Can the US bring peace in the Middle East?

Sounds like all one sided support to me. I guess Israel can continue to expand their settlements - as usual. c.i.

none of these assholes, and I don't mean the man on the street but those in charge, give a rat's ass about peace on either side....Bush is just looking for political or financial gain from the situation or perhaps a way to consolidate more power.

Best to build a wall around them and let them work it out by themselves. nobody out, nobody in until you can come down from your room and act like adults.

Works on my cubs.

dyslexia,

I think it's a FINE idea for American troops to crack down on Hamas.

It might bring us into the conflict in a way we'd not be interested in but it could also forward the process.

I think global anti-Americanism and terrorism against US assets would increase exponentially if US soldiers get involved.

We'd be (IMO) more isolated than we already are.

Is this necessarily a problem?

Yes, I'm sure all the Arab countries are going to applaud with glee when the US gets involved with the war on Hamas. Did I hear somebody say it was going to 'increase' our security at home? c.i.

I personally would LOVE to see the US engaged in FAIR peacekeeping in the Mid East.

Yes there is a huge possibility that we could become the targets but if done right (i.e. we do it Isreal stays wiothin their borders, we also dismantle Israeli settlements outside of the 1967 lines with or without Israeli sanction, we prevent Isreal from crossing their border under a military threat) I think it would have promise.

I am simply tired of Palestinian terrorists using Israeli blunders to justify their terrorism and I am tired of Irael using Palestinian terrorism to stall the peace process and delay them having to give land back to the Palestinians.

Like it or not we are involved.

We could do it a sane way (maintain the integrity of 1967 borders with no compromise until the negotiations are completed) or we can be dumb and enter the squalid camps.

What I suggest is not that we become the sitting ducks but that we enfore the 1967 border, against both sides.

CDK "What I suggest is not that we become the sitting ducks but that we enfore the 1967 border, against both sides."
agreed, but i dont see that coming from this administration or congress.

dys,

I also don't see it coming but from ANY American admin.

To do it right we'd need to make a big show about cracking down on Israelis as well. We'd need to uproot their settlements and keep them on their side of the border while keeping the Palestinians on theirs.

I happen to believe that actions like that against Israel are too politically risky for a US president.

The risks are huge, alienating the Israeli friends and the large lobby, becoming the target of Palestinian terror.
As it stands the Palestinian terrorists actually apologize when they kill Americans, that could all change.

I still think it's easy to do. Just hard to find someone willing to bear the political costs of doing it.

CDK: what i think you are saying is not unlike what i proposed months ago on a thread here. essentially a berlin wall manned by US/International forces keeping the two sides from each other.

That is not dissimilar to what I envision. It would be transitive of course.

If I were the US president Palestinians would have their state and Israelis would be free from Palestinian terror within 12 months.

Then again, I'd not plan on being re-elected.

That's just the point; our government will continue to be one-sided on this issue. Everybody ends up losing. c.i.

I think Bush's new found interest in solving the middle east problem is a genuine attempt to pay back Blair for his support over Iraq. The problem is Bush has little or no understanding of the complexities of the issue apart from a road map with X marks the spot - destination 2 states. (Thats one each, one for them and another one for the other lot).

The devious manipulators of American policy are allowing Bush to pursue his ideas now, knowing full well it will come to nought and will revert to all out support for Israel in time for the presidential election.

I can imagine the following conversation with Blair sometime in 2004.

"Y'know Tony I really tried honestly, I did. But I guess the problem is more intractified than I thought. We just can't afford to upset the Christian right and the Jewish lobby right now. Sorry. Maybe after this Iran thing is over ok? Give Sherry a big kiss"

Steve, I hope it's a "goodbye" kiss for the world. c.i.

Would you mind to tell us how would you do this?

ci

So do an overwhelming majority of the 'world' according to a BBC survey tonight.

Steissd
If I might give an answer to the question addressed to Craven

I would threaten Israel with economic sanctions unless they made steps down the road map.

I would threaten Hamas, H'isbollah with US military force if another bus bomb detonates.

I would engineer regime change in Israel, and reward Abu Marzen for every step he took on the agreed road map and against the militants.

Can the U.S. bring peace in the Middle east?

Yes . . . can you say: "thermonuclear holocaust?"

Steve, there is the best way to make Israel to comply with requirements of any peace plan.
1. To provide the American nuclear umbrella to Israel (like the one that protected Europe against the USSR during the Cold War) that will make impossible any attempt of foreign aggression against Israel.
2. To guarantee that no Arab refugee will ever return to Israel .
The next day the majority of Israeli citizens will volunteer to forcefully remove all the settlers from the West Bank.

The best thing the United States can do is not to follow the suggestions of Steve or Steissd.

The best thing the United States can do to resolve the problems over in the Middle East is to announce that it no longer will be involved in any way in any negotiations -- nor will it consider any country over there to be friends or enemies.

It ain't gonna happen -- but that would be the best thing we could do.

frank is 100% correct.