U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 08, 2007 10:54 PM UTC
26 Comments
Loading ...
a) Guns
b) Diplomacy
More of both.
But how do you have diplomacy with a group that is teaching little kids to hate and kill americans? What sort of compromise do you reach? “We’ll send you 500 americans and israelis a year to kill if you promise to stay over there”?
You get the “moderates” involved – not necessarily the ideological or theological moderates, though. You help build a society where theological points of view become moot. Look at Bahrain and Dubai and Qatar, among other places – commercial havens first and foremost; more Macao than Mecca. Get them involved, investing money in the economies of Egypt and Syria and even Iraq.
THAT is the diplomacy that will win the War on Terror.
Training the dog by shooting terrorists in the face, publicly and often, however, certainly wouldn’t hurt.
I like that you actually offered a specific theory too.
Scratch the surface of any “ideological” or “religious” struggle and you’ll always find money and/or territory is what the fight is all about. Develop their economy and good ol’ secularism and stability will follow, and the hardcore terrorists will find themselves at the margins of their society (hey, they won’t all buy into the good times).
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to denigrate them to the margins of society – margin is too small a term. A lot of important people in this world are on the margins. It’s more like a theory I’ve had for, oh 7 years now (I first defined it about a year before 9/11, when I met a terrorist of a sort face-to-face in the PI – long story).
Terrorists are just Pissed-off Rednecks.
That’s it. Whether they become Montana Freemen, Muslim Brotherhood, or Drunk and Beligerent at the Bar, it’s as simple as that – it’s just a portion of a population that’s existed for as long as any significant population has existed.
Now, that doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous, just that it’s a segment of society that ought to be handled in one way or another. Sometimes that way is setting an example of the extreme pricks by doing very bad things to them in public with very big guns, and sometimes it means simply putting NASCAR on TV.
The goal of the Bush Doctrine in the War on Terror has actually been to create societies where the latter becomes a better solution than the former (though the former has certainly been of utility). As such, ideologically, it’s inherently liberal, in both the classical AND the modern sense of the word. Which makes it either wholly confusing or completely understandable as to why the Left villainizes it so.
And, as such, that’s why I think the large failure thus far has not been military – hard to criticize the most efficient and effective military campaigns in all of human history – but political and diplomatic. Some of that is a lack of direction and interest on the part of the Administration, but much of that also is a lack of investment in the solution on the part of the often-left-wing, careerist arms of the State Department. Because of the former criticism, they’ve essentially had free reign to do what they do best, however they want to do it – they simply haven’t taken the opportunity, be it for political reasons or lack of imagination.
That’s why I think that the Bush Doctrine is still inherently the most humane and the most sensible solution to this problem we (we meaning the whole dang world) have with radicalizing Islam. It’s either that or they start a nuclear war and all die – it may not be Americans doing the killing, but it will happen. They don’t get along with the Indians and the Chinese, nor each other, so much, either (a nuke button in Teheran and Riyadh and Cairo would NOT end up well between them all). Either this works soon, or things get really, REALLY ugly in the near future.
then it sounds pretty reasonable. My issue with the war in Iraq is that it is not, never was, and can never be successfully spun as a front on the war on Terror. It was not a breeding ground for terrorist before 9/11 and there’s no evidence that Saddam ever supported them (being the head of a degenerate secular state wouldn’t endear Saddam to al Quada or vice versa – makes sense when you think about it).
If you believe our greatest failure was actually on the diplomatic front I can’t argue with that point. But I would think that such a failure ultimately rests at the president’s feet, just as any military failure would. The entire policy originated in his office, after all.
But implimentation is often different than the actual plan
I believe, whether the motivations were high-minded (build a stable middle-east democracy) or less so (gain a foothold in, if not hegemony over, an enormous oil supply), the execution leaves something to be desired, if I may be permitted such an understatement.
If it’s the more high-minded strategy then Bush and company have done a poor job in communicating it to the American people and to the international community. Such an exercise would take decades to achieve. Something that’s lost on many Americans is that you can’t just come into a civilization that has been under one form of autocratic reign or another for decades or centuries and say voila! You’re now a democracy. There’s a paternalistic nature to dictatorships in which the people living under them are accustomed to all the decisions being made without their say or approval, like children in a family. It takes time to get the people used to have a say. Just coming in, removing the dictator and writing a constitution won’t do it.
After World War I several new nations were drawn on the map and established as democracies. By 1939 all but one of these countries had become dictatorships, all by internal politics without outside agitation or aggression. It’s what I think about when I see what’s happening in Russia today and what I worry about when it comes to Iraq’s future. I don’t believe the Bush administration cares, so long as their government is friendly to us and generous in their trade agreements, but maybe I’m just being cynical.
But what about Turkey? More secular and democratic that UAE. Except, of course, for the occasional military coup that occurs when they think the government is headed down an Islamic path. In fact, the military has made similar overtones recently.
Dubai may be progressive, but they are not that progressive. Do you remember the flap that occurred over the male winner of their version of American Idol? How there was concern over the fact that so many girls were touching him at malls? And Dubai is just one of seven emirate states, so they may be able to custom build you an island, and they have malls that house United Colors of Benniton but they have a ways to go before theology becomes moot.
Qatar is the home of Al-Jazeera. Points for being the one of the few arabic countries to not kick Al-Jazeera out, but isnt the station often characerized as being a place for OBL to voice his opinion?
Egypt, Syria and Iraq. One of these things is not like the others. Egypt is an ally of ours. They have banned the muslim brotherhood political party. They were one of the first, if not the first, arabic country to become an ally of Israel. Peace talks are regularly held in Sharm el-sheik (sp?), a place that is a european vacation hot spot.
“Training the dog by shooting terrorists in the face, publicly and often, however, certainly wouldn’t hurt.”
Yeah, look at the wonders that Saddam’s botched execution gave us.
Why is there not a complete and overpowering outrage being shown coming from the Islamic Community at large?
I would think if they are truly a religion of peace, their leaders would be up in arms. How can they set back and allow their supposed followers kill anyone and anything that doesn’t share their fanatical views?
We all know that Ireland still has its problems but I’m betting the Pope doesn’t turn a deaf ear towards it.
Maybe they’re afraid of a) either loosing power, or b) getting killed.
That a religion that is not top-down like Catholicism and is divided by sects and varying philosophies has many that do speak out, some that dont, and some that advocate the killing. Dont be so ignorant as to think that all religions act as one voice and since some, but not all, are advocating violence it is an indictment on the religion as a whole. For example, I could point to Warren Jeffs as a damning of Mormonism, or Fred Phelps as an indictment of the Baptist religion, etc.
And Northern Ireland is doing ok considering the recent election that pairs the Sinn Fein with the leaders of protestant movement of Norther Ireland, and surprisingly they are getting along. How involved was the pope with the Good Friday peace agreement?
Or did you read it all? I ask because, clearly, as quoted in the article, people are taking issue with this program and its assumed indoctrination, and, shocker, they are Palestinians.
I saw some concern expressed by Palestinians. But is the program going to be shut down? Is there going to be a moderate counterpart? They’re concerned about indoctorination, but what of the message?
This isn’t anything new in Palestine. There have been similar articles that have surfaced throughout the years. The first one I remember reading was when I was in the 9th grade (before Sept 11th) where they were giving kids toy AK 47s and having them practice killing Americans and Jews.
My point is, this is the enemy. These are the tactics being employed. And yet, they hide behind the peace process-saying that it’s our fault and if we used more diplomacy, we could avoid these problems.
And yet they are and have been teaching their children to hate us and to aspire to kill us. How are we supposed to deal with that? If we gave them everything they wanted, do you think the hate that they’ve been building into their children is going to melt away? Do you believe that a moderate sect or government will be able to control such a population?
What do you suggest they do? It is a satellite television program run by hamas. They were also democratically elected. They have no responsibility to produce a countershow. If fatah wants to produce a countershow that is fine. Reread the article: “Children’s nationalist spirit must be developed differently.” Sounds to me that Basem Abu Samaya is concerned with the message.
Yeah, articles like this one have surfaced from Palestine, but you know where else they surface from? Our allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The US has turned a blind eye towards militant madrassas, anti-semitism and radical imams as long as the oil continues to flow unabated. As far as toy guns are concerned, come on. Walk through any walmart or toy store and there are piles of guns. When I was growing up kids played war with toy guns, we killed each other, and then switched sides.
My thoughts are that there are lots of enemys out there and we will be unable to control how they indoctrinate their children, or their followers. If you consider this the greatest enemy than thats your opinion. Where do they hide behind the peace process? From what I can tell the Bush Administration has done nothing to establish a peace process, or at least continue the one started by Clinton. We should use more diplomacy.
“And yet they are and have been teaching their children to hate us and to aspire to kill us. How are we supposed to deal with that?”
Diplomacy. I assume the children are being given a reason to hate us. Propaganda only works if you have a reason to hate your enemy. If they have no reason to hate us then the hatred is a waste, and most people will realize that. They teach there children to hate, but they also provide services to the public. They have support from the people because they give to the people. Every time an american or an Israeli kills a palestinian, they rush in and help the family.
“If we gave them everything they wanted, do you think the hate that they’ve been building into their children is going to melt away?”
What do you suggest? Are you taking a Tancredo line of nuking Mecca? Should we kill them all? Your questions are building into reasoning for internment or nuclear war. Opposite that they are building into defeatism. Its the “we cant do anything so why even try” defense.
“Do you believe that a moderate sect or government will be able to control such a population?”
Bush kept on talking about how if we bring them democracy terrorism will melt away. Well, Hamas was democratically elected, because they provide for the people. But at the same time, pciking up the trash, keeping the streets pothole-free, keeping the buses running is what keeps them in power. Fatah has experience with that and Hamas, theoretically, does not.
We need to support groups that are moderate. We need to support them because the beauracratic duldrums that we all take for granted is what gives staying power to governments. It is why de-baathification was a stupid idea in Iraq. Staying power plus moderate positions will help to control, and eventually diminish to nuisance level, radical ideas.
“As far as toy guns are concerned, come on. Walk through any walmart or toy store and there are piles of guns. When I was growing up kids played war with toy guns, we killed each other, and then switched sides.” Are you serious? You think that’s the same? I played guns too, but mine weren’t issued by my church’s bishop or the government and I wasn’t told hate and/or practice killing a particular nationality or ethnic group.
“Where do they hide behind the peace process?” The Pals say they want part of their own nation, Israel gives it to them, and what happens? They want more. Do terrorist attacks stop? No. They intensify.
“Diplomacy. I assume the children are being given a reason to hate us. Propaganda only works if you have a reason to hate your enemy.” Your assumption is incorrect. Unless you have some fantastic explaination that justifies the hatred of Jews and blacks. You are also incorrectly assuming that little children are logical creatures, like they need to be shown graphs or charts that lay out logical reasons for hating someone. Apparently you have never seen or heard of kids getting picked on because they “look funny” or their mom dresses them…..
“What do you suggest? Are you taking a Tancredo line of nuking Mecca? Should we kill them all? Your questions are building into reasoning for internment or nuclear war.” If that’s the first thought that came across you mind, you’re on a different plane than me. Just because I don’t have the solution in mind doesn’t equate to me rooting for internment or nuclear weapons.
So what level of diplomacy do you suggest? What will make someone happy who’s stated platform is the utter destruction of a nation? What sort of middle ground can you hope to achieve?
So, a gun article, that you remember from the 9th grade (ten years ago?) described imams giving children guns? Recollection that long ago is suspect at best. Aside from that, the only difference between your parents, or your bishop, buying toy guns for you is that in palestine they are given a specific group to hate. Call it cowboys and indians for the twentieth century.
They have their own country? I guess you could say that, but that completely ignores the massice restrictions that Israel has placed on palestinian movement. The West Bank and Gaza strip are almost becoming two different countries of the same people. Throw in the wall that Israel wanted to build (havent followed that issue as much as I should have), constant invansions by military personnel that result in collateral damage, withholding aid (thats the US and Israel). I guess soveriegnty wasnt “given” to the Palestinians when Israel “gave” them a country.
The terrorist attacks have intensified? I assume that you have a list of terrorist attacks over the years and their intensity (quantified somehow), which shows that they have intensified.
“Unless you have some fantastic explaination that justifies the hatred of Jews and blacks. You are also incorrectly assuming that little children are logical creatures, like they need to be shown graphs or charts that lay out logical reasons for hating someone. Apparently you have never seen or heard of kids getting picked on because they “look funny” or their mom dresses them…..”
Total Strawman
Hate is an illogical concept in and of itself. Children only need the teaching of peers, parents and members of the community to learn to hate. Christ, they dont even need the teaching, they can look at how their family respond to something.
Maybe we are on a different plane. Your whole post, the one I responded to and the original one, are nothing but damning questions and reasons to, well, hate. Look at what I quoted, the language you used. It is totally inflammatory.
“So what level of diplomacy do you suggest? What will make someone happy who’s stated platform is the utter destruction of a nation? What sort of middle ground can you hope to achieve?”
Christ, you are doing it again. Your language is totally inflammatory, and really leaves me no room to respond. You clearly believe that there is no solution; that there is nothing I can say that will at least move this discussion along.
Your responses leave no room for response either. You talk about what the Israelis have done to the palestinians like the woke up one day and decided to piss on everybody. Their actions are in response to the constant threat of attack from terrorist groups and/or other countries.
You try and explain that surely, these children are being given a reason to hate, and then you contradict yourself by saying hate is irrational. You then totally side step my counter-arguement to that by inserting the word “strawman”.
You then question my source by saying that it’s suspect, but only because it doesn’t fit into your view. If you really don’t believe that this stuff happens on a regular basis, you must be purposefully ignoring the world around you. Same thing for questioning whether or not terrorist attacks in Israel have intensified. Do you follow history? They get suicide bombed, rocketed, kidnapped, etc, etc, etc. For crying out loud, there is a political party in power who’s platform is “the utter destruction of Israel”-like we talk about tax cuts and abortion. If you think that’s justified, then we truly are on different planes. There is no excuse for killing innocent people for political purposes. To support or justify any such actions is to condone the hate you seem to think that I feel.
Which leads me to my last point. As I have stated before, when asked which to use “more diplomacy or more guns”, I said both. If say Hamas were to change their platform to “allow Israel to peacefully exsist”, then we can use more diplomacy. If they stay as “kill all Jews”, we need to use more guns. You cannot compromise with someone who’s only intention is to kill and hate. Such compromise led to Jim Crow. Now, that wasn’t a good thing, was it?
Im not contradicting myself by saying that children are given a reason to hate and that hate itself is irrational. You said that children are not logical creatures and I am, in fact, agreeing with you. Then I am taking it a step further and saying that hate itself is also illogical, which it inherently is.
Look, take a class in logic. I pointed out that the fallacious paragraph you call a counter-argument is a strawman. It is a total misrepresentation of my point, which you then try and defeat acting as if it were my position all along. I didnt respond, because it doesnt earn a response.
“My view?” Are you serious? Of course it is suspect. It is an article that you remember from the 9th grade. Do you have a link to that article? You are still a student, right? You could probably do a Lexis-Nexis search on one the computers on campus and find it. See, where I come from, if you talk about a source, or make a conjecture, you back it up with real evidence.
Do you follow history? You said that terrorist attacks have intensified. I assume that if you are going to make a wild speculation like that you would have the evidence to back that up. Obviously, I was wrong, as you have been unable to do so. These attacks have been going on for a long time now, one could make the argument that they have been going on since the British abandoned the Israelis in 1948, really it could be said that it was longer than that. Since there is a long history of this, and since it was only recently that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank become a, one would assume, sovereign nation there would be quantifiable data to conclusively show that since Palestine became a country terrorist attacks against Israel have increased.
I never said that it was justified or that I supported it, and again you are strawmaning my argument. I am merely pointing out that they were democratically elected. We may not like their platform, but clearly enough palestinians did to put them in positions of power.
First, all due respect Zappatero, but more diplomacy or more guns is a false dichotomy. That aside, do you think that Hamas will respond positively to more violence? A tactic of theirs is suicide. Do you think people who are willing to die for their cause will be afraid of…death? No, I didnt think so either.
What is with you, ultimatums and horrible analogies? Since we can not compromise with them, not that the US has been trying since the Bush Administration took office, and they seem pretty intractable at the moment, what do you suggest? It seems to me that you think we should ignore them until they come around to our thought processes, correct me if I am wrong. And where did you get Jim Crow from? How is that even remotely similar?
If I misinterupted your earlier paragraph, I apologize. When you said “if they’re being taught to hate, they must be giving a reason” (paraphrasing to show how I read it), it sounded like someone was trying to give logical reason to hate, so I responded by saying children don’t need a logical reason to hate. When you agreed, it seemed like a contradiction.
As for the article, I will do my best to find it. I will see if I can use the Lexus Nexus system, if it will really make all that much of a difference. Promise me that it will make a difference in your views and I’ll do everything I can to find it. If your issue with me not producing a link is just a way of poking holes in my argument, they I won’t bother (I really mean that more respectfully than I’m sure it’s coming across at this point).
Now, with respect for whether or not there has been an increase in terrorist attacks, I will also try and find backup for that. However, for the time being I will say that if they haven’t increased, they have at least stayed the same, because they certainly haven’t subsided since Israel tried to engage in the process of turning land back over to the Palestinians.
My question regarding how to compromise with them is not a snarky question. I really want to know what people think. I don’t know what to do. I haven’t set out a possible policy, nor have I said that we should ignore them until they come around.
How do you compromise with such radical stances? My reference to Jim Crow was to show that when you try to compromise with radicalism (those who believe that blacks should have been sent back to Africa and or not be intergrated into society) you get crappy policy that doesn’t solve the problem. You can give land to the palestinians, but it’s not going to solve anything when that’s just a step towards the end goal, which is the utter destruction of Israel.
So again, I ask. How do you compromise with them?
I should have been more clear. Kids need a reason to hate, but that reason need not be logical. Racism in general is based on illogical beliefs, which are generally unfounded (as an example).
My big reason for wanting the article is for me. You remember the article, but I have never read it. I dont know who wrote it. For example, if it was written by world net daily I am going to dismiss it right away. If it was written by the Wall Street Journal then I will trust it. How was it written? Was it written with an obvious bias, or does it potray, accurately, the situation. Its like a poll, who did the poll, what were the questions, what was the methodology, demographics, etc. So, I promise that I will give you my honest view about the article. Like I said, if it is from WND, dont bother, because in a debate with me, only good sources qualify.
My dad used to travel to the middle east all the time, so I really followed the politics and terrorist attacks. I remember a summer a few years ago when the Sbarro, Starbucks and buses (the ones my dad would ride) where being blown up daily, sometimes two or three times a day. It got a lot of press. After Arafat died, the news media has really left Israel on the front page. I think it is premature to say that there has been an increase without evidence to back it up. If terrorist attacks have gone up, then I would like to know. But as of right now, I dont know that for sure. Remember the summer of shark attacks? It was all over the news. Of course, in reality shark attacks had actually decreased, but a cute little blond girl’s arm was bit off so….
I didnt think it was a snarky question. I think the way you presented your opinion about Hamas and the program was snarky and inflammatory. That is not meant to be insulting. You are entitled to your opinion, and the presentation of your opinion. But to extend from the original post to a reasonable discussion about Hamas and how to work with them is really tough. I am always frustrated when I get into debates where people are either unwilling or unable to look at the other side. Looking at it from the other side improves the counter argument. I know I am not telling you anything you dont know.
Onto the compromise. Fact of the matter is that we ae going to have to compromise with them at some point. Or maybe the problem is the word compromise. If compromise led to Jim Crow (I get the analogy now), then there must be a better word with more appropriate connotations.
I refuse to believe that all Palestinians want the destruction of Isreal. I think you have to engage them. An aside, but parallel, Israel and the Syrians want to engage in diplomacy. The Bush administration is doing their damnedest to prevent it. We must engage them. I think approaching them with our partners is imperative. Even if it is through back-channel to start. I would be willing to bet that while a plank of their platform is the destruction of Israel, there must be something else they want to accomplish. Infrastructure, as I mentioned before, gives staying power to governments. Schools, hospitals, trash pick up, etc. Governments need that. We cut off funding to Palestine, as did Israel, so they need money. Start with funding. We will give you X dollars for Y in return. Its simple, I know, but it is a start.
That’s one of the reasons I don’t like blogs-it’s very easy to misunderstand somebody.
As for the news article, I read it in the Tacoma News Tribune, which is a Western Washington paper. It’s no NY Times, but like most local papers, anything international comes from the AP (which serves a purpose, but on principle of liking different views and takes from News articles, I don’t like how so many papers rely on the AP).
While I am willing to look at both sides, I don’t like trying to find “common ground” with irrational people. I don’t like abortion, but I can talk to someone who agrees with it. I don’t like people who say “all (enter race here) needs to die”, and I don’t have the stomach to find middle ground. Now Eygpt and Jordan(I think) haven’t like Israel all that much, but we have engaged them and they have changed. They don’t attack Israel anymore. But the difference in my mind is that Hamas has gained promince in part for their rhetoric regarding Israel. Sure, they provided services, but if that was it, wouldn’t Iraq be in better shape? People there seem to want more than just trash taken out….
I’m all for diplomacy, but I am very skeptical of actually being able to find some sort of middle ground with an organization that is so hard line. These people don’t strike me the same was as the Eygptians and Jordanians do.
That aside, I have to say I do enjoy debating with you. You usually keep things civil and don’t get all bent out of shape if there is a misunderstanding. And when there is one, we can easily resolve it.
I was listening to the BBC the other night, and heard a story about how various groups within the middle east are trying to help jumpstart the peace process. The demands were a little ridiculous depending on who you talk to (one being that Israel move back the border to pre-6 day war lines ie the golan heights). I can not find a link anywhere on the website (im still looking). Israel rejected the terms, but they did say that it could form the basis for renewed talks, a definite step in the right direction, if you ask me.
AP is a good source. I totally agree with you about its usage. It bothers me when I read so many AP stories in the state-wide dailies. I feel like it is a cop out, although I understand its necessity.
Egypt, Jordan and Israel are allies and friends. Its tough to describe the history in brief, but they are allies.
Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. Truth be told, I dont know much of Hamas’ history or its teachings outside of the destruction of Israel. Looking over the wikipedia page, breifly, I find a lot of interesting tidbits. For example, in its electoral manifesto, it did not call for the destruction of Israel, but many candidates did uses it in speeches. And then there is this: http://en.wikipedia….. If “90% of the organization’s work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities,” maybe there is room for compromise. Iraq is a whole other animal for another time (?).
I love debating. Online it is tough, even with emoticons, because inflection is lost, its hard to get humor across, its anonymous so anyone can post anything with little consequence. It is fun to debate you, because of the reasons you stated, and I am genuinely curious as to what other people think. And, it is good practice for face to face debates, not that I get into many of those.
Yes, it is fun. It was easier in high school-you have all the time in the world to research when you don’t have to worry about paying bills and maintaining a real relationship…. 🙂
Eygpt and Jordan are good examples of the U.S. using money to making friends for Israel. I am skeptical of the Palestinians, because they have been more screwed by everybody, and I think they’re more pissed. First, they leave their homes because other countries promised a swift defeat of Israel. When the countries they fled to couldn’t overtake Israel, they were either forced back to Israel humiliated or never really accepted into their new “home” countries. While they were getting jerked around, Israel was the scapegoat for all of their problems. The palestinians that settled in the west bank or golan heights get bombarded and tear-gased in Israel’s attempt to crack down on terrorist activities. That pisses off the Palestinians more, and reinforces the things they’ve been taught about Israel…. My point is that the (recent) history of the Palestinians does present the thought that they might have so much anger stored up that they might not be interested in the peace process right away either. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t try, but we shouldn’t ask that Israel let it’s gaurd down as part of the process….