blew up the King David Hotel in 1947") Begin was.
|
Unlike Begin, Arafat never stopped using terrorism as his primary tool.
